User talk:UW Dawgs
Colorado Football Association champions listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Colorado Football Association champions. Since you had some involvement with the Colorado Football Association champions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
This is Sammysafari. The All-American for Alabama does not need a source. Its already cited on the List of Alabama Crimson Tide football All-Americans page and the 2018 College Football All-America Team page. Don't change it again. 10:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sourced or not this is accurate. Go look at the Wikipedia page for 2018 College Football All-America Team page. I imagine you know how to do simple math. If Alabama had 69 Consensus All-Americans and gained 5 more after this recent 2018 season that would make 74. Do you Understand? 2:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysafari (talk • contribs)
- Already linked 3x on your Talk, but here it is again including via WP:BURDEN
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]
. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok then why do most College Football pages not have their Consensus All-Americans sourced? But the Alabama Football page requires it? 3:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysafari (talk • contribs)
- I've linked to the relevant wiki policy for you on 4 occasions. You should read it, so that your editing aligns with policy. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll read it. But I'm still not getting an answer on why the consensus All-American category doesn't require a source for teams such as NC State Football, Michigan St Football, Penn State Football, UNC Football, etc. But for Alabama Football it must require a source or its false information. 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysafari (talk • contribs)
Tulane Green Wave football team page format
Back on 23 November 2018, I reorganized Tulane Green Wave football to align with the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team pages format. The format proposed there doesn't appear to be a standard nor an accepted convention, but it seemed a reasonable shot at providing guidance for a consistent layout. I noticed that you recently reorganized the page, which undoes the alignment. I didn't see any explanation for that, so I wanted to reach out, first, to see if you might add some commentary to Talk:Tulane_Green_Wave_football#Alignment_to_Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Team_pages_format to provide your thoughts. Secondly, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team pages format should be changed to align with your ideas. I don't have a strong view as to what is right or the best, so maybe you might propose in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Team_pages_format changes for a different organization for the format of college football/team pages that could be used to guide everyone. Or perhaps an argument could/should be made that no guidance is really needed. Appreciate your thoughts.
- — Archer1234 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good feedback. That page has not been edited since 2010 and is demonstrably out of date. You can see as such throughout FBS articles, including via peers in Template:American Athletic Conference football navbox. I've given some thought to escalating/updating, but you've made the first reference to it in my memory. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Ed Murray
Hi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Murray_(Washington_politician)
WP:BLPNAME suggests we should not name 3 alleged victims as they're private individuals.
We write an encyclopedia that seeks to reach consensus about the historical importance of (sometimes) people. Do you think the names of alleged victims are connected to the historical importance of the subject? In your view, are the specific prices of sex purchases and disposition of genitals important to understanding the historical importance of this WP:POL? Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I often wonder which details covered in the press as stories unfold belong in the encyclopedia as part of the historical record.
I'm still new so I hope to learn from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello. WP:BLPNAME says
When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.
Names of both individuals are in wide circulation (search on site:seattletimes.com "Jeff Simpson" and "Lloyd Anderson") and they are/were in contact with reporters, example: - I understand your callout, but don't agree in these circumstance. Your WP:EDITSUMMARY didn't give the impression that BLPNAME was your concern, so I hadn't consider it. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article. Perhaps victims will re-add their names to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Notre Dame
I think there should be a note in the article about why the 2012 and 2013 total wins are zero. The vacated wins are not mentioned except in the individual season pages. Enigmamsg 04:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Ken Griffey Jr. and WP:OWN
I appreciate your hard work but please familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. According to the edit history of Ken Griffey Jr. you've reverted several good faith edits (including mine) for paper thin reasons. For example, you insist on keeping the "Napgate" header even though the consensus on the talk page appears to be opposed to you (I also think it should be removed). Thank you again for all your good faith edits, but disruptive editing doesn't promote collaboration. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Alabama–Clemson football rivalry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alabama–Clemson football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Clemson football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cobyan02069 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks
 | (first warning - Moved from article page to here)
"Do you have a WP:RS for a comprehensive FBS list through the 2018 season? None exists to my knowledge. When the 2018 NCAA yearbook is published, the full section (data table and introduction) can be updated with all changes inclusive of UCF. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)" That information you request is not necessary to update the page. A plethora of WP:RS sources exist to support the accuracy UCF's accomplishments. The existence of an actual list is not a necessity, only that the information being presented is accurate and sourced. Your argument for exclusion is unsupportable. Due to this I will update the page accordingly at this time. If you intend to remove the edit in the absence of a fundamentally and logically separate reason from your existing I will flag your account for disreputable behavior and seek to have you banned from the site. |
| (second warning)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sae249833 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
| (Third warning - Moving this warning from the article to this user talk page) Verifiable sources have been cited to demonstrate the factuality of the edits. The burden is on you to provide reliable sources that disagree with UCF's inclusion. Currently the only source you have provided is your own opinion and desire to update the list based on a personally determined criteria and timeline. UW DAWGS, In accordance with Wikipedia rules this will count as a second warning to you to not remove references to UCF from this page without providing a logically sound and agreed upon argument. You have so far failed to do so and are, therefore, engaging in vandalism. |
Please stop your disruptive editing.
(Forth warning)
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks, you may be blocked from editing.
You are engaged in blocking factual updates to the page Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks solely based on YOUR personal opinion and in violation of Wikipedia policy. You have not provided a logical argument to discuss on why accurate, factual, sourced information should not be included. This is your third warning. The other warnings can be found on the Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks talk page. Sae249833 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- UW Dawgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikipedia adminstration, this user is a fan of another college and attempt to block factual, sourced information from being inserted into the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_NCAA_Division_I_football_winning_streaks .
The user has only presented a fallacious argument composed of solely of opinion as reasoning and continually vandalised the article. I'm requesting that the user be blocked from editing.. Sae249833 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)