GarnetAndBlack (talk | contribs) Advice |
|||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
==Advice== |
==Advice== |
||
Well, you decided to ignore all my warnings and advice, continued to act as though this is your site to do with as you like, and look where you got yourself. I should point out that blocks for edit warring get longer with each offense, something to keep in mind when your current block ends and you find yourself thinking about reverting disputed content again. A little reading you might want to do in the meantime would be [[WP:CON]], [[WP:TALK]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Familiarizing yourself with the policies that keep this project from becoming a total mess will help you immensely down the road. You can either accept that there is a certain way to do things here, or you can continue to behave as though this is your own personal playground. One way will allow you to become a long-term editor (if that's something you even care about), the other will lead to one block after another. Also, you continue to act as though this is some sort of private battle between you and I, over content at certain articles. It is not. These articles were present on Wikipedia before I started editing (over two years ago), and arrived at their current state through the work of many editors over many hours. When a new user such as yourself jumps in and starts making edits that can be viewed as contentious, you may not be aware of the consensus seeking that took place prior to your arrival that allowed these articles to reach their current state, and the discussions that took place to allow this consensus to be reached. It's not enough to throw out a sentence or two in an article's Talk page, wait a few days and if no one has replied to your comments, take that as carte blanche to continue making the same edits. There is a reason that this article on a volatile subject was fairly stable before you started editing it, and has had numerous edit wars since you arrived on the scene. This needs to stop. You've claimed on more than one occasion that you really don't care about being blocked, that you'll have forgotten about all of this in a month, etc., but you've been editing here pretty steadily over the past couple of weeks. So you need to decide how you really feel about the project. If you actually don't care, and this is just a lark for you to try to push some sort of personal agenda, I'd advise you to live up to your words and move on to something else in your life. If on the other hand, your actions indicate your true feelings, and you'd like to become a long-term editor on Wikipedia, I'd suggest to set that agenda aside, truly learn the ropes of editing and policy and move forward in a constructive manner. So are you a person who can be taken by his words, or his actions? The ball is squarely in your court to demonstrate which. [[User:GarnetAndBlack|GarnetAndBlack]] ([[User talk:GarnetAndBlack|talk]]) 18:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
Well, you decided to ignore all my warnings and advice, continued to act as though this is your site to do with as you like, and look where you got yourself. I should point out that blocks for edit warring get longer with each offense, something to keep in mind when your current block ends and you find yourself thinking about reverting disputed content again. A little reading you might want to do in the meantime would be [[WP:CON]], [[WP:TALK]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Familiarizing yourself with the policies that keep this project from becoming a total mess will help you immensely down the road. You can either accept that there is a certain way to do things here, or you can continue to behave as though this is your own personal playground. One way will allow you to become a long-term editor (if that's something you even care about), the other will lead to one block after another. Also, you continue to act as though this is some sort of private battle between you and I, over content at certain articles. It is not. These articles were present on Wikipedia before I started editing (over two years ago), and arrived at their current state through the work of many editors over many hours. When a new user such as yourself jumps in and starts making edits that can be viewed as contentious, you may not be aware of the consensus seeking that took place prior to your arrival that allowed these articles to reach their current state, and the discussions that took place to allow this consensus to be reached. It's not enough to throw out a sentence or two in an article's Talk page, wait a few days and if no one has replied to your comments, take that as carte blanche to continue making the same edits. There is a reason that this article on a volatile subject was fairly stable before you started editing it, and has had numerous edit wars since you arrived on the scene. This needs to stop. You've claimed on more than one occasion that you really don't care about being blocked, that you'll have forgotten about all of this in a month, etc., but you've been editing here pretty steadily over the past couple of weeks. So you need to decide how you really feel about the project. If you actually don't care, and this is just a lark for you to try to push some sort of personal agenda, I'd advise you to live up to your words and move on to something else in your life. If on the other hand, your actions indicate your true feelings, and you'd like to become a long-term editor on Wikipedia, I'd suggest to set that agenda aside, truly learn the ropes of editing and policy and move forward in a constructive manner. So are you a person who can be taken by his words, or his actions? The ball is squarely in your court to demonstrate which. [[User:GarnetAndBlack|GarnetAndBlack]] ([[User talk:GarnetAndBlack|talk]]) 18:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:By the sound of your words, it appears you want to move forward in a constructive fashion. I sincerely hope this is the case as your previous posts and actions indicated otherwise. I had thought about gearing up a nice counter-report once the block is lifted since (and let’s be honest with ourselves here) we both engaged in the exact same behavior (constant reverts, posting snide edits to get under the other person’s skin). But I’m not going to do that as it will only be counter-productive. You and I both know we did the same thing, but there's no use splitting hairs over it. I’m willing to let bygones be bygones, and as I had already stated, getting blocked for two days doesn’t affect my life. And I know it was only the two of us engaged in the edit warring, regardless of IP addresses, but I don’t even care about that now. |
|||
So, that being said, I have a proposal for you so that we can move forward constructively with the article. I propose that we revert the article back to what it was before you and I started edit warring weeks ago.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carolina%E2%80%93Clemson_rivalry&oldid=464140869] That means none of my previous edits apply. From there, I once again propose that Clemson's NCAA violations be removed since they are well-documented on [[Clemson Tigers football]]. I also propose that there be no mention of South Carolina's NCAA investigations on here either, although they should be added to the [[South Carolina Gamecocks football]] article for balance. I invite you to write that portion. From there, I also propose we add the following two games to the notable games section: 1. The final Big Thursday game in 1959. This was a landmark event as it ushered out the Big Thursday tradition and started the home-home series between the two schools. 2. The 1963 game. It marked the first time Clemson and Carolina played each other on Thanksgiving Weekend, and this was a result of the JFK assassination. I think the historical relevance is interesting to the rivalry. |
|||
Finally, I propose we keep the write-up for this year's game, title it "Last Meeting," and change it each November once the game is played. Since you express interest in keeping the article informative and constructive, I imagine you would not object to these proposals, or would at least have some productive counter-suggestions. |
|||
To close, here's ''my'' advice to ''you''. I understand you take Wikipedia seriously, and that's fine. That's cool if that's your passion, and I don't have problem with that. I can tell you're likely several years younger than me, possibly even a USC student. I remember when I was that age and thought I was always right while other people were out of line for opposing me. It's a common trait with people that age. But at some point, you need to take responsibility for your own behavior as well. Personally, I think both of our actions were sophomoric and ridiculous, and we let the heat of the rivalry get in the way. I invite you to step back and consider that if this is truly something you enjoy doing, try to work with new editors and explain your positions in an adult fashion instead of name-calling and tossing around threats. You and the admins may have the opinion that you taught me a lesson, but I learn my own lessons. This block didn't teach me anything. Getting sucked in to a silly battle with you did (something I probably haven't done in years), and I learned that on my own. I encourage you to also realize that such animosity due to the rivalry (as indicated in your "Tater" posts to me and others) only lessons your credibility when editing here. You seem intelligent. Don't let anger overshadow that. I know you've probably dealt with some Clemson idiots (like the clown who cheered Lattimore's injury on your talk page), but I've had my share of Gamecock fools as well. In the end, it's just human nature and the color of their T-shirt doesn't change that. Part of my job involves working with several people at USC, and they're great folks. You have a brain on you. Don't cheapen it with pointless name-calling, waving the rules in people's faces, and manipulating others. Use it for productive means. |
|||
Anyway, Merry Christmas. Let me know what you think about my proposals.--[[User:LesPhilky|LesPhilky]] ([[User talk:LesPhilky#top|talk]]) 19:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:46, 22 December 2011
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
Your recent editing history at Carolina–Clemson rivalry shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just another warning, retaliatory templating of users is frowned upon at Wikipedia. I have reverted your edits in this article twice today, not exactly cause for a 3RR warning from you. You and another user have been edit warring for the better part of the day (way over the threshold of 3RR), and I have warned you both. I'd suggest you read up on editing policies on Wikipedia before continuing to edit articles, as you do not appear to have an understanding of how things are done here. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't pretend you're some sort of enforcer or rules guru. I tried to discuss proposed changes with you and you rejected it. You also committed the 3RR abuse as well, but I at least have documentation of an effort to come to a mature conclusion. This is being reported now along with the evidence of your factual errors.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not pretending to be anything. As Wikipedia is a user-maintained site, it is the responsibility of each user to help ensure that Wikipedia policies are followed. I have a suspicion that you withdrew your retaliatory report on the 3RR page when you saw that the case against you being in violation of the policy was overwhelming. At any rate, as long as you edit within the boundaries of policy and seek consensus for edits which could be viewed as contentious, you and I will have no problems. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't pretend you're some sort of enforcer or rules guru. I tried to discuss proposed changes with you and you rejected it. You also committed the 3RR abuse as well, but I at least have documentation of an effort to come to a mature conclusion. This is being reported now along with the evidence of your factual errors.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Break
I've not blocked either one of you, since content is the point of Wikipedia. The two of you need to take a step back and think about how to write the article- together- and what points are valid. This is about collaboration, so take it to the article talk page with civil points about content and other editors will help sort this out. Relax. Keegan (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For showing your true colors as a typical, ignorant Clemson Tater fan, I knew you couldn't maintain the civil facade forever. Just as I thought, three wins in a row in football, two in basketball and too many humiliations in baseball in a row to count has clearly gotten in your head, just as it has your classless clown of a head football coach. You are the laughingstock of the college football world, and widely recognized has having the most delusional fanbase around, still celebrating a mythical national championship obtained through years of systematic cheating over three decades after the fact. It's comical that you act as though I've spent so much of my time on Wikipedia, when you have spent the better part of the past few days trying to spread your lame Tater propaganda at this site. Guess it wasn't quite as easy to add nonsense to Wikipedia as your redneck drinking buddies told you it was, huh? You and your beautiful pet sheep (cute that you refer to her as your "wife") have a fun time trying not to get shot or stabbed down in Miami, my girlfriend and I already have our tickets and hotel reservations in Orlando where we'll spend New Year's Eve and enjoy the bowl game on the 2nd. Just curious, did McDonald's give you time off on Jan 4, or did you just quit your job? I guess fry cooks are always in demand, I'm sure you can just catch on at Burger King when you get back home.
Carolina 34 - 2011 ACC Chumps 13...print that, tweet that! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have fun at your BCS Bowl Game... oh yeah, that's right. Well, I'm sure you and your buddies will have fun in the meth lab anyway regardless of Clemson's game. Keep crying about not getting recognition for your equestrian titles. Y'all have such an inferiority complex, it's adorable. Oh, and speaking of cheating, have fun getting probation again for the second time in ten years. Book any $10 rooms at the Whitney lately? And you would trade 10 baseball titles and 20 equestrian titles for one football national championship. And you know it, too.
- Girlfriend. Sure. Anyone who admits he spends two hours writing an article bashing Clemson over the weekend pathetically lacks a life. I think I would have enjoyed doing that... when I was 13. Here, try this; it might be educational for you. [1] Wow... this Wiki stuff is fun.--LesPhilky (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha! Still bashing me for editing WIkipedia WHILE YOU ARE STILL EDITING WIKIPEDIA. Typical Tater, too ignorant to understand hypocrisy. I thought you were rising above all this stuff, Mr. Maturity? By the way, I heard that Steve Spurrier, Ray Tanner and Darrin Horn are going to appear on an episode of Maury Povich soon. The title of the episode is "Who is Clemson's Daddy?" You have fun spending your evening adding more garbage to Wikipedia to try to ease the pain of THREE IN A ROW. Isn't your sheep going to get cold in the barn if you aren't there to cuddle? Later, Tater! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know what the only thing sweeter than three in a row is? This: [2].
- Oh, is that the trophy they give to the best team in the sixth-best conference (weaker than the Mountain West) in college football?[3] How cute. Here's a picture of the trophy they give to the best team in the state of SC.[4] You can come visit it in Columbia, where it's been residing for the past three years. Best in the ACC is 3 TDs worse than runner-up in the SEC East...is that the best you can come up with? Better fall back on more history like your loser of a head coach. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- So does that make five or six total trophies in your football trophy case? Or do you also get cute little adorable trophies like benchwarming Little League players do for competing in the SEC? Do real SEC teams send you a picture of their national championship trophy to put in the case?
- Oh, is that the trophy they give to the best team in the sixth-best conference (weaker than the Mountain West) in college football?[3] How cute. Here's a picture of the trophy they give to the best team in the state of SC.[4] You can come visit it in Columbia, where it's been residing for the past three years. Best in the ACC is 3 TDs worse than runner-up in the SEC East...is that the best you can come up with? Better fall back on more history like your loser of a head coach. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know what the only thing sweeter than three in a row is? This: [2].
- Ha ha ha! Still bashing me for editing WIkipedia WHILE YOU ARE STILL EDITING WIKIPEDIA. Typical Tater, too ignorant to understand hypocrisy. I thought you were rising above all this stuff, Mr. Maturity? By the way, I heard that Steve Spurrier, Ray Tanner and Darrin Horn are going to appear on an episode of Maury Povich soon. The title of the episode is "Who is Clemson's Daddy?" You have fun spending your evening adding more garbage to Wikipedia to try to ease the pain of THREE IN A ROW. Isn't your sheep going to get cold in the barn if you aren't there to cuddle? Later, Tater! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Girlfriend. Sure. Anyone who admits he spends two hours writing an article bashing Clemson over the weekend pathetically lacks a life. I think I would have enjoyed doing that... when I was 13. Here, try this; it might be educational for you. [1] Wow... this Wiki stuff is fun.--LesPhilky (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Three things Gamecock fans will never have: 1. An SEC championship trophy. 2. A trip to a BCS game. 3. A good dental plan.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I absolutely LOVE being in Tater fans heads as much as we are obviously in yours. How do you know when your rival doesn't have any good argument to counter your dominance? They resort to quoting history and making empty predictions about the future. Thanks for the laughs, redneck. You have no idea how much your pain warms my heart. You enjoy that 6th-rate conference title, as you can see from your bowl match-up, it doesn't mean much. Clemson football (and ACC ball in general) has been a punchline for the national commentators since last weekend, and it's been awesome to hear the disrespect for your program flying from numerous outlets. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Winning a conference title and going to a BCS bowl is very painful. Can you tell me how you coped with the pain in 1969, the last time you won a conference title? An ACC one, no less. Help me make it through the pain. Is it easier to play at 1 p.m. on a Monday when everyone is at work? I'm not sure how we'll handle all that national TV coverage while no one else is playing. God! Think how bad it's going to scare away our recruits! At least they'll be in school when you're playing so they won't have to see it. Can you get me Mickey Mouse's autograph while you're down there?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good lord, I realize most Clemson fans are ignorant, but are you really as stupid as you sound? You do realize that for most people who aren't punching a time card, New Year's Day is recognized as a holiday on Monday, Jan 2, 2012? I'm sorry you have to scrub toilets, or whatever it is you do to scrape by on your trailer payments, but most of us have the day off. As far as playing a game on a work day, the Orange Bowl is smack in the middle of the week, so I guess it's good that most Tater fans are unemployed, that way we can see plenty of losers wearing orange overalls in the stands for that barn-burner between #14 and #23. Quite the match-up there, I'm sure the BCS is thrilled to have the ACC and Big East as automatic qualifiers. Oh, I forgot to ask...how does it feel knowing that a team you beat twice is ranked higher than you and going to a better bowl? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It feels great. How does it feel to know that your rival, whom you beat, is going to a better bowl? A BCS bowl, in fact? --LesPhilky (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just keep right on lying to yourself, Tater. I know it's all that keep you losers going these days (and for the past 3 years). Not sure what makes you think the Orange Bowl is any "better" than the Cap One, other than three little letters in front of the name. We've got #9 vs #20, you've got #14 vs #23, I think that pretty much speaks to which is better. And most of the college football world agrees with me, based on what I've been reading and hearing. Have fun at the Based On The Rules We Had To Invite These Two Crappy Teams Bowl. If you think a once-proud bowl is happy at the depths to which they've sunk thanks to automatic qualifying, then I guess you can make yourself believe anything. Hey, maybe you can make yourself believe that you haven't lost to Carolina the past three in a row! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It feels great. How does it feel to know that your rival, whom you beat, is going to a better bowl? A BCS bowl, in fact? --LesPhilky (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good lord, I realize most Clemson fans are ignorant, but are you really as stupid as you sound? You do realize that for most people who aren't punching a time card, New Year's Day is recognized as a holiday on Monday, Jan 2, 2012? I'm sorry you have to scrub toilets, or whatever it is you do to scrape by on your trailer payments, but most of us have the day off. As far as playing a game on a work day, the Orange Bowl is smack in the middle of the week, so I guess it's good that most Tater fans are unemployed, that way we can see plenty of losers wearing orange overalls in the stands for that barn-burner between #14 and #23. Quite the match-up there, I'm sure the BCS is thrilled to have the ACC and Big East as automatic qualifiers. Oh, I forgot to ask...how does it feel knowing that a team you beat twice is ranked higher than you and going to a better bowl? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Winning a conference title and going to a BCS bowl is very painful. Can you tell me how you coped with the pain in 1969, the last time you won a conference title? An ACC one, no less. Help me make it through the pain. Is it easier to play at 1 p.m. on a Monday when everyone is at work? I'm not sure how we'll handle all that national TV coverage while no one else is playing. God! Think how bad it's going to scare away our recruits! At least they'll be in school when you're playing so they won't have to see it. Can you get me Mickey Mouse's autograph while you're down there?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, if you keep removing referenced factual material claiming it has nothing to do with the rivalry, I'll have to do the same. And I know if you get called down by admins for breaking the rules, it will sting considering how much you care about this stuff. I'm not removing your referenced factual material, so don't be a crybaby and leave mine. Hahaha... okay, you can have your Zero candy bar edit. Obviously that one stings. Were you there? I was. Great day. Possibly the only time I haven't seen Gamecock fans try to vandalize cars after a game.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Again, you have no idea how much pleasure it brings me to see that a bitter Tater fan has to cast his memory back over a decade to enjoy fond memories of a "great day" against the Gamecocks. I'd forgotten all about the typically classless candy stunt until you mentioned it, mainly because I only have to cast my memory back a couple of weeks to remember stomping a mudhole in Clemson's ass. Great day. Were you there? I was. It wasn't the only time I've seen Tater fans streaming for the exits with plenty of time left in the rivalry game...in fact, it's the third straight year I've seen it in person. Cry more, loser. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I want to see meth lab addicts who throw whiskey bottles at cars, I'll drive up to Spartanburg and visit a Wal-Mart. By the way, since you're such a stickler for the Wiki rules, why do you insist on having the irrelevant NCAA infraction information for both schools? Both are documented plainly on the team pages and have nothing to do with the rivalry. SC wasn't part of Clemson's investigations and Clemson wasn't a part of theirs.--LesPhilky (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's funny, considering that Spartanburg is Tater Country. Sounds like you know your fellow Clemson fans well. It's also funny that you completely shot yourself in the foot with your addition of USC's probation when you thought that evened things between the two schools (5 violations to 150), but forgot all about the second round of probation under Danny when you added his big send-off win over USC. Ooops. Now that things don't look so good for your Taters, it's all suddenly "irrelevant again". Gotta love that Clemson logic and denial. You can always remove the entire section about the 1989 game along with all reference to probations of the two schools, otherwise it's staying as is, the facts are well-sourced and verifiable, relevance is not determined by your opinion (you still haven't learned that). GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you can prove the relevance of Clemson's probation, I'll mail you $100. Why don't we add info on the Battle of the Bulge while we're at it? It's factual and the relevance is not determined by your opinion. And I DID remove both schools' probation info. Learn to read. If the 1989 game goes, so do all the others. Here's the thing: You've now engaged in an edit war, too. The admins can see your ridiculous behavior and comments. You know damn well you don't have a case. I don't give a damn about being banned, but I know you do, so it's game on. Either let the probation edit issue die, or keep it going so we can both get banned. Your call.--LesPhilky (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- So basically you're trying to behave in a way that earns you a block, thinking that it will draw one for me as well? I'll be sure to include your stated goal in my report. Thanks for the extra ammo. Also, deleting a 3RR warning doesn't make it go away, admins can easily verify that a warning was given. You're fooling no one with your agenda here, and children like you don't last long on this project. Of course, you bragged that you'll have forgotten all about this place a month from now, but that doesn't explain why you've been disruptively editing here like a fiend over the past few days, and for hours this evening. I think you might wind up disappointed in how things turn out when you try to game the system here. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The only problem is all the rules you've violated, including the personal attack ones. Yeah, I've read up on some rules. Your threat is a bluff. You know if you report, you're going down with me. Consider your bluff called. Pull the trigger and quit posturing. Any complaint you make, I'll just link this conversation and request that we both be banned.--LesPhilky (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- So basically you're trying to behave in a way that earns you a block, thinking that it will draw one for me as well? I'll be sure to include your stated goal in my report. Thanks for the extra ammo. Also, deleting a 3RR warning doesn't make it go away, admins can easily verify that a warning was given. You're fooling no one with your agenda here, and children like you don't last long on this project. Of course, you bragged that you'll have forgotten all about this place a month from now, but that doesn't explain why you've been disruptively editing here like a fiend over the past few days, and for hours this evening. I think you might wind up disappointed in how things turn out when you try to game the system here. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you can prove the relevance of Clemson's probation, I'll mail you $100. Why don't we add info on the Battle of the Bulge while we're at it? It's factual and the relevance is not determined by your opinion. And I DID remove both schools' probation info. Learn to read. If the 1989 game goes, so do all the others. Here's the thing: You've now engaged in an edit war, too. The admins can see your ridiculous behavior and comments. You know damn well you don't have a case. I don't give a damn about being banned, but I know you do, so it's game on. Either let the probation edit issue die, or keep it going so we can both get banned. Your call.--LesPhilky (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's funny, considering that Spartanburg is Tater Country. Sounds like you know your fellow Clemson fans well. It's also funny that you completely shot yourself in the foot with your addition of USC's probation when you thought that evened things between the two schools (5 violations to 150), but forgot all about the second round of probation under Danny when you added his big send-off win over USC. Ooops. Now that things don't look so good for your Taters, it's all suddenly "irrelevant again". Gotta love that Clemson logic and denial. You can always remove the entire section about the 1989 game along with all reference to probations of the two schools, otherwise it's staying as is, the facts are well-sourced and verifiable, relevance is not determined by your opinion (you still haven't learned that). GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I want to see meth lab addicts who throw whiskey bottles at cars, I'll drive up to Spartanburg and visit a Wal-Mart. By the way, since you're such a stickler for the Wiki rules, why do you insist on having the irrelevant NCAA infraction information for both schools? Both are documented plainly on the team pages and have nothing to do with the rivalry. SC wasn't part of Clemson's investigations and Clemson wasn't a part of theirs.--LesPhilky (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Again, you have no idea how much pleasure it brings me to see that a bitter Tater fan has to cast his memory back over a decade to enjoy fond memories of a "great day" against the Gamecocks. I'd forgotten all about the typically classless candy stunt until you mentioned it, mainly because I only have to cast my memory back a couple of weeks to remember stomping a mudhole in Clemson's ass. Great day. Were you there? I was. It wasn't the only time I've seen Tater fans streaming for the exits with plenty of time left in the rivalry game...in fact, it's the third straight year I've seen it in person. Cry more, loser. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I absolutely LOVE being in Tater fans heads as much as we are obviously in yours. How do you know when your rival doesn't have any good argument to counter your dominance? They resort to quoting history and making empty predictions about the future. Thanks for the laughs, redneck. You have no idea how much your pain warms my heart. You enjoy that 6th-rate conference title, as you can see from your bowl match-up, it doesn't mean much. Clemson football (and ACC ball in general) has been a punchline for the national commentators since last weekend, and it's been awesome to hear the disrespect for your program flying from numerous outlets. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Three things Gamecock fans will never have: 1. An SEC championship trophy. 2. A trip to a BCS game. 3. A good dental plan.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Carolina-Clemson
The article has been protected for a day. Work it out on the talk page. Keegan (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Balance must be maintained
There are currently 11 Carolina wins and 11 Clemson wins summarized in the rivalry article. If you insist on disrupting this NPOV balance, I can assure you that it will not gain consensus due to violation of one of the fundamental tenants of Wikipedia, and thus will not stand. If you think the 1995 game is more notable than Dabo's first win in the series (or one of the other games), then replace one with the other. Have a great weekend! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? No. A factual recap of a game is not a POV addition. It does not violate any rules (which the Wikipedia admins already clarified you do not follow very well).--LesPhilky (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that you also went back earlier and added more South Carolina wins than Clemson wins in your editing tantrum last week. Your interest is not in facts but in portraying a skewed view of the rivalry. Please practice what you preach.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- So having an equal number of notable football game summaries for each side in the rivalry is "skewed" in your expert opinion, having been an editor on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks now? Fine, then go to the article's Talk page and make your case for why one team should have more representation in that section of the article than the other. If you gain consensus for your proposed changes, then they will become a part of the article. THAT is how things are done here, not editing based on your personal opinion and POV of how things should be. If you continue to ignore policies and edit war to push your agenda, you will be reported, and you will be blocked (but you supposedly don't care about that, even though your visits to this site demonstrate otherwise). GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why aren't you taking it to Talk to propose changes instead of deleting someone's factual edits? Explain to me why you get to delete someone's edits without taking it to Talk while other people have to take it to Talk to make changes? You know, I've tried to be civil since your temper tantrum last week. I have not undone one of your edits since then, and I even undid the edit of an anonymous Clemson poster because the language was clearly biased. So here's how it's going down. I'm reversing your edits for the second time. If you do it again, I will revert them a third time. If you do it once more, you will have broken the 3RR rule. I will not do it a fourth time. Instead, I will report you for edit warring due to your fourth offense. The admins will see that I tried to work with you and be civil after their previous warning. They will see that you are edit warring again despite their warning. They will see that I did not try to reverse your edits from this past week. I will show that you are deleting factual documentation that is pertinent to the rivalry (notable game summaries). They will see your childish behavior. Do not pretend, either, that you were interested in keeping the notable games even. You posted more South Carolina games to surpass the Clemson total this week, and now that Clemson fans are catching up to you, you suddenly want to keep things "balanced." The game histories and scores are FACTS. There is not POV in posting them. Clemson has more notable wins over South Carolina. That is a fact. 65-40-4. That has nothing to do with POV. Anyway, your call. Keep undoing it and I'll turn the case over to the admins, which you know will look bad on your part. And I will request a permanent block. Otherwise, just add more notable games that South Carolina won. I have no problem with that. Your call. Be a man, stop this childishness, and let's keep everything factual in the spirit of the rivalry. Or prove that you're a child and continue this behavior.--LesPhilky (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- So having an equal number of notable football game summaries for each side in the rivalry is "skewed" in your expert opinion, having been an editor on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks now? Fine, then go to the article's Talk page and make your case for why one team should have more representation in that section of the article than the other. If you gain consensus for your proposed changes, then they will become a part of the article. THAT is how things are done here, not editing based on your personal opinion and POV of how things should be. If you continue to ignore policies and edit war to push your agenda, you will be reported, and you will be blocked (but you supposedly don't care about that, even though your visits to this site demonstrate otherwise). GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that you also went back earlier and added more South Carolina wins than Clemson wins in your editing tantrum last week. Your interest is not in facts but in portraying a skewed view of the rivalry. Please practice what you preach.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
LesPhilky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I accept my block and do not dispute it. However, you need to realize that GarnetAndBlack has been edit warring as well. He side-stepped the 3RR rule by manually changing the article.[5] He is also likely the other offending party (using a sock or whatever it's called) at the IP address you blocked. That IP address goes to the University of South Carolina, where GarnetAndBlack likely attends school. It's another way of him edit warring while pretending it's not him. Look, two weeks ago, Keegan warned both of us about edit warring and temporarily blocked the page.[6]. I obeyed and posted my thoughts on the article's talk page[7], to which I received no response. I also refrained from changing any of GarnetAndBlack's edits. Only when I added my own factual and referenced material did the edit warring start up again, this time with GarnetAndBlack here[8], here [9], here[10], and in the link mentioned earlier. I never altered his material, but when he deleted mine, he claimed it had to be taken to the talk page first, which receives no response. Why must I have to get the same type of material approved on the talk page (game history) while he can post the same thing as he sees fit? Nothing I posted was false or POV. And when he deletes my material repeatedly, he is not blocked. Please note too that the changes made from IP address 129.252.69.40 cleverly noted "minor changes" while once again editing over my entries. I tried to do as requested by taking the discussion to the talk page and avoiding an edit war, but he started it up again. Now he's trying to trick you into thinking it was another user. Add that to him calling my wife a sheep[11], and I request that he be blocked as well. Again, I accept my block like a man, but the punishment needs to be dealt evenly. If this is not the proper place to file this request/complaint, please point me in the right direction. LesPhilky (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Advice
Well, you decided to ignore all my warnings and advice, continued to act as though this is your site to do with as you like, and look where you got yourself. I should point out that blocks for edit warring get longer with each offense, something to keep in mind when your current block ends and you find yourself thinking about reverting disputed content again. A little reading you might want to do in the meantime would be WP:CON, WP:TALK and WP:NPOV. Familiarizing yourself with the policies that keep this project from becoming a total mess will help you immensely down the road. You can either accept that there is a certain way to do things here, or you can continue to behave as though this is your own personal playground. One way will allow you to become a long-term editor (if that's something you even care about), the other will lead to one block after another. Also, you continue to act as though this is some sort of private battle between you and I, over content at certain articles. It is not. These articles were present on Wikipedia before I started editing (over two years ago), and arrived at their current state through the work of many editors over many hours. When a new user such as yourself jumps in and starts making edits that can be viewed as contentious, you may not be aware of the consensus seeking that took place prior to your arrival that allowed these articles to reach their current state, and the discussions that took place to allow this consensus to be reached. It's not enough to throw out a sentence or two in an article's Talk page, wait a few days and if no one has replied to your comments, take that as carte blanche to continue making the same edits. There is a reason that this article on a volatile subject was fairly stable before you started editing it, and has had numerous edit wars since you arrived on the scene. This needs to stop. You've claimed on more than one occasion that you really don't care about being blocked, that you'll have forgotten about all of this in a month, etc., but you've been editing here pretty steadily over the past couple of weeks. So you need to decide how you really feel about the project. If you actually don't care, and this is just a lark for you to try to push some sort of personal agenda, I'd advise you to live up to your words and move on to something else in your life. If on the other hand, your actions indicate your true feelings, and you'd like to become a long-term editor on Wikipedia, I'd suggest to set that agenda aside, truly learn the ropes of editing and policy and move forward in a constructive manner. So are you a person who can be taken by his words, or his actions? The ball is squarely in your court to demonstrate which. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- By the sound of your words, it appears you want to move forward in a constructive fashion. I sincerely hope this is the case as your previous posts and actions indicated otherwise. I had thought about gearing up a nice counter-report once the block is lifted since (and let’s be honest with ourselves here) we both engaged in the exact same behavior (constant reverts, posting snide edits to get under the other person’s skin). But I’m not going to do that as it will only be counter-productive. You and I both know we did the same thing, but there's no use splitting hairs over it. I’m willing to let bygones be bygones, and as I had already stated, getting blocked for two days doesn’t affect my life. And I know it was only the two of us engaged in the edit warring, regardless of IP addresses, but I don’t even care about that now.
So, that being said, I have a proposal for you so that we can move forward constructively with the article. I propose that we revert the article back to what it was before you and I started edit warring weeks ago.[12] That means none of my previous edits apply. From there, I once again propose that Clemson's NCAA violations be removed since they are well-documented on Clemson Tigers football. I also propose that there be no mention of South Carolina's NCAA investigations on here either, although they should be added to the South Carolina Gamecocks football article for balance. I invite you to write that portion. From there, I also propose we add the following two games to the notable games section: 1. The final Big Thursday game in 1959. This was a landmark event as it ushered out the Big Thursday tradition and started the home-home series between the two schools. 2. The 1963 game. It marked the first time Clemson and Carolina played each other on Thanksgiving Weekend, and this was a result of the JFK assassination. I think the historical relevance is interesting to the rivalry.
Finally, I propose we keep the write-up for this year's game, title it "Last Meeting," and change it each November once the game is played. Since you express interest in keeping the article informative and constructive, I imagine you would not object to these proposals, or would at least have some productive counter-suggestions.
To close, here's my advice to you. I understand you take Wikipedia seriously, and that's fine. That's cool if that's your passion, and I don't have problem with that. I can tell you're likely several years younger than me, possibly even a USC student. I remember when I was that age and thought I was always right while other people were out of line for opposing me. It's a common trait with people that age. But at some point, you need to take responsibility for your own behavior as well. Personally, I think both of our actions were sophomoric and ridiculous, and we let the heat of the rivalry get in the way. I invite you to step back and consider that if this is truly something you enjoy doing, try to work with new editors and explain your positions in an adult fashion instead of name-calling and tossing around threats. You and the admins may have the opinion that you taught me a lesson, but I learn my own lessons. This block didn't teach me anything. Getting sucked in to a silly battle with you did (something I probably haven't done in years), and I learned that on my own. I encourage you to also realize that such animosity due to the rivalry (as indicated in your "Tater" posts to me and others) only lessons your credibility when editing here. You seem intelligent. Don't let anger overshadow that. I know you've probably dealt with some Clemson idiots (like the clown who cheered Lattimore's injury on your talk page), but I've had my share of Gamecock fools as well. In the end, it's just human nature and the color of their T-shirt doesn't change that. Part of my job involves working with several people at USC, and they're great folks. You have a brain on you. Don't cheapen it with pointless name-calling, waving the rules in people's faces, and manipulating others. Use it for productive means.
Anyway, Merry Christmas. Let me know what you think about my proposals.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)