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)
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)
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.[1] 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 WP:DNB and explain your positions in an adult fashion instead of name-calling and tossing around threats. As the page states, "You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them."
- 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)
- The "Modern era" notable game section in the version of the Carolina-Clemson article prior to your arrival on the scene consists of 13 game summaries, 5 Carolina wins and 8 Clemson wins, and you are suggesting that we add two more summaries that detail Clemson wins (along with a summary of this year's game) to further unbalance this already skewed section of the article? That's simply not going to work. However, what we can do to maintain NPOV, is either add 3 summaries to that version that detail Carolina victories (while removing the mention of probation in the 1981 summary), or simply leave that section as it stands currently with 12 summaries for each side of the rivalry (or we can cut it back to 11 or 10 for each side, but balance will be maintained from this point forward). No one is trying to revise history in that section, history is plain for anyone to see in the two-colored game results table which immediately follows the notable game summaries. To be perfectly honest, if you truly wish to be constructive with regard to Clemson articles on Wikipedia, there are plenty of season articles for any number of sports just waiting to be written, and ones that already exist waiting to be improved. Take the article outlining the Tigers' most recent ACC championship football season[2], for instance. Game notes just stop with the Maryland win, there is no section for the numerous player awards, and so on. This article is begging for some attention from someone with knowledge and interest in the subject, which I'd say you have in spades. Why not restart your editing career on Wikipedia in a positive, constructive manner, rather than in a negative, contentious one? I agree that the two of us got off to a very poor start, but as you said, sometimes this rivalry brings out the worst in people. I don't know how much I'll be checking in here with the holidays upon us, but I hope you'll take this advice in the spirit in which it's being offered. Merry Christmas to you as well. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Why not restart your editing career on Wikipedia in a positive, constructive manner, rather than in a negative, contentious one?" That's what I'm attempting to do. I will look at the article you mentioned and give it some work, but not likely until after Christmas. And I think it's fine if we revert back to the original article and then you add Carolina wins that you feel are worthy to balance the number of notable games. My proposal to add the 59 and 63 games is for the historical significance. The current summaries we have consist of several games on both sides that aren't really notable. Games like 2000 and 1987 are notable for the history. I don't think games like 1994 and 2008 really are. I propose we add 59 and 63, then you select additional Carolina games that you feel are noteworthy wins for balance. Then, to go with it, keep the "Last Meeting" game to be updated each year.--LesPhilky (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The "Modern era" notable game section in the version of the Carolina-Clemson article prior to your arrival on the scene consists of 13 game summaries, 5 Carolina wins and 8 Clemson wins, and you are suggesting that we add two more summaries that detail Clemson wins (along with a summary of this year's game) to further unbalance this already skewed section of the article? That's simply not going to work. However, what we can do to maintain NPOV, is either add 3 summaries to that version that detail Carolina victories (while removing the mention of probation in the 1981 summary), or simply leave that section as it stands currently with 12 summaries for each side of the rivalry (or we can cut it back to 11 or 10 for each side, but balance will be maintained from this point forward). No one is trying to revise history in that section, history is plain for anyone to see in the two-colored game results table which immediately follows the notable game summaries. To be perfectly honest, if you truly wish to be constructive with regard to Clemson articles on Wikipedia, there are plenty of season articles for any number of sports just waiting to be written, and ones that already exist waiting to be improved. Take the article outlining the Tigers' most recent ACC championship football season[2], for instance. Game notes just stop with the Maryland win, there is no section for the numerous player awards, and so on. This article is begging for some attention from someone with knowledge and interest in the subject, which I'd say you have in spades. Why not restart your editing career on Wikipedia in a positive, constructive manner, rather than in a negative, contentious one? I agree that the two of us got off to a very poor start, but as you said, sometimes this rivalry brings out the worst in people. I don't know how much I'll be checking in here with the holidays upon us, but I hope you'll take this advice in the spirit in which it's being offered. Merry Christmas to you as well. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You want a citation?
You desire a citation for the well-known fact that all-male agricultural and military (A&M) institutions, prior to WWII and even shortly afterwards, held an advantage over coed institutions on their athletic fields of endeavor? Seriously, you are seriously disputing that well-known historical fact? Even Danny Ford, along side Frank Howard, alluded to that Clemson advantage in the school's past (on several occasions) and in no way was the entry disrespectful. Okay, in time, you shall have it - your citation. I have books in my book shelves, not published online, that I shall cite when I have the time. Additionally, while we are on the subject, your smarmy "domination continued after 1955 anyway" remark in you revert edit alludes to the strong possibility that you are a very biased editor. Factually speaking, no, Clemson did not begin to dominate Carolina again until post 1979 after several years of illegal and improper recruiting had enriched Clemson's talent pool. I do believe this is a historically significant event (Clemson's many NCAA infractions post 1975 and leading up to their 1980 Mythical National Championship), in the history of the series, since you chose to cite it in your revert notes, that should be included on the page. The cheating began after, and as a result of, the 1975 outcome, did it not? Regards --Scrooster (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lighten up, Francis. What you posted was unsourced and POV per Wikipedia guidelines. If you have sources to back up your claims, by all means, post them and be done with it. Don't have a hissy fit. As for Clemson's NCAA infractions, this has already been discussed in great lengths and a consensus was reached: Clemson's infractions are not relevant to the rivalry. They are, however, documented on Clemson Tigers football, which is where they belong. I imagine you don't want SC's infractions over the past decade posted here either
- And "biased editor"? You have the username SCRooster and you're flipping out over a legitimate edit over your POV post. If I make any changes that are clearly biased, well, then I'm sure you'll know what to do. Or you could just calm down and source your edits--LesPhilky (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI, Clemson was 15-9 vs. SC between 1955 and 1978. Thanks for playing.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can see that you are going to be a problem. Matter of fact, your reputation precedes you. Here's to hoping that you'll learn to ease up on the "Francis" remarks, and all the other adolescent, patronizing and condescending remarks and, instead we'll work together on a contentious page and find common ground. Regardless, know in advance that I am as calm as they come around here, yet I'll tolerate very few insults before we'll get this escalated if necessary. In the meantime, some time after the Georgia game this weekend, I'll dig out books and cite the sources and we'll be good to go and move on. Regards Scrooster (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine as long as you keep it factual. You're the one who flipped out over one minor change to your edits (notice I didn't touch any of your other changes). If you've got a source that says the Clemson fanbase agrees that dominance came from Clemson being a military school before 1955, by all means, post it. The problem here is that Clemson's dominance continued well after 1955, so that point is moot. Stating "fans from both sides of the debate recognize" is not a fact, nor is it even close to an accurate statement as I have never met a Clemson fan who feels this way. Quoting one Clemson fan who says it doesn't make it factual, either. Let's stick to the numbers.
- I can see that you are going to be a problem. Matter of fact, your reputation precedes you. Here's to hoping that you'll learn to ease up on the "Francis" remarks, and all the other adolescent, patronizing and condescending remarks and, instead we'll work together on a contentious page and find common ground. Regardless, know in advance that I am as calm as they come around here, yet I'll tolerate very few insults before we'll get this escalated if necessary. In the meantime, some time after the Georgia game this weekend, I'll dig out books and cite the sources and we'll be good to go and move on. Regards Scrooster (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI, Clemson was 15-9 vs. SC between 1955 and 1978. Thanks for playing.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, Francis comment is a joke and a famous line from Stripes (film). Take it easy.--LesPhilky (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memorial Stadium, Clemson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Davis and Gameday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"Dabo's debut" undo
Greetings. Thank you for the note on the undo after the removal of "Dabo's debut," but understand, the article has gotten out of hand. And yes, I took the time to read the back-and-forth between GarnetandBlack and you above and it has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. You beat-him-up with demands of balance which in no way contribute to the article. Balance has nothing to do with keeping the article encyclopedic in nature while describing key moments/games in the rivalry's history. The "consensus" you wrote of in the undo is more of a concession derived from your insistence on keeping the upper-hand and editing the page according to your biased philosophy and/or perception where the rivalry is concerned. You won, therefore you would, naturally, refer to it as a consensus when, in fact, GarnetandBlack displayed a willingness to work with you in an attempt, albeit an apparent vain attempt, to keep you happy in some way. I remind you, it is not your personal page and, while we will eventually reach some sort of common ground, it will not be at the expense of the article itself. Therefore, I am going to attempt to explain it to you as gently as possible, given your history, with the hope that you comprehend the intent as honorable and without you taking it personally or as a direct assault on your beloved Clemson football program. Here goes: "Dabo's debut" has no bearing on the rivalry itself. As a matter of fact the wording of the contribution is misleading insomuch as it gives zero credit to Tommy Bowden for the 9-3 record he held against South Carolina prior to "Dabo's debut," and rather, it makes it appear as if Dabo Swinney was responsible for the socalled "decade of domination." This segues into my second point. The ambiguous nature of the period of time you chose to cite, "ten games," is as unreasonably vague as it would be if someone were to contribute a line crediting Steve Spurrier with being 4-3 versus the Tigers, currently, since 2005, or that "Dabo" is 0-3 versus South Carolina since his "debut." In fact periods of time are referred to as decades, centuries, millenniums, etc., and acceptable examples of such would be 2000-2009 or "The 20th Century" or "the 1st Millenium AD." For you to choose the period of 1999-2008 as the standard for an addition in which Dabo Swinney only coached one year is, without a doubt, an attempt to force a disambiguation upon the reader and is simply not acceptable for that reason, if no other. Finally, with regard to your chosen wording, and reminding you of a similar situation earlier where you reverted an addition regarding Clemson's former A&M status, you offer no citation to back-up your claim that Dabo's win in the 2008 game cemented his receiving a "permanent head coaching position." There is no such thing as a "permanent head coaching position" in college football and the idea is, in and of itself, ludicrous. Please show me, anywhere, cite anything, where ANY coach in the history of college football has received a "permanent head coaching contract." You cannot. Therefore the 2008 entry is going to be removed and it shall remain absent from the article. Now, with all that out in the open, let's look at how we might balance this thing while, at the same time, bringing the article back into acceptable Wiki standards. First of all we are no longer going to break-down every single game in the series. 2007 is notable because it was the first game in the series to end on the final play of the game. That's a keeper, I agree. 2006 is notable because it was the first game played after moving the series to the post Thanksgiving Day weekend. 2009's "Turning the season around" is gone. It was just another game in the series. That brings the post WWII portion of article back into "balance." 2010's "SEC East Champs dominate" is gone. It had no significant meaning nor did it mark any notable milestones in the series other than South Carolina happened to win the SEC East that year. "Last meeting" is noteworthy as long as it is updated yearly and kept brief and informative while, at the same time, removing the previous season's results provided the previous season's game did not mark a significant or otherwise noteworthy milestone in the series. I suggest we all take note of the College World Series pages that I have been involved with for some time now, whereas we carry over streaks, we make note of significant happenings, but we in no way try to include every aspect of every game every season. So we are back to Clemson having the advantage of one more win in the "post WWII" portion of the article, For the sake of "balance" I am adding the notable and infamous 1946 game to begin the entire "Post WWII" segment. It is noteworthy because of the counterfeit ticket sales, the involvement of NYC gangsters, the wringing of the chicken's neck at midfield and because it is the only game which, after the fans stormed the field, fans were allowed to stand along the sidelines for the entire second half. I have added proper citation to support the entry. Now we have balance. And, having read your talk page allow me to qualify my bonafides in advance before you accuse me of being a kid or a USC student, as you did GarnetandBlack. I am, shall we say, well into my 50s. I have almost a decade of experience of covering the series as a credentialed journalist in various capacities. I understand your passion, your bias and your emotional connection to the page and to your Clemson Tigers. But let's try to not allow that to continue to dominate the article with your forceful nature, shall we? This article is going to be brought back into line and with some semblance of mutual respect and a shared common goal of offering an article that is both informative and entertaining to our readers. And again, just as fair warning, be very careful with the personal insults and/or patronizing/condescending name calling. I assure you, I am no Francis and, if you wish to address me on this talk page you shall do so by my editor's username and nothing else unless it is done in a friendly or respectful manner and with a white flag waving. As stated earlier, your reputation for contentiousness precedes you. I trust that we might start anew and work together, hand-in-hand along with GarnetandBlack, to keep the article accurate and timely from this moment forward. Best regards, Scrooster (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the well-written (albeit long-winded) response. I can tell you're quite more intelligent than GarnetAndBlack and more reasonable. What you don't realize is that the joke is a bit on you. I agree 100 percent with your removal of the mentioned games. You did not get to see a lot of the previous edit-warring by GarnetAndBlack. He attempted to flood the page with as many SC "notable" wins as possible while deleting any Clemson additions. The agreement over balance was to placate his immature efforts. So I'm more than agreeable to remove the three games as they aren't really notable. Be prepared, however, for GarnetAndBlack to overrule you. You may also understand that I don't have the warmest feelings for GarnetAndBlack after he called my wife a sheep (since deleted).
- Second, you speak of how I do not own the page. I agree. I suggest you have this conversation with GarnetAndBlack and look at his past battles with others. I have removed attempts of Clemson fan vandalism and I believe firmly in keeping the page as unbiased as possible. While I may come across as contentious, part of this is due to the overwhelming vandalism attempts by anonymous IPs putting inappropriate information against Clemson. In fact, the USC student IP network is still under a year ban due to my reports because the vandalism became too much.
- Third, if you do wish to work well, I also recommend you lay off the demands. No hard feelings, but notice that I haven't barked any orders at you. This could be mistaken as attempted "ownership" of the page. "First of all we are no longer going to break-down every single game in the series." You do see how this is an order and not really cooperative language, correct? I am more than happy to work well with you, but I'm no child either, and such language won't be progressive.
- Finally, I would welcome your insight and level-headed approach to the current debate with GarnetAndBlack regarding a questionably attributed quote to Ben Tillman regarding Clemson's founding as an attempt to avoid "possible invasion by the negroes". We are currently discussing it on the page's talk page. Whether or not the quote is accurate (GarnetAndBlack insists that I try to locate the questionable and rare book to prove it), I do not feel it is relevant to the rivalry. I'm fully aware of Tillman's racial issues (although he is hardly alone with those opinions regarding ancestors of both schools), but I hardly see how it is relevant to the rivalry. Since you've already shown your lean towards good judgment, perhaps you can weigh in and we can form a consensus.
- BTW, cheers to you being a journalist. I am a former one.
- Also, I'm sorry if my "Francis" comment offended you. I meant it as a joke from movie quote, and it's one I use with my friends. I didn't mean any harm; I just use it out of habit. You rather flipped out on me after I removed your unsourced addition, and I didn't understand the undue anger in the response.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize for the tone last night - my post was prior to seeing your's on my talk page. I am really looking forward to working with you on the page - no demands - was probably thinking you were going to fight me on the edits since you had the undo on the Dabo's debut ... my mistake and my apologies again for the tone. It is difficult at times, to convey tone and meaning, without the benefit of voice inflection and facial expression. We're cool now, right? BTW, I still have the Clemson A&M contrib I want to eventually include, but it is difficult citing Tom Price's book as the soul source of my premise. I'm looking for another viable, more encompassing source and a way to word it properly so that you'll find it acceptable. The day shall come. :) Scrooster (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you do a little reading up on Wikipedia policies yourself, tough guy. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- That was some spectacular reading. I'm glad you posted it. That lets me know that you fully understand the Wikipedia policies that I posted, and I know you will engage in more proactive and productive edits in the future. Thank you. And while I don't consider myself a tough guy, I appreciate your compliment in that matter.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since you seem to be ignorant of the concept, here's a little more reading for you. Or are you are as obtuse as you often appear to be? And I honestly don't know what policies you posted about on my Talk page, as I am simply deleting your comments as a matter of course unless they are directly related to ongoing article editing. Also, it's absolutely precious how you Clemson people have come out of your shells (and hiding) after one little bowl victory. Almost as funny as when I see Tiger fans around town these days and give them a friendly wave...with four fingers, of course. :) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you thought I was being sarcastic? That's too bad. I'm sorry you did not interpret things correctly. And I'm confident you did read the policies, particularly since they were in relation to an ongoing article edit. Have a great day.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- So you are painfully obtuse. Thanks for clearing that up. Fear the thumb. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- My, such undue hostility again. Any particular reason why? Did the edits make you that angry? I know how hard it is that anything positive be said about Clemson.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yawn. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- My, such undue hostility again. Any particular reason why? Did the edits make you that angry? I know how hard it is that anything positive be said about Clemson.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- So you are painfully obtuse. Thanks for clearing that up. Fear the thumb. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you thought I was being sarcastic? That's too bad. I'm sorry you did not interpret things correctly. And I'm confident you did read the policies, particularly since they were in relation to an ongoing article edit. Have a great day.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since you seem to be ignorant of the concept, here's a little more reading for you. Or are you are as obtuse as you often appear to be? And I honestly don't know what policies you posted about on my Talk page, as I am simply deleting your comments as a matter of course unless they are directly related to ongoing article editing. Also, it's absolutely precious how you Clemson people have come out of your shells (and hiding) after one little bowl victory. Almost as funny as when I see Tiger fans around town these days and give them a friendly wave...with four fingers, of course. :) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)