User talk:Dirtlawyer1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to leave me a new message.

Greetings, all, and welcome to my talk page! If you leave a message here, I will respond here. If we started a conversation on another talk page, I have watch-listed that page and will continue to respond there. -- Dirtlawyer1


College Footbal National Championships article[edit]

Yes, I'm still actively editing it. Thanks for taking time to look at it! Dolenath (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dolenath: Thanks for checking in. I will ping you as I start to post my GA comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

New schedule template[edit]

Been working on a little project. Since the discussion on WP:CBB is moving slowly, I decided to experiment with a completely new schedule table. Check it out if you get a chance and leave me your thoughts: User:Richmond96/sandbox. I thought I'd run it by you first, then I might present it to the rest. I literally threw every long name, arena name, rank and seed I could think of and I didn't get any line wrapping. The only problem is I have no idea how or if we can turn this into a template. ~ Richmond96 TC 03:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

R96, it's better than what Tony has been doing, but I still hate the inclusion of the stats leaders like crazy. Should include QB states and tackle leaders, etc., in the CFB schedules, too? I'm actually contemplating calling an RFC on the WP:CBB talk page with a yes/no !vote on every included datapoint for the CBB schedule tables. That's what we should have done two years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I know. I'm certainly not in favor of them either but it seemed impossible to eliminate them with us having one editor in such strong opposition. If you think we can do so by a simple vote, then I'm all for it. Even still, there are things I would like to fix such as moving the score right next to the opponent. Whatever you think is best to move forward with, let's do it. I really hope we can accomplish more than last time.~ Richmond96 TC 03:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You're doing a lot more CBB work than I am right now, so do what you think is best for the next 7 to 10 days. All my wiki-time is getting sucked up dealing with the changes to Infobox college football player and the related article clean-up work. The CBB schedules have been fucked with so much the last couple of years that they're almost impossible to read for anyone but a hardcore stats freak . . . the game scores should go in one of two places, either (a) the column immediately to the right of the opponents column, or (b) in the far right column. Both positions facilitate easy recognition, but so much cruft has now been added to these tables, that the far right column is widely separated from the opponents in the second major column. The opponent and score are the two most important datapoints (the game date would be the third most important, with the game location a distant runner-up). The opponent and score need to be in close proximity, if not in immediately adjoining columns. This is the kind of basic principles of layout and design we learned in student journalism and layout and design workshops 35 years ago. You seem to get this stuff intuitively (or perhaps you've done some yearbook, newspaper or magazine work, too), but it's frustrating when a handful of editors think that more datapoints are always better, that line-wrapping is not a problem, and that a table that is 1.5 times the width of the typical laptop monitor and 3 times the width of the typical handheld screen is not a problem greatly reduces the value to the typical reader. Some folks just don't (or won't) grasp the basic concepts of "core data" and "at a glance" data presentation. And, of course, almost none of those "stats leader" columns are sourced, making them easy impossible to verify and easy prey for future vandalism. *sigh* Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
When you get time, please vote and tell me if/when you think it is okay for me to go ahead and implement the new schedule template. ~ Richmond96 TC 21:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Richmond96: Thanks for continuing to solicit my opinion on this topic. Please feel free to act on the evolving consensus at the WP:CBB talk page. Among the handful of editors expressing an opinion, I seem to be the only one adamantly opposed to including the game stats leaders in the revised season schedule tables. Three years ago, I know that other long-time CBB editors were opposed to these additions; for whatever reasons, while remaining active they have chosen not to participate in these discussions. I guess we will see shortly whether other CBB editors who notice the template changes will object, or whether they will be accepted without further discussion. Thank you for handling this discussion in an open, direct and forthright manner -- it's how all discussions should be done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herb Covington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dixie Classic (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) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

College football player infobox[edit]

It's been a three months since this discussion started User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox. I never saw any effort at closing the discussion. Isn't it time to finalize which parameters do and do not have a consensus? Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cbl62: Yes, sir. Cbl, my best-laid plans of an orderly process were nixed when a well-known template editor and regular TfD participant jumped in 11 days ago and started making radical changes to the colors, graphics, and layout and design of the template. If I had not screamed "bloody murder" like an angry banshee, we would now have something that looks like Infobox person rather than the pretty damn sharp infobox that's now shaping up. Give me another week or so to satisfy the several non-CFB folks who have been trying to take this in another Plain Jane direction, and I plan to hold the promised mini-RfC on the template talk page to resolve all outstanding issues regarding parameters and links to be added and deleted. I'll drop by your talk page to discuss further and get your reaction. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Should be thankful that you're not David Beckham who actually infobox person now lol. All the same info is there, the football infobox just got embedded. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Navbox colors[edit]

Let's push aside the infobox discussion for now. I know you've spent a lot of time thinking through color schemes. For navboxes, the main topic is typically liked in the title of the navbox, which has the same issue with invisible links due to the existing color schemes. Did you have ideas already for handling that?—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm well aware of the hidden link(s) in the coach and championship navboxes, and I was aware of it five years ago -- and I pointed it out at the time as a "hidden link" formatting problem. At the time, everyone was so pleased with themselves to settle on a uniform color, graphics and formatting scheme that we decided to ignore the "hidden link" issue. The core problem is that the colored background serves to hide the usual electric blue hyperlink text in combination with the hard-coded text color (most often white). There really is no easy solution for the hidden links in the navbox titles -- short of removing the hidden links in the titles, that is.
I've been thinking about it for five years, and I've never hit upon an easy solution. Whether we keep the hidden link in the navbox titles or not, however, we should check to ensure there is a visually obvious link to the same destination article somewhere inside the body of the navbox -- which is, after all, the whole point of a navbox: to facilitate navigation reader by providing article links to related content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
One option is to use a white background with colored borders. Works, but not as visually pleasing. If the color scheme is not changed, similar text to a navbox's current title would need to be repeated in the box, with a visible link. Works, but repetitive. Then there stays quo with hidden links. Are there other options?—Bagumba (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I got nothing beyond making sure the inside contents of the box include an obvious hyperlink to the same destination article. Putting a smaller background box of a different color around the actual hyperlinks in exterior navbox title would be atrociously ugly. To comply with WP:COLOR, you have to remove the link or do something ugly with exterior design, and that's the 2010 status quo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
... Stripes? Alakzi (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
LOL @Alakzi: You are a very bad man. Seriously, though, take a look at Template:Florida Gators football navbox, and then follow the category trees -- there are hundreds of them for teams, team rosters for championship seasons, head coach successions, etc. They all suffer from the hidden link problem per WP:COLOR for the link buried in the exterior navbox title. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is a perennial issue with navboxes. Personally, I believe that navbox colouring is excessive, but there's probably no turning the tide now. Perhaps a subtle double-stripe on the one side wouldn't be so bad. Alakzi (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Or . . . we could take the new college varsity stripe pattern for each school and repeat it diagonally across the exterior of the navbox like a school necktie. I bet you could code that, right?  ; ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know; it looks a bit silly. Alakzi (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. You can safely whack that one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Slightly different, but related topic: did you see the full mock-up of Infobox college football player with the full graphics package? Apart from the current team name and jersey no. in the first section header, do you approve? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It could be a visual phenomena due to the stripes, but it looks like the text got shrunk by a pixel or two. If so, can the text size be compensated?—Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It may or may not be an optical illusion due to the surrounding stripes. Obviously everything can be coded if you know how to do it, but I don't have a clue. I would think the first step would be to have Alakzi hard-code the text size for the section headers (currently 95% of main body text), and see if that makes a visually discernible difference relative to the perceived size of the rest of the infobox text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I've measured it several different ways, at several different screen enlargement sizes: it's an illusion; text size in the section headers have not changed as a result of the new graphics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice this comment earlier; yes, the text size is unchanged. Alakzi (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review?[edit]

Hi -- I noticed you've taken a while to get started on the GA review; anything I can do to help? I feel guilty for having nudged you to do this if you don't actually have time, so I'd be happy to take it over if you can't get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the gentle nudge, Mike. I've been consumed with a "wiki-controversy" involving one of my pet projects for the last 10-12 days, but that's coming to an end shortly, I think. I have some preliminary comments I can post for the GA nominator later tonight, and then probably complete the review in the next 48 hours (I've got review notes from two weekends ago). I'll ping you to check my review comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

Hi Dirtlawyer1, can I interest you in a peer review of the article on the inaugural 1877 Wimbledon Championship? Besides being the first edition of the Wimbledon Championships it was also the first official tennis tournament and as such has historical significance. It is my first peer review request and so far it has not received any review comments. The article has GA status since mid 2013 and I am the major contributor, although it was not created by me. Hopefully it can be turned into an FA, which would make it the very first FA article of the WikiProject Tennis. If you have an interest and some time (and want to clear your conscience after the 2013 Maria Sharapova Tennis Season Massacre !) I would welcome your comments.--Wolbo (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Wolbo: I'm flattered that you would ask me -- thank you for trusting me with your baby. I would like to help. How quickly would you need Peer Review feedback? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help out. I try to avoid the treacherous waters of WP:OWN but you are right, it does feel a bit like WP:MYBABY (guess that would make it an adopted baby since I didn't create it, but still). It is, by some distance, the article which I have put the most effort in and the first one where I have just about reached a point of not being able to find any more relevant content in reliable sources. It has been a lot of fun to work on and put my teeth in, almost a shame it is nearing the finishing line. There is no real rush to get it reviewed so whenever you have some time in the next week or so would be fine. Next week one or two other editors will probably have a look as well. I did read that PR requests get archived after two weeks so I will leave a note that review is on the way. Thanks again and look forward to your feedback.--Wolbo (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dirtlawyer1, the review is now on its way, lot of good comments so far. If you still want to join the upcoming week would be a good time for feedback.--Wolbo (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Re:CFB player infobox[edit]

I don't believe I have much to add with that discussion, but I like the stripes. If it needs a tally of approval, please let me know and, I'll vote that I like the changes as of now. I do have a question though. Due to the fact I have somewhat limited experience with bio-infoboxes, I am wondering why coach and player infoboxes are so drastically different than say, CFB to NFL? I suppose it may have something to do with people like Phog Allen who coached multiple sports and it would be unfair to paint him in just one box (pardon the pun). However, I wonder why coach navboxes wouldn't include certain aspects like player number and other things of that sort?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I have no problem with it either. Looks quite sharp. I'm afraid that someone may bring up accessibility issues at some point, though. Connormah (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Connormah: There was a pretty thorough vetting of accessibility issues, including text/background contrast for the section headers. Can you be more specific? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't seen that. In that case, I see no real pressing problems. Happy to see that we've worked something out for CFB players. Connormah (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Giant Party Infobox[edit]

I thought you would appreciate this. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes. Why, who knew that one viaduct/bridge could have so many serial numbers? Quite sure we didn't omit any core information from that one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

University Infoboxes[edit]

Hey DL, I was wondering what your opinion was of this edit? [1] I think this certainly needs discussed because I think this could potentially (rightfully or wrongfully) impact all university infoboxes.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Bluejay, Roachetta may be right -- every university has its own rules for the use of the university's seal, logo and/or word marks, as well as those for their athletic program. (I don't pretend to know how West Texas A&M wants its seal used.) Most universities post such rules somewhere on their websites, often together with its official hex and Pantone colors. Since the seal is usually a non-free image -- subject to copyright and/or trademark, the university has a large measure of control over how others use it. Word marks are usually not subject to copyright or trademark protections -- logos may or may not depending on the originality and creative content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That sounds very fair to me. I agree that they don't have to let their intellectual property to be used. I was just wondering because it is so widespread that we might potentially see a mass removal of such logos, in which case I would be welcome to help. (but only if its necessary). Thanks.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
My alma mater, the University of Florida, has a similar restriction on the use of its seal, but not an outright prohibition on its use. We rationalized the seal's use on the main University of Florida article, but we use the university's word mark for all of the articles about the university's constituent colleges like the law school, med school, etc. Seemed like a reasonably limited one-time use of the seal -- it is an article about the University of Florida, after all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated two American football infoboxes for deletion[edit]

Hi Dirtlawyer1. This is probably right up your street. Alakzi (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I'll take a look -- if memory serves me right, the Legends league is the former Lingerie Football League. Now, there's some weirdness. LOL Do we have one-to-one correspondence for existing parameters? No parameters of any significance that are league-specific? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Legends league is the former Lingerie Football League. Yeah, I saw that; I had to do a double take. There's the |league= and the |league_champ_type= (|league_champ='s label) which are pre-filled. Otherwise, there's a one-to-one correspondence. Alakzi (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's any easy support. If I had my way, all of the LFL team articles would be merged into the parent league article and deleted at AfD -- a bunch of them for the former LFL Australian division were deleted last year. I have no idea what the attraction for Aussies might be -- they can go to any beach in the country and see more better looking women wearing fewer clothes. The American LFL teams are barely notable, if notable at all, per GNG. Wikipedia attracts a lot of crap that we can never get rid of. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It probably applies to sports in general. I've seen articles about some pretty obscure roller hockey teams in Italy. P.S. I closed a rather controversial TfD earlier - let's see if it sticks. Alakzi (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the underlying problem is the desire to create something on Wikipedia -- article, list, navbox -- but not really understanding the concept of notability, or more broadly, what constitutes "encyclopedic" content worthy of expending time and effort. Tough to explain to someone who's convinced we should have detailed articles about LFL teams. Sports generate a lot of crap, but there are other offenders, too, with no grasp of the Big Picture. Spend some time perusing our video game Good Articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in[edit]

Hello Dirtlawyer1,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: I used Newspapers.com regularly -- I have taken the survey as requested and provided feedback. I have also been recently approved for HighBeam access, but have not yet used it. With whom do I follow up regarding HighBeam? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response! There is a similar check-in happening for HighBeam, but since your access is recent, I'm not sure if you're on the distribution list for that one. In any case, the Wikipedia Library coordinator for HighBeam is @Nikkimaria: so you can follow up with her. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Our HighBeam survey was distributed to those who got access 6 to 12 months ago (roughly), so you weren't on that list - if you do have questions or concerns now though, I'd be happy to work with you on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
{{Ping}Nikkimaria}} I was approved for a HighBeam account 2 or 3 month ago, but I've never gotten access. What do I need to do to complete the process? I have several academic bios I would like to upgrade to GAs this summer, and the HB account access would be helpful. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...are you certain it was HighBeam you were approved for 2 or 3 months ago? I have a record of you applying in 2012, but I see no edits by you to WP:HighBeam within the past year, and you're not in the archive after 2012 either. You certainly qualify, so if you wanted to apply now I can approve you right away. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ferguson number[edit]

Hey, I saw you had commented on MisterCake's talk page about Fergie Ferguson's number. Have you seen this article? There is a pic at the top of Ferguson which shows the number 8 on his shirt. Not sure if that is the correct number or if you've seen it before, but thought I'd mention it to you. It also says he played from 1939 to 1941, which I saw you had a ? after the 4. I believe this is Florida's athletic website. Corky | Chat? 01:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Corky. That does appear to be an "8" when enlarged! And the caption says that it's a game photo. Works for me. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Never seen those jerseys before. See here. Cake (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Could those have been practice jerseys? Reminds me of this in the corner. Cake (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Might have been, but for the caption indicating that it was a game photo. I had old-fashioned heather grey practice warm-up sweats imprinted like that (the basketball coach's jersey) when I was in high school, and the opposing players are wearing a distinctly different uniform. They were standard issue in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Still see them around at high school and college practices today. They're warm, cheap, and comfortable when they're mostly cotton. In fact, I'm lounging in a UVa sweatshirt now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Maybe South Carolina made a Floridian need layers? Check this Dirtlawyer. Pretty sure this is Fergie with either 32, 33, or 37 on what looks way more like a jersey. EDIT That caption is wrong, those did have the numbers but it was definitely at practice. The latter picture is '41, the former '40. Cake (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is Fergie with a clear number 4 his first year. Again but not so clear in action. Cake (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: your comments at the current arbcom request[edit]

I share your sentiments in full. See items (1), (4) and (6) of my comments on my userpage. Also see my comments here. I believe the WMF to be woefully incapable of handling the many issues that plague it, and are in fact part of the genesis of those very issues. Good governance is a serious issue, and it is seriously lacking. That said, ArbCom has no remit to handle such issues nor pronounce any recommendations to the WMF. Their only jurisdiction is here on this project, and their remit covers only behavioral issues, not policy setting. I do think ArbCom can take a stance vis-a-vis the behavior of WMF/chapter employees, and make a benchmark decision regarding the issues their incompetence is generating. But, such a decision can only effect the (highly likely) potential behavior issues stemming from WMF incompetence as such behavior affects this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, Hammer, but nothing prevents ArbCom from recognizing and analyzing a problem and making recommendations for its resolution, even if ArbCom lacks the authority to impose the recommended solution. I am much more sanguine about the future of Wikipedia than you are, but no multi-million-dollar organization will long exist if volunteer personnel believe that they are authorized to make public statements, or take binding actions with regard to third parties, on its behalf. No corporate entity can survive in that environment. Wikipedia is unique volunteer model of internal governance, but no organization can effectively deal with third-parties if every volunteer "member" believes he or she may speak on its behalf. That's just nuts. By analogy, every U.S. citizen has the right to vote, but not every private citizen has the right to speak on behalf of the U.S. government, or God forbid, declare war on behalf of the American people. But when someone with the Wikipedia title of "administrator," or "checkuser," or whatever, believes they have the authority to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, then that is, in effect, what they are doing. It's the kind of unauthorized behavior that will get WMF sued for defamation. As for the bone-headed conduct of the individual in this particular controversy, I think it can be addressed as a simple matter of "bad judgment," even if current policy does not specifically address public statements. I don't care what the "punishment," if any, is, but the marker needs to be placed regarding any such unauthorized statements in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Reading through that ArbCom request filled me with a special kind of despair. Thankfully, with the exception of non-free images, everything that's ever been published on this site is released under a free license; I long for the day that Wikipedia will be decentralised. Alakzi (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: "Decentralized" how, chief? Wikipedia is already about as decentralized/diffuse as you can get regarding in its day-to-day functions, what with 99% of the content work being done by anonymous volunteers; frankly, given that degree of diffused authority, it's remarkable that we function as well as we do. My ArbCom point, however, is that certain high-level functions, such as press relations and legal functions, must be reserved to trained and authorized personnel at the center. Otherwise, more of what has happened in the last two days in the UK will happen with greater frequency and with uglier consequences in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
First, it must become distributed to the extent that no editor can see my - or anybody's - IP. People with no regard for privacy or transparency are running the show; it is not the foundation's place or any editor's to out another editor. It is astounding that a CU, in his capacity as a CU, thought it'd be appropriate to pursue the Guardian's lead, then report his findings back to them. Did he fancy himself a detective? A "whistle-blower"? Decentralisation is a much broader topic - let's not go into it now. Alakzi (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On the contretemps du jour, we are in complete agreement. That said, I think other folks are equally astounded that a checkuser would feel able to cooperate so freely with the newspaper's inquiry, and then feel free to comment publicly, and that's why we have an ArbCom case. What I find disappointing is that several popular, long-time administrators are defending this conduct as if it were not problematic on multiple levels. As for the rest, well, we can kick the "decentralization" can down the road a bit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Praise from that wretched hive of scum and villainy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your points were absolutely on the mark. Why is a checkuser making statements to a newspaper on the record, with attribution? See my comment here.Peter Damian (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Gator QBs[edit]

Any sources to help me get over the wall and finish the Florida quarterbacks by filling in the question marks? Cake (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @MisterCake: I've got a copy of Tom McEwen's 1974 book, The Gators, which is probably the best available source for the early years. A lot of the guys from the early 1900s were still alive when he wrote in the early 1970s. That said, the coverage is episodic; it does not have anything like a complete list of starting quarterbacks. I also need to caution you that for the best Gators teams of the 1920s and early 1930s, the backs were often interchangeable, with multiple halfbacks and quarterbacks, and blurred distinctions between the positions. The starting quarterback may not have been the best passer; it was often one of the halfbacks. And the starters would rotate from game to game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes that's true for much of those leather helmets "Golden age" days of 20s to 40s. You can see it reflecting that with the qbs in the rotation with Edgar Jones. Many of my edits are replacing what was a passing halfback with the true quarter. Quarter in those days usually meant the headiest, smallest, and fastest player or "one of" these in various capacities. With rare exception, they signaled the plays and were often the kick returner. Indeed by no means were they the best passer (Jess Neely; Frank Sinkwich are some paradigm cases of halfbacks who were considered the best passers in their section). Ends passed too sometimes. Going to the sports oldest days the distinction is simply the line and the backs. I defer to you on the Gator specifics as I speak broadly here; but I am aware of the difference in the position during the era.
  • I will have to try and find some names from McEwen's book and see if anywhere else references a position I suppose.Cake (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dirtlawyer1: I quite like the way Georgia Tech's has an others category for the above reasons, and tried to have the same in the Vanderbilt one. It catches the fallout for various other reasons like injures and so forth as well. I feel that, as well as making sure the back spent time at quarterback and not just at half or full (halfbacks were more apt to pass like a QB; fullbacks to punt and plunge through the center of the line like one–and in those days block like one), should have one able to fill out the list of qbs. Cake (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)