User talk:Dirtlawyer1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

SEC Conference Revenue[edit]

Hi there! Hoping to find someone to add a section and chart for Revenue on the SEC Conference page, similar to what is shown on Big 12 [[1]]

Pretty solid reference at


July 6 Atlanta Wiki-Picnic[edit]

You might be interested in signing up for this: Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 8.--Pharos (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

SEC membership table[edit]

Hello again Dirtlayer1,

Wanted to make a callout to your recent SEC edits. For context (my view), an editor stage a non-consensus membership table redesign (which included valid 2014 membership updates) prior to July 1, then deployed their design to all conference articles. I've reverted those changes (the "new" design and format changes by my intent, but obviously NOT the entirely valid membership changes). Based on your comments in your edits, your view is unclear. For example, the schools' hex colors have been present for (at least) six months:

as well as the the endowment numbers (via my edits):

I concur with the comments in your edits re reverting to the prior (consensus) version. However, your edits have re-implemented the brand new, non-consensus version (ie, you re-removed the population, public/private type, endowment, colors, and mascot info). Based on your comments, I do not believe that was your intent.

Could you please review? ‎Discussion is here, cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your inquiry, UW. I was formerly very active in opposing the ever-expanding data to be included in the college sports conference member tables. In my opinion, such tables should serve as "at a glance" listings of core information only (name, location, sports teams nickname, founding year, student population, member year). At one point, not only were we beating back arguments about adding endowments, but whether we should include average SAT and ACT scores for athletes and the general student populations, as well as other metrics which seemed to be based on ongoing alumni rivalries ("Mine's bigger!"). In my absence over the last several months, it is apparent that we have begun to include more and more superfluous information that is tangentially related (at best) to college sports and the universities' membership in a given conference. We need to to decide what the core data should be, and stick to it.
I will expound my opinion at greater length on the WP:CFB talk page in the ongoing discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Udonis Haslem[edit]

Before you start quoting notability guidelines to me, saying that he is "currently a free agent in the National Basketball Association" does exactly that. It says he is an NBA player however it stays true to the truth that he doesn't have a team at the present moment. His notability is an NBA player not necessarily playing for an individual team. Plus leaving it the way I have keeps consistency.--Rockchalk717 15:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Rockchalk, there is no such thing as a "free agent in the National Basketball Association." When someone is a free agent, by definition, they are not associated with a team or league. Your current edit is also missing a verb to form a complete sentence. Literacy and accuracy trump any given editor's perceived need for "consistency" every time. And, yes, one of the primary purposes of the lead paragraph is to provide a brief statement for the subject's notability per WP:LEAD. The primary reason for Haslem's notability is that he is a former player for the Miami Heat, where he was a key member of three NBA championship teams. He is not notable because he is a free agent, although it is entirely appropriate to mention his present status in the lead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
He is notable as an NBA player, not for an individual team. He isn't a player like Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Kareem Abdul-Jabar who all known for playing for an individual team. His notability is as an NBA player, the championships with the Heat came after his notability was already established.--Rockchalk717 16:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
RC, (1) Accuracy: There is no such thing as a "free agent in the National Basketball Association"; an athlete is either an NBA player with an actual team, or he is a free agent, not both. (2) Relevance: Haslem has played his entire 10-year career with the Heat, where he was a key member of three NBA championship teams. (3) Literacy: We write in complete sentences, which, at a minimum, require a noun and a verb. Your first sentence lacks a verb. (4) Current status: there is no requirement of any Wikipedia sports project that free agent status be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. It can be just as easily mentioned in the last sentence of the lead, which is consistent with chronological order. Nor is there any requirement that every lead for every NBA player follow an exact pattern -- that is not required, and it is boring. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Welcome back! Here's a cup of coffee, now get to work! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, T13. Just assessing how much time I have to play on Wikipedia right now. We'll start slow and see how it goes. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Try again?[edit]

Speaking of flooded questions etc, wondering if you've given thoughts to trying again, it's been over a year since your try. I know I had seconds thoughts on my oppose and in hindsight should have stayed neutral that time, sorry. PaleAqua (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind inquiry, PA. I would be happy to discuss my last experience with you off-wiki, but I have been inactive six of the last twelve months, and I honestly believe and expect that a strong candidate should be far more active than I have been recently. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kline[edit]

Alas I have no idea. My guess would be finding a WWII registration card on him if I used 1942 as a cutoff, but I tried re-searching for that and came up empty. Most of the ones that seem to be missing dates have really common names from the looks of it so any searches I could try would be completely useless unfortunately. Wizardman 22:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying, WM. The last thing I could find on Kline was a New York Times article about a civil trial in New York c. 1937, when he was called as a witness. He would have been in his 50s at the time. I've never been able to find anything else about him after that date. I had some luck with Google News search with several others, but Kline's fate remains a mystery. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


You obviously do not understand what the "Controversy" section is for. Just because a program is not penalized does not mean there is not controversy. Every other program has theirs listed, but seems you spend all day trying to make sure UF's dirty laundry isn't. FSU didn't know about the cheating scandal either but is still a controversy and not because they were sanctioned by the NCAA. Your history with UF makes you obviously bias and should not be allowed to just spend all your time deleting facts just to try protecting the image of the program. [IP user:2601:e:8300:63:84ac:8b46:6bc7:7fec omitted a signature at UTC 23:34, 4 July 2014]

Hi. I've been around Wikipedia as a registered editor for more than five years, and I've been around the University of Florida athletic program for more 30, as both an insider and an outsider. When someone, such as yourself, displays a strong working knowledge of Wikipedia, but edits under an IP address, it generally indicates they are a "sock puppet" engaging in less-than-honest editing under the veil of nominal anonymity.
And, yes, I understand exactly what is going on when an unregistered and anonymous "IP user" begins to add one-sided, cherry-picked information that casts a bad light on a college sports team. You have added redundant material about Charley Pell's woes, now deleted, which was already discussed at length in the article's history section. You also added trivial material about the 1966 Florida-Florida State game, now deleted, that was already covered in the Florida-Florida State football rivalry article, and then tried to piggyback an implied and unsubstantiated claim that the UF research team that invented Gatorade somehow violated the possible patent rights of a team at FSU, notwithstanding the fact that the "Seminole Firewater" story was debunked years ago, as the concoction included nothing more than sugar, salt and water.
You have also ignored direct quotes from the Orlando Sentinel articles cited by you, and well known to informed members and supporters of the program, that the NCAA was satisfied and well pleased with the university's investigation and prosecution of Tank Black, and its subsequent banning of two former Gator football player from the university campus and sports events. You also selectively cite Black's after-graduation representation of several other players and attempt to conflate that representation as wrong-doing on the part of the university or the players who were defrauded by Black. Please do not play the innocent; it is clear what you are attempting to do.
Regarding the disciplinary problems under Urban Meyer, there was previously a discussion of such issues in the Urban Meyer article, but that material has apparently been deleted by Ohio State fan editors at some point in the past year.
As for not understanding what a "controversies" section is, I have plenty of understanding as a long-time registered editor: there is no requirement that any Wikipedia article have one, and such sections often become a convenient dumping ground for factually distorted and inaccurate -- and even libelous -- information when they are not critically vetted and sourced. So, please do not presume that your "understanding" and cherry-picked quotes from on-line newspapers will permit your one-sided additions to stand. Wikipedia articles do not exist to simply aggregate every negative detail a determined editor can find regarding a particular subject.
I'm more than happy to get other Wikipedia editors and administrators involved; in fact, I've already invited several to review your cherry-picked handiwork. Please be warned, however, that "edit-warring" and reverting changes more than three times in one 24-hour period can lead to your being blocked per WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. As a registered Wikipedia editor, I know the applicable rules and I will not intentionally violate them. I suspect other Wikipedia editors and administrators will have something to say about your one-sided presentation of "facts," etc., soon enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

University of Florida Health Science Center[edit]

I took out the one paragraph bragging about their research because the only source was their own highly-promotional website. If this stuff is true, there should be reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It is true, but clearly I will need to explain the reliable sources rules. I was just leaving a message on your talk page. Great minds think alike, eh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Heya Dirtlawyer[edit]

I posted a section at Talk:Florida–Florida State football rivalry on the article's overcoloring if you want to head on over and give your two cents. I didn't want to be the guy saying "blah this is wrong you should change it" so I suggested a compromise I think we could both live with. —  dainomite   16:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Replied on the article talk page, sir! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Taylor. 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) 08:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg Good to see you back on the 'pedia. Go Phightins! 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Baked it yourself, did you, Phightins? LOL Thanks. It's good to be seen.
If you're working on basketball articles these days, I could use some help over at the Chandler Parsons article. The article history page and my recent edit summaries are self-explanatory. Usual bunch of IPs and newly registered users prematurely changing BLPs related to free agent deals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, I am now an admin, which makes me wonder whether simply semi-protecting the page would be a good idea, and if so for how long? Go Phightins! 03:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Congratulations. I suppose I will have to call you "MISTER Phightins" now, eh? In answer to your question, I think 72 hours, per the NBA rule on restricted free agents matching offers, should work just fine for a semi-p. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, and I prefer "Sir Phightins", actually =p. By the way, in a few months, let me know, and I'll nominate you to become "Sirdirtlawyer1" :-) Go Phightins! 03:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Sir. Would you mind doing the clean-up, too? The article should read "Restricted free agent" in the infobox, with all references to the Dallas Mavericks removed. I'm already three and done, so I shouldn't make any further edits.
As for the reference to "a few months," I would suggest that could be quite a few months. Remember: the beatings will continue until morale improves! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
For you, I'll edit an NBA article despite my categorical disdain for the league Face-smile.svg. I believe it's fixed now. Go Phightins! 03:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Nice to see you around again! GiantSnowman 09:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you, sir! Good to be seen. Please let me know what I can do to help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tag at Bobby Joe Green[edit]

Greetings! I noticed that you removed a "disambiguation tag" from Bobby Joe Green without fixing the disambiguation link. Because there are different kinds of football that include punts, the link Punt (football) does not point to an article on a particular kind of football punt, but to the disambiguation page Punt. This is an error, and the tag must remain until the error is fixed. Please note that removing a maintenance tag without fixing the underlying error may be considered vandalism. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

See also to Gators[edit]

I'm not going to spend much time over this, but wouldn't readers of Parsons' article be mostly interested in Florida Gators men's basketball. I would expect most people wanting to know more about the Gators in general would have first clicked on the hoops program link, then went looking for the general article from there. Also, I would also have expected the men's hoops article to link to Florida Gators from it's lead, but it doesn't.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Once upon a time, Bagumba, I had a logically thought-out network of links to navigate between all of the Gators-related articles. Those in the player article "see also" sections included "Florida Gators" (athletic program), "List of Florida Gators basketball players," List of University of Florida alumni" (if they graduated), and a link to the championship team season article (if applicable). None of these are typically linked in the text of player articles. If the athlete is a member of the UFHOF, then "University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame" is pipe-linked in the text near the end of the college career section. There are and remain similar "see also" sections for Gators football players and former Gator athletes in other sports, and most of this interlocking network of links still survives. Unfortunately, for the handful of current high-profile pros who are former Gators, like Parson, the system has been chewed up.
I would also include pro team-related links in the "see also" section, too, like "History of the Dallas Mavericks," or "List of Miami Dolphins players." If they were an All-American, links to those lists were included, too.
As for your other point, I have always linked the relevant Florida Gators team (e.g. "Florida Gators men's basketball") in the player infobox and in the text of the college career section (e.g. "Parsons attended the University of Florida, where he played for the Florida Gators men's basketball team"). That's More problematic is what to link in the lead of current pro players who are former Gators. To readers who are not college sports fans, or even Americans, the connection between the University of Florida and the individual Florida Gators sports teams is tenuous and often not understood at all -- and that relationship is a key point in understanding American college sports in general.
For current coaches and current undergraduate players, I always use the construction "is an American football player who is a quarterback for the Florida Gators football team of the University of Florida" in the lead, which makes the relationship among the university, team and student-athlete crystal clear. For current pros, however, that construction can become kind of long-winded; maybe, however, I should be using the full phrase in the lead for clarity and to provide the team link in the lead: e.g., "Parsons played college basketball for the Florida Gators men's basketball team of the University of Florida, where he was a member of an NCAA national championship team." In any event, I think it is important to maintain that direct connection between the athlete and the university in the introduction . . . I'll give it some more thought. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Was intending to talk about colleges in the lead, but it reminded me that there was still a response outstanding from you on that subject since April 2013 :-) —Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Chandler Parsons: unexplained changes[edit]

Dirtlawyer1, I noticed that you've reverted Chandler Parsons at least 3 times in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from further reverts to the article or risk facing sanctions.--TM 14:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Namiba: Your 3RR warning is well-taken, even though the first revert was to restore a "see also" article (discussed, at length, with Bagumba above). That being said, you are removing the double infobox descriptions of Chandler Parsons' position, which is a standard infobox formatting practice of WP:NBA. You are also imposing a grammatically incorrect construction in the lead -- college athletes do not play "at" a university, they play "for" a university. Universities are institutions of higher learning, not stadiums, and student-athletes do not play "at" them. Would you like to discuss either point? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Namiba: Warning an editor about 3RR and then reverting back to your preferred version without explanation can be seen as gaming the system. I encourage you to discuss your differences in lieu of threatening sanctions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Sledd[edit]

Hi -- I saw Andrew Sledd pop up on my watchlist, and it reminded me that you were considering taking it to FAC at one point. Are you still interested in doing that? I think the article is good enough to be featured. I'd have to read it again, but I would expect to be able to support if it were nominated. If you prefer, I'd also be happy to conominate and help deal with any issues, though I don't think you need my help. Is there any more research that you think is necessary before the article could be nominated? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of country in PERSONDATA[edit]

I don't have a ton of energy around the topic, but country is not required for places of birth and death fields. See Wikipedia:Persondata#Examples. Rikster2 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Rikster, it is a small point, and, no, it is not required, but it is often helpful for people searching for a particular person -- especially those with a common name. Persondata is Google searchable, and often helps locate and distinguish subjects. The advice provided at Template:Persondata includes the following: "Be specific, but not to the point of listing a street address. Usual formats are City/Village, State/Province, Country; or City/Village, country; or State/Province, Country." Personally, I always include the nationality demonym in the persondata description (e.g., "American basketball player"), as well as the country in the birthplace (e.g., "Atlanta, Georgia, United States"). Obviously, descriptions of nationality and birthplace vary from country to country, but the pattern for most Americans is pretty straightforward. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • But things like "American basketball player" are usually in the lead of the article and therefore would also be Google searchable. I do have a pet peeve about people adding "US" or "United States" to the infobox because in my opinion it clutters it unnecessarily. I just think if it's present in the PERSONDATA field it encourages people to make them "match." But yes, it's not a huge thing. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Persondata is searchable independently of the article text, so there is some value in embedding the subject's name variants, brief description, birth date and birth place in persondata. I agree with you 100% regarding infobox clutter; including "U.S." or "United States" in the infobox usually creates more space-related problems than any value added. As for the persondata, I suspect you and I are among the very few who are actually paying any attention to it; it's not something your typical drive-by IP user or newbie editor fiddles with because it does not display on the public view of the article.
FYI, the other small thing about persondata that amuses me are people who continue to bracket the places of birth and death, as if they are somehow wiki-linked to something. Bizarre. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)