User talk:Dirtlawyer1

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 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Baseball templates

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Dewelar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:CompDude13

quack quack. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2607:FE50:0:820B:8CEF:FCC:C863:D14? Edit summaries are uncharacteristic but the address geolocates to south Florida - JohnInDC (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Flags on WBC rosters

Why did you remove the flags on the 2013 World Baseball Classic rosters for the baseball teams that they play on? You said it was "inappropriate" but see 2009 World Baseball Classic rosters, 2010 FIFA World Cup squads, and Basketball at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters just to name a few examples where the flags were used. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but what makes this different? Please let me know. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Smartyllama. I just checked the links you provided. The use of flag icons for individual players on team rosters (or their home club) is not appropriate there, either, and it appears to be a function of the common roster template coding used in each case. To be clear, there is simply no justifiable reason to use flag icons to designate the home country of professional sports teams that do not represent the home country in international competition, and none of the professional baseball teams listed actually compete in international sports events. For this same reason, we do not use flag icons in articles about MLB, NBA, NFL or college sports teams or their respective athletes.

Please don't misunderstand me; I'm actually a strong advocate of the appropriate and properly limited use of flag icons in sports articles. Their use is supposed to be limited to designating national teams and athletes that compete in international sport events. Please note, however, there is actually strong support for banning flag icons altogether because of the overuse and inappropriate use of flag icons.

If you're interested in preserving the appropriate use of flag icons in sports articles, please feel free to express your opinion regarding the use of flag icons in sports articles in this ongoing Request for Comments. Otherwise, their use may be banned altogether if editors who believe in their appropriate use don't speak up. The same folks who overuse and abuse flag icons also tend to avoid serious discussions about their use. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes

Yes, I would be happy to. You would be a great admin. Have not done it before so it would help to have an experienced co-nominator. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Secret previously offered to nominate, and I'm following up with him. I may also ask Ironholds to co-nom, too ---- God knows he had enough experience! Nothing like a good roast for entertainment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How soon do you expect it to be (i.e. How soon do you want me to have a statement prepared)? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ASO. Either next Friday or the following Friday, I think. I'm trying to clear the deck to be able to respond to questions as they arise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If ASO is taking the laboring oar and preparing a statement, Friday evening is fine. I've got an all-day mediation on Friday, but can make time that evening or Saturday to add my statement of support. Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pro quarterbacks with 5,000 passing yards in a season.
Message added 00:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08

I've asked about a specific range of IP addresses to block, but since I need to get going, I might not be able to see a response quickly. I'll be popping in and out, however, so if you leave a note at my talk, I'll be able to respond to it quickly. Be aware that your message has a slight chance of getting lost in a flood of messages; the link in my last ANI message is probably going to spark a bunch of messages like this, judging by past precedent for people in similar situations. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, can we block the specifically identified IP addresses (list at ANI) while others determine the best way to implement a range block? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

After waiting for a response for a good while, I gained a distinct impression of how to levy the rangeblock (I've never performed one before), so the University of South Florida is now unable to edit for three months. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No remorse: it's been a very naughty university. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Kyle Christy

Just created the article. Thanks for the suggestion. - PM800 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge and delete

The basic principle that Mr. Stradivarius is getting at is that an article that is merged cannot be deleted unless the article it is merged into is deleted. This is to maintain the required attribution. On a related note, I just checked University of Florida Career Resource Center and you did everything required, but it would be nice if you'd use {{Copied}} in the future. It works well for showing the history of the merge (better than digging through the edit history) and it explains why the merged article can't be deleted. Ryan Vesey 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. That's what I thought we were talking about, but I am unfamiliar with the "Copied" template; I'll look over the template documentation before Stradivarius turns up. I suspect there are still some subtleties of the "merge/delete" process I have to learn. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawyer. My comments at your RfA might not have been the clearest, so let me expand on them a little. In my first diff you said "Prior to deletion, someone should double-check to confirm that all notable listees are included in the parent article." From this, I took it that you would be ok with merging any missing listees into the parent article and then deleting the page. However, if any of the listees were originally added at the daughter article, rather than the parent article, then deleting the page would break the attribution.

In my second diff, you said that there was a "relatively trivial difference between a redirect and deletion at this point" after you had merged content from the nominated article into the proposed redirect target. However, I believe that if you had been aware of the licensing issues involved in deleting the attribution history of the merged content, then you wouldn't have seen deletion and redirection as equally worthwhile options.

This is an important policy point to understand for admins involved in deletion, but I didn't think it was worth opposing over. That's because once you understand the principles involved, you understand them, and I have every reason to believe that if I pointed them out to you then you would understand them and bear them in mind in your deletion work. I hope this explains things a bit better, but please do ask if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Stardivarius. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. You are correct in that I did not fully understand the importance of maintaining the attributions of the editors who had contributed the content. In fact, it never dawned on me that we had licensing issues when we transfer material from one article to another. Where can I go to learn the technical procedures for properly completing a merge? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the basic procedure can be found at WP:MERGETEXT, of course, and that includes the steps necessary to preserve the attribution. For admins closing AfDs, it's just important to remember that the attribution must be preserved somehow, and to take steps to make sure that happens even if the AfD participants aren't aware of the requirements. Usually, this means interpreting "merge and delete" to just mean "merge". Redirects are cheap, and it is actually quite rare that content is created at a title that fails WP:R#DELETE, so 99 times out of 100 a normal merge is the best move. If there really is a pressing reason to delete a redirect and merge content, then you can use one of the steps here to preserve attribution. I prefer the "move to another title and redirect" one as being the most elegant, but sometimes you get a mess like this one where things are so confusing that it's best to move the old history to a talk subpage. If you use one of these steps you should probably also use the {{copied}} template on the target article's talk page, as people can be understandably confused about what was merged from where at what time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, once again, for replying at length, Stradivarius. I am reviewing all of the related procedures, instructions and policies at the links provided. Conceptually, I think I get it, but I am certain to have more questions regarding the admin steps necessary to properly implement the merges. I'll ping you in a day or so with my additional questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RFA

You're welcome. I would have spoken up sooner, but I didn't realize the RFA had opened yet. I have your talk page on my watchlist and assumed something would be posted there. Anyway, better late than never, and good luck with the RFA process. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Auburn–Florida football rivalry

Regarding your revert of my edit to Auburn–Florida football rivalry:

I think that the overall series record next to each game is important and not clutter. I’d rather discuss this issue with you, rather than reverting your revert, e.g., avoiding an edit war.

I looked through a number of other sports rivalries and found that two of the other Auburn rivalries, Deep South's Oldest Rivalry and the Iron Bowl (Auburn-Alabama, both have overall series records listed next to each game. To go further, I noticed that the Magnolia Bowl, the Egg Bowl, the Third Saturday in October, and the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry pages, just to name a few in the SEC, have series records in their charts. Now I am not saying that those need to be changed to not having series records listed in the charts, but what I am meaning is that a consensus needs to be reached as to how the tables are across Wikipedia. A question I would like to pose is, how does the overall series record constitute clutter?

Basketball123456 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, several of the Alabama, Auburn, and Ole Miss rivalry articles do have the cumulative series records because the same editor(s) added them, and other editors didn't care enough to delete them. Sorry, but those articles do not govern the formatting of other articles. You will note that none of the Florida rivalry articles have them (I have reverted the changes to the Florida-Tennessee article, which were added in January by a now blocked sock puppet, who was banned from Wikipedia for repeatedly making exactly these sorts of non-consensus changes to CFB articles). The Florida rivalry articles and their series record tables are uniformly formatted pursuant to consensus, and for very good reasons. First, there is no source that lists the cumulative series record, and creating the series record constitutes impermissible original research per WP:OR. Second, the series are already color-coded to show win streaks, more easily recognized and understood than adding another column for the cumulative. Third, these tables are designed to be space-efficient; the added columns require nearly twice as much space to display the same essential information (date, location, winner, score). Finally, adding an additional column for loser is redundant and an unnecessary waste of space -- there are only two teams in a CFB rivalry -- there is no need to list the winner AND the loser. I have also encountered other editors who want to add cumulative series records for the home team, cumulative points scored, and other bits of trivia. We don't accept those added columns, either. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports blog, and the better articles and tables are designed to present core information, not every factoid that any user might decide to add. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I now understand. Thanks for the thorough explaination! I'm going to start removing series record columns for other SEC rivalries and standardize the widths as well. Are there any other standards that should be adhered to when doing this? Basketball123456 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You can probably do that with most of them, but there was some Alabama fan who was adamant about keeping the cumulative record column and several other unique formatting for the Iron Bowl series records table. To the extent other article editors want it, they can establish as consensus for the particular article; there is no WikiProject College Football consensus requiring uniform formatting for the tables. So, sadly, we have a hodge-podge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hodge-podge is indeed sad. I have removed the "series" column on Deep South's Oldest Rivalry. The column widths I chose to go by were the ones on the UF-UT rivalry page (Date – 115; Location – 95; Winner – 45; and Score – 40). The only column these widths did not work for is the third score column which has one "(4OT)" and one "(OT)." I had to make all three score columns have a width of 70 to make them uniform and still allow the (OT)s to fit on one line. I mean "uniform" technically would mean that all three sets would have the same widths, but the two left sets just look odd because the score columns are so wide. Is there any workaround so that I don't have to make the score columns so wide? Basketball123456 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider using a footnote for the overtime games, see Florida-Florida State table. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08, 2nd edition

Could you perhaps give more input on the DragoLink08 situation and the consequent rangeblock for the University of South Florida? I've just gotten a message from Hflw27, who says "I may be able to help with range configuration - I'm in the CSE department of USF and may be able to track down relevant and necessary details. I know that the 131.247.2.* and 131.247.3.0-64 blocks are regulated static IP addresses for Engineering". I'm going to leave a message on his talk page explaining that I implemented the rangeblock on others' recommendations, that I don't really know how to help, and that I'll ask others to help him; if you can help, please respond at his talk page. Please note that you're not the only one I'm asking; I'm leaving this message for five other users who commented on Drago's situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783, as well as you. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ATTENTION: User:Nascarking

ATTENTION User:Nascarking has just reverted your edit on the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry page. The series records are back!!! Basketball123456 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I take that back after further investigation. But it still warrants you checking it out. Basketball123456 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing templates for deletion

FYI, if you add a template to a discussion, you need to tag it for deletion. It's very important to follow the correct procedure, or the TfD result might be considered invalid. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the TfD would be invalid, and I thank you for being diligent in reminding me, Plastikspork. I shall also notify the template creator immediately. I note that you have relisted the TfD to provide fair time for comment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports).
Message added 22:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Check back in at your convenience. —Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck

You're welcome to stop by whenever you want. Hopefully, things will work out for you. RFA is an interesting experience, no? :) Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:RFA

No problems, whichever way it goes feel free to pester me all you want! GiantSnowman 08:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	My sincere sympathies on the sheer nonsense you have been subjected to with the recent turn of events in your RfA. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

ARBATC discretionary sanctions

Just a heads up—there lately has been extraordinarily tight enforcement of the discretionary sanctions arising from the arbcom case WP:ARBATC. In particular, this seems well-within what some editors have already been sanctioned, or at least hauled off to AE, for. HaugenErik (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Erik, I can play by those rules. I hope we are consistent in our enforcement of them, across all environments. My reading of the AE discussion is some editors, administrators and arbitrators believe a different standard applies in different talk spaces. That needs to be clarified for everyone's benefit. I will strike the comment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	OK; well it doesn't look like this is going to turn out as planned, but I commend you for trying and for still being an overall great editor. I hope this doesn't put you off and that you'll consider a run in the future. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 02:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate your sense of irony in choice of awards, Phightins. A consolation prize, as it were? ~LOL~ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I decided this was the most appropriate given the absolutely surreal nature of your RFA and the Salvador Dali-esque nature of some of the opposes. While I'm not questioning the close, I think the community's direction on this one was way off base with regard to WP:AGF and WP:DEAL. I've said it before - we allow existing admins the right to be occasionally human (as we should) but expect admin candidates to be near-perfect demi-gods. Frustrating, but I'm sure you'll continue to be effective without lightning bolt in hand. Stalwart111 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello Dirtlawyer1. I'm sorry to inform you, but I've closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Given that a majority of the community did support you, I would suggest you look to the opposition as areas you can grow further in as an editor and consider seeking adminship at a later date. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, MBisanz. It was not unexpected. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry man, I do hope to place a support !vote next time you intend to run. ZappaOMati 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Zappy. We'll see. The Wiki clearly has gotten by without me as an admin for quite some time, and some perspective must be maintained. Sure, it's a disappointment, but it's not a tragedy. No one died, and no one went to prison. Still plenty of college sports article to work on. Cheers, my friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Np, I'm glad that I supported your RFA but really sad to know that it didn't go so well. I hope it will be better next time when you try to improve more from the comments (especially from oppose sections) you have received during this RFA. Good luck. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments, Torres. I will do my best to treating it as a learning experience. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, I am confident you will be an admin in the future. Your one of the few people I look up to on Wikipedia and one of the brightest editors on the project. Just keep on doing what your doing! Philipmj24 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Philip. I don't pretend to know what the future may hold, but being an administrator is not something for which I'm questing or can't live without. It may or may not ever happen. Given the hostility encountered during my RfA, particularly from people with whom I've never even interacted before my RfA, I have to consider whether any future RfA would generate more heat than light. There's plenty of work to be done as writers and editors of content -- especially in the area of Olympic swimming! Generating good encyclopedic content should always be the primary goal. Cheers, my friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed there is. I saw your RfA, but decided not to comment. You and I have had both positive and negative interactions in the past, as you're of course aware. I wasn't sure that I could add anything worthwhile in that forum. I came here to your talk page because I felt I could post something worthwhile here, post RfA closure (regardless of the outcome)...
• The idea that "adminship is no big deal" is a joke. I think we all know that. What's less commonly understood is that it works in negative ways as well. Adminship is held like the sword of Damocles. I have seen a number of admins over whom the community attempts to express control by threatening them with loss of their adminship. Expectations of appropriate behavior are widely varied, with no clear signals to guide an administrator. It is effectively impossible to handle being an active administrator without becoming embroiled in controversy. Nobody is immune to this. Even ArbCom has stripped administrators of their admin rights for perceptions of poor behavior, rather than actual acts in contravention of policy.
• There is a tendency among humans which I am sure has a name within the realms of learned psychology. When some humans excel, the great masses of the people work to bring them back down to their level. This principle applies to the masses vs. admins as well. Admins are routinely threatened with loss of their admin bits for various supposed objectionable behaviors. I even once had an editor attempt to influence me by threatening to have my administrator rights removed. Of course, I have none to remove. In fact, I have no flags that can be removed except banning me from the site. I don't even have autopatrol. Someone gave me rights once without asking and I insisted they remove them [1]. Having (almost) nothing to lose here provides a great deal of freedom. I heartily recommend it.
• You've been an editor here now for some years, with 88% of your contributions being made in the article space. I think adding "admin" to your privilege set would make you very unhappy with the project in the long term. That's not to say I think you would make a good or bad admin; I have no opinion on that. I just feel being an admin would be a detriment to you personally. With all respect, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hammersoft, your comments are insightful and interesting as always. We've both come a long way since we first encountered each other in September 2009; I would like to believe that our interactions have been mostly positive since then, with an increasingly positive trend. I'm running out of the office door right now, but I would like to chat with you more later, either on one of our talk pages or via email. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm at your disposal. Just don't put me here. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Dirtlawyer1, I said at the RfA how awful I felt about how it went, and I still feel badly about it. I'm gratified to see, here, how sensibly you are handling it. You have a good sense of perspective. Please know that I continue to have a high opinion of your ability to size up a situation, and please feel free to get in touch with me any time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, Tryptofish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested reading

You might want to consider brushing up on your Gator football knowledge with the following subjects if you believe these trophies are insignificant in the context of the rivalry games of the Gators:

• Florida Cup (Florida State, Miami)
• Okefenokee Oar (Georgia)
• Seminole War Canoe (Miami)

Enjoy! NThomas (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, NThomas. Just so you know, I am already intimately familiar with the links provided. I have edited the Florida Cup article, I was responsible for the merger of the former standalone Okefenokee Oar article into the Florida-Georgia rivalry article, and I'm the editor who moved the former Seminole Ware Canoe article to its present Florida-Miami football rivalry title. These trophies have little significance to the Gators in the context of the present-day rivalries; the Gators do not have "trophy rivalries" in the same way that Big Ten teams do. The Florida Cup is rarely awarded because of the infrequent nature of the Florida-Miami rivalry, and is a round-robin trophy that is not specific to Florida-Florida State. The Okefenokee Oar is of recent origin, is little known or recognized, and has very little significance to the teams or fans in the Florida-Georgia rivalry; it's a student government trophy. The Seminole War Canoe was significant in the context of Florida-Miami rivalry 30 or 40 years ago, but no longer changes hands; it's now a museum piece in Coral Gables. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I could care less about Florida's traveling trophies, but the fact is your argument is a personal bias about how you perceive the traveling trophies in context to the overall rivalry and treading dangerously on Wikipedia:RECENT. If you want to continue this converstation about the format of the navboxes I suggest you do where I explained the concept thoroughly. NThomas (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up, NThomas. I have already commented at WT:CFB. The issue here is including redundant redirect links for the the War Canoe Trophy and the Okefenokee Oar, which redirect to the Florida–Miami football rivalry and the Florida–Georgia football rivalry, respectively, both of which are already linked on the navbox. In short, we do not include redundant redirect links that link to the same articles already linked. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Okefenokee Oar is a targeted redirect, the content is specific to the section. Additionally, the Seminole War Canoe has enough information that it could be a targeted redirect to a separate section within Florida–Miami football rivalry. Of course since neither traveling trophy holds "significance to the teams or fans" perhaps the information should be removed? NThomas (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

NThomas, please see WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK. Repeating links is disfavored; no new information is provided. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Both of those policies refer to the linking of terms. There is no policy that I am aware of that discourages linking to the same page twice. It's quite possible that someone will be familiar with the Florida–Miami football rivalry but not the War Canoe Trophy. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, whether it's a piped link or an unpiped link, it is linking to the same term, which is located at the same page, right? If we pipe-link "Florida," "Florida Gators," "Gators," and "Florida Gators football" to Florida gators football, those are still the same link repeated, regardless of their hypertext display appearance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point. The purpose of links are to assist readers with something they might be unfamiliar with. You are also incorrect in your idea that two links go to the same term. Just using the wiktionary definition, a term is "word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge". In this instance, we have two terms going to the same article. Nothing in OVERLINK or REPEATLINK advises against that. Ryan Vesey 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, I am literally too tired to argue this one much further (it's been a fairly brutal week in my world, and it's not over yet -- I have a hotel closing on Thursday). I've never seen anyone accept your term-vs.-link distinction in nearly four years of Wikipedia editing. Term = link = page, regardless of whether the hypertext link display is pipe-linked. It's okay if you don't believe me; I'm not offended. Please feel free to get a second opinion at the Village Pump or the talk page for link policy. If it turns out I'm wrong, then we've both learned something. Another good person for a second opinion on link policy is User:Tony1, who has been very active in this policy area, both at MOS and the link policy page. Tony can give you the entire policy history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Ryan, I just re-read my reply immediately above. Please accept my apologies if it sounds surly; that was not my intent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• on the whole, I agree with Dirtlawyer. It's semantics whether it's one word, one term or piped term that leads to a second link to the same article. Firstly, I would not necessarily link to any unfamiliar term; moslink is clear that the term should be relevant. If some term leads to the same piped link, you owe it to the reader to be transparent and not to create an easter egg. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

RFA

RFA is a dirty business, don't worry about a bad result. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't think we've interacted before, nor have I done so with any of the regular contributors to the MOS. But I feel compelled to say that I can't recall having previously seen an RfA that bore as strong a resemblance to a mugging.

I'm sorry I didn't see the relevant pages/threads before they were closed; it probably wouldn't have changed the result at all, but I would have supported your candidacy; I think you'd be a fine admin. The takeaway seems to me to be that anyone who's ever edited in any controversial area can pretty much forget about ever becoming an administrator.

It just takes so few determined opponents to sink a strong candidate, largely, I think because people tend to suspect "where there's smoke there's fire" rather than following the links opponents put up and examining the purported evidence of bad behavior. As Carrite said, you needn't take the process or result as saying anything at all about you, personally, nothing at all. I spent much more time than I should have done, reviewing the debacle, and I don't think it does. It says much more about some who opposed you. Cordially, --OhioStandard (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Cncplayer's talk page.
Message added 04:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 04:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)