User talk:Dirtlawyer1

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

To my talk archives

FYI

I blocked the user you reported on my talk page. Go through the 'official' channels at WP:UAA et al. often enough and you might get your own block button ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Opabinia, but the block button is the aspect of being an administrator I find least attractive. I don't spend a lot time hunting vandals and bad user names, but when I find them in the course of ordinary editing, I will usually take the time to let one of the more motivated admins know about it. Frankly, the "official channels" are too often ridiculously slow to act, and the backlog status of areas like SPI has become pretty awful. The last occasion I took the time to report an obvious sock, the report sat untouched for two weeks until the sock was blocked for another offense; that's discouraging. We really do need more level-headed admins in certain areas of the project, and hanging out at ANI is far from the most crucial. As for admin-type work, I'm more of an AfD/XfD kinda guy, and I've invested a fair amount of effort in mastering the nuances of notability and suitability in my subject areas of interest.

BTW, your namesake is one strange-looking critter. As an arthropod, I have to wonder if it tasted like lobster. Were there any Cambrian butter-producing critters? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Catching up on wiki-business after lunch and now I'm hungry again. And very conflicted about that fact ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of crustaceans in the sea which are more than willing to eat their cousins. That's why lobsters evolved claws: it's eat or be eaten among arthropods. Besides, the male lobster with the biggest claw is more popular among the lady lobsters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a contrived reference to the TfD RfC? :-P Alakzi (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh --- no. It's a contrived reference to Opabinia's selection of a Cambrian-era arthropod as her user name. On the other hand, "eating our own" could be a reference to much of what happens on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently, I'm a deletionist. Good to know. This will probably be snow-closed by tomorrow evening. Alakzi (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor who made that comment has participated in two TfDs in the last year: both in December, both POTW's nominations where he put a top-of-the-page TfM notice on the nominated templates instead of the proper sidebar/top-of-the-infobox notice -- on 16,000+ transclusions of edit-locked templates. Suffice it to say, it looks like a lot of people were pissed off about the screwed-up notices. Nothing like engendering good feelings, your RfC commenter among them. That's about the time I started regularly commenting at TfD again, and one of a series of TfD dust-ups that attracted my attention in November and December. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this RfC has finally reached its apex. You might find a more receptive crowd at a tea party. Alakzi (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Sorry. In retrospect, the title was a mistake, and five bullet points with multiple sentences each is way too much to expect people to read about a problem that exists because not enough people care about it. Everyone seems to have plenty of time for drama lately, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Kww-TRM kurfuffle yesterday and Eric's block today. Meanwhile, I can't get a single thing done that requires admin assistance. Alakzi (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Though when I was preaching the "principle of least drama", Eric thought we should bash people over the head. Alakzi (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata

May I remove {{persondata}} even if not all of its data was transferred to Wikidata? I looked at a few articles I created and most of the data on Wikidata is incomplete. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Persondata has been officially deprecated SLBedit (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• @SLBedit: Ideally, you would confirm that the persondata includes article title name per WP:COMMONNAME, full name, married/maiden name (if applicable), one or more brief descriptions (e.g., Scottish footballer), dates of birth and death, and places of birth and death -- before deleting the persondata template from the article. If any element of reliable persondata did not transfer to Wikidata, it would be helpful if you manually transfer it yourself. It's not hard; see, e.g., [1]. You can access Wikidata for a particular article by clicking on "Wikidata item" under the "Tools" menu on the lefthand side of the page. Please ping me if you have any "how to" questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not logged in on Wikidata. Migrating data manually is very time consuming. Is there a tool to do this automatically? SLBedit (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you enter Wikidata from link in Wikipedia, you automatically have an account under the same username there (look for a red link with your username at the top center-right of the page). I have never had to actually log in there; apparently, if you're logged in here, you're logged in there. And, yes, it is annoying and time-consuming to manually transfer perondata to Wikidata. I keep one window open in Wikipedia and another in Wikidata, so I can copy and paste. I've gotten fairly efficient with practice, but it takes me 2 to 4 minutes per Wikidata profile. I have approximately 3000 bios on my watchlists, I entered the persondata for most of those, so I'm checking and manually transferring the persondata for everything on my list. If there is an auto-editor (e.g., AWB, Twinkle, etc.) that can assist here, I don't know what it is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Could you please give input about this? SLBedit (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Deprecated persondata

In most cases the text in the persondata -- which is sometimes close to non-existent or boilerplate -- is already in the wikidata. Quis separabit? 12:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and in several dozen cases within the last 24 hours, you have deleted persondata without making any attempt to transfer name variants or places of birth and death that were included in persondata. That's why I asked: you deleted it from several articles that I have watch-listed, and then I checked your recent edits. There are a number of us who are actively transferring accurate persondata to Wikidata, and then deleting persondata as a sign that the transfer was completed and that someone has checked. Simply deleting it without checking defeats that effort. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, in some cases there was little if any info within the persondata parameters. I did not see any cases in which, unless there was no infobox to begin with (and some fields do not have infoboxes and there are messages advising against creating them), the info in the persondata was either already present in the infobox or added by me to the article text. If I made any mistakes in that regard, please give me the article names and I will fix them. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So, are we cool? You claim that "in several dozen cases within the last 24 hours, you have deleted persondata without making any attempt to transfer name variants or places of birth and death that were included in persondata" but this is, with all due respect, inaccurate and not the case. Out of long habit, long preceding the deprecation of the persondata, I have verified or tried to verify (depending on available info, both on and offwiki) that any info in the persondata section was also present in the article and/or infobox. Usually it was already there but sometimes I added or tweaked or corrected for consistency and accuracy. Unsourced or unconfirmable data is tagged and/or rv. So in the event I did make any egregious or sloppy mistakes indicative of laziness or lack of effort please let me know (with a diff or two) so that I can lay off and improve. I am only asking because now I am getting pinged by third parties regarding this issue. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: With respect, RMS, you're missing the point. Persondata and Wikidata are metadata, not article text. Whether the items of persondata are also present in the article text or infobox is not the point; the question is whether those items have already been transferred to Wikidata, our new metadata system that is replacing persondata. In many instances, the persondata items have already been transferred; in other instances, some of those items have not been transferred from persondata to Wikidata. In many instances, name variants (i.e., full names, maiden names, married names, nicknames) have not been transferred, and in others, even basic information like birth and death dates and places of birth and death have not been transferred to Wikidata. Checking to see if they're included in the text or infobox does not perform the manual comparison between the persondata and Wikidata. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought this thread resolved it. But I will leave off until you fix whatever you need to. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they are still arguing about the timing of deleting persondata. That's the point of that and another related thread: there remains accurate and useful persondata to be transferred to Wikidata. Apparently, what remains must be transferred manually, and knowing what remains which can or should be transferred requires a manual comparison. The editors who wanted to immediately delete persondata have backed off to permit others to perform manual transfers of remaining persondata to Wikidata. Since early June, I've manually transferred persondata items from 500+ articles on my watch list to Wikidata, all of which had accurate and well-maintained persondata. Fewer than half had 100% complete transfer of relevant persondata to Wikidata. Personally, I still have another 2500+ bio articles on my watch lists for which I will compare and transfer elements of persondata to Wikidata. That's why the deletion-by-bot request has been delayed. If it were simply about deleting the persondata from a million-plus bio articles, the bot could do that in less than a week, with zero work/deletions by individual editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"The editors who wanted to immediately delete persondata have backed off to permit others to perform manual transfers of remaining persondata to Wikidata." I didn't know until you alerted me and stopped at that point. Apologies. Maybe a message should be left here at this thread so everyone knows for sure. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Agreed. There needs to be a plan for transferring as much usable persondata as reasonably possible, and a clearing house talk page where editors can go or link for more information, instructions, etc. The bot request talk page discussion is a mess. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

J. Rex Farrior

Consider him on my "to-do" list. A great Gator with the notability and no article. Cake (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: Check out Rex Farrior and Rammy Ramsdell when you get a chance. Two Gator greats much associated with Tampa. Cake (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• @MisterCake: Yeah, I saw that several days ago -- well done. I meant to mention the Tampa law firm and Florida bar connections, but you apparently tracked those down on your own through one of the UF bios. FYI, the Farrior family remains very actively involved in university and athletic department affairs. Old man Farrior was president of the boosters association and a big contributor; J. Rex Farrior III is a long-time member of the board of directors of Gator Boosters, Inc. and a major contributor [2][3]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did know Farrior senior was a big booster seemingly forever – good to see they are still involved after junior died. Ramsdell "Rammy" Cone is a living descendant of the original Rammy. A name which would fit perfectly in the Golden Age. Cake (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DragoLink08

I can't remember how deeply you were enmeshed in the earlier sock puppet reports, but FYI anyhow - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragoLink08. JohnInDC (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• @JohnInDC: I was the prosecuting editor in several of the DragoLink SPI cases, and, if memory serves, so were Jrcla2 and Rikster2 at other times. I have noticed the recent edits by the new user in question, and I had been waiting for him to actually start doing something I considered to be disruptive. Most of the edits I have seen were actually bringing various pages into closer compliance with our college sports team color schemes. I have watch-listed the SPI discussion, and I will jump in if I can be of assistance. You also may want to ping Jweiss11, too, because he has a wider variety of CFB-related articles watch-listed than I do. Thanks for staying on top of this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit that triggered my review of his edits wasn't actually that bad but then I saw that he was beginning to accumulate concerns on his Talk page and figured, well, if editors who don't even know he's a sock are unhappy... Well, anyhow, thanks for the tip re @Jweiss11:, who may now consider himself pinged. JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tim McKee

The article Tim McKee you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tim McKee for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

List of college women's basketball coaches with 600 wins

Check out this color scheme. Hurts my eyes even to look at it. Is there a rule or guideline that cover such things? Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Yes, sir, that's pretty obnoxious. In addition to being a pretty egregious violation of good layout and design, as well as good taste, I'm pretty sure those color combinations violate one or more guidelines:

• WP:COLOR;
• Help:Using colours;
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Color; and
• WP:Link color.

That said, that's so damn ugly, I don't think you need to cite the guidelines. Make the changes to some more subtle colors and 15 to 20 percentage screens for the backgrounds, and most sensible editors will stand up and applaud. Let me know what you want to do; I will back your play, if your play is to introduce a more subtle color scheme along the lines of what we typically use for the lists of football and men's basketball coaches. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

CFB Standings

I know you are big on templates. I think somebody messed with the standings templates. See Template:2014 SEC football standings for an example. The title isn't center aligned anymore and I don't know if it is me but I think the team records are a little off as well.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay: This same problem was noticed on the medals templates this week, too. Apparently someone was tinkering with the underlying coding that impacts all templates. I'm not a template editor/coder, so I suggest we ping User:Alakzi, who is my go-to guy for fixing template problems, and have that discussion with him involved. If you can describe the issue, Alakzi almost always can fix it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a bug affecting (nearly) all non-{{Infobox}} infoboxes. On Tuesday, I asked for the infobox stylesheet to be adjusted to enforce the left justification of row labels in Internet Explorer version 9 and below. The administrator who handled my request instead opted to left-justify all infobox cells. It's now been three days, and I've been doing nothing but fixing infoboxes. There's been a complaint on WP:VPT and several other places. Alakzi (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: So, what's the best way to deal with this? Piecemeal, or wait for the global solution? Personally, I don't think the example cited by Bluejay is probably not the worst of all related problems. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath on a global solution. Alakzi (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes

replied to you on my talk page. Continue there if need be. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Elfi Schlegel

Please, undo your revert to my last edition. This is the pattern used in ALL of the biographies for gymnasts and you errouneously undid my correction. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• @ThiagoSimoes: If WikiProject Gymnastics is doing it this way, you're doing it differently from every other international medalist sport. The event is called the "World Cup," not the "World Cup Final." I suggest you take this issue to the WikiProject Gymnastics talk page where we can discuss this with other gymnastics editors and invite the participation of other knowledgeable sports editors who use Template:Medal and its variants on a regular basis. I'll wait for you to post on the WikiProject talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • • @Dirtlawyer1: The World Cup is a series of competitions staged at different countries through the year. Until 2008 there was one final event titled World Cup Final, in which the gymnasts who gathered enough points at the World Cup stages through the year were allowed to compete. This is the only event in the World Cup series which is considered prestigious enough to be mentioned in the medal record. The discussion has been taken both to Template:Medal and WikiProject Gymnastics, and according to consensus, medals won at World Cup stages are not added to the medal record, while medals won at the World Cup Final event are added to the medal record. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
      • They award medals at the World Cup stages? If that's the case, I understand the logic: FIG is medal-happy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
        • They do. Diego Hypólito, for example, has over 55 medals from World Cup stages in his career. In order to keep the medal record not unnecessarily lengthy, we agreed not to show the medals won at World Cup stages. Every now and then I have to go around and fix some biographies that fail to comply with this decision. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@ThiagoSimoes: Reverted per your explanation: clearly, the World Cup stages and final need to be distinguished if both are awarding medals. My apologies, and thanks for taking time to explain. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tim McKee

The article Tim McKee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tim McKee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your support at my RfA; it's greatly appreciated, and I shall do my utmost to live up to the trust which has been placed in me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Congratulations, well earned, sir. Good luck, and please don't break the wiki! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll try not to. There's probably a "throwing my weight around" joke in here somewhere, but damned if I can figure out where. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox redundancy, chapter 1473

Howdy, I wonder if you think it'd be sensible to merge with {{Infobox college sports rivalry}} with {{Infobox sports rivalry}}; the two appear to be largely redundant. Alakzi (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Hey. There are some differences. The college-specific box was created and modified as a result of a dispute over what parameters should be included, with at least one discussion at TfD a couple of years ago. I can't recall all of the details. Let me ping Jweiss11 (talk · contribs), review the TfD discussion on point, and I'll get back to you in a day or so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Can you take a look at this and refresh our collective memory why we have two sports rivalry infobox templates? Alakzi is extending us the pre-TfD courtesy notice and discussion we always ask for, and seldom get. Let's give the man an answer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Alakzi (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Alakzi: Yes. Because Maoist poets need their own infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, was there a TfD regarding these infoboxes in the past? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Here. Alakzi (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, so {{Infobox sports rivalry}} lacks "sport", "current_unbeaten_streak", and "trophy", as well as separate parameters for the first and last meeting's dates and results. The parameter names of the college sports infobox are clearly superior, and should be adopted by the generic infobox. See here for a side-by-side comparison of the two. Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: If we can agree to address the design issues raised, I will support the proposed merge. If you have any questions or suggestions regarding my comments, ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I replied there. Alakzi (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

See also my extremely popular proposal here when you've got time. Alakzi (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Yes, sir, I've got that talk page watch-listed. We definitely need to tighten the navbox criteria to reduce the number of "kitchen sink" navboxes, but I'm not sure the exact language proposed gets where we need to go. I need to think on it a bit, and see if I can come up with something that tightens the existing criteria, not just adds another criterion that requires subjective analysis and more argument. The real underlying problem is that we have a class of users who live to create navboxes on loosely related topics, and don't really have a grip on how to properly select related topics for inclusion. I've been thinking about this for a while. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was meaning to reply earlier, but I got caught in a whole lot of nonsense. Someone's probably gonna block me out of spite sooner or later. I should've known better than to argue with people in high places. Alakzi (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Blocked? Why? What's going on now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I committed the grave sin of reverting an {{Spa}} tag; the tagger consulted with an admin, who gave them the go-ahead to restore the tag, which I took issue with. Our disagreement unravelled on the admin's talk page, prompting this shockingly patronising response. Elsewhere, a kind-hearted individual accused me of being WP:NOTHERE. Alakzi (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Careful: don't piss them all off! LOL You should be as nice as you can to Frietjes, though; she's a good egg even if she is somewhat cryptic/oracle-like at times in her communication. MelanieN is good people, too. Can't speak for the other snipers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm about done wasting my time here. Alakzi (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance is very much appreciated, but I don't think there's any point in trying to reason with these people. If I'm to quote Stephen Colbert, it's like boxing a glacier. Alakzi (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: If you want the assistance of the sheriff, you can't tell the deputy to go fuck himself. Not sure why you got involved in this particular article -- because the subject is pretty unsavory -- but the article certainly does have more than its share of BLP, NPOV, RS and V problems. If you still care about it, it would be helpful if you started providing links to online reliable sources in answer to the four questions I raised on the article talk page. If you want to "win" these kinds of fights, you have to document your case -- I found a series of articles in the English-language Sofia Globe starting with one that was footnoted in your last version of the article. There appear to be multiple Globe articles that address his present whereabouts, the status of the Italian and Bulgarian criminal convictions, as well as the Romanian criminal indictment. Having these and other reliable sources lined up for other editors from BLPN (and for inquiring administrators) to see on the talk page will greatly influence the direction this article takes. So far, it's been you and the SPA arguing with no substantive input from objective parties: make your case on the talk page with linked sources, and watch the direction of the discussion change. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, so far as I can remember, being an admin is voluntary. Perhaps if they started treating it as a responsibility to uphold a certain standard, we'd not be having this conversation in the first place. I shouldn't need to pinpoint the shortcomings of the article to an admin - or to four of them, as it were. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

The section to which you made some very useful contributions currently ends with the unanswered question: "Dirtlawyer1, in your comment above are you referring to the nationality shown in the infobox or do you agree that this should always be the legal nationality, which in the UK is 'British'." (Martin Hogbin, June 4th). In the middle of this month there were 4 edits (3 from US IPs) to remove "Scottish" from the infobox at James Clerk Maxwell, all reverted, after which a temporary protection was applied. Since the protection expired, there have been, in the past 4 days, 6 removals (5 from US IPs) of "Scottish" . Despite several requests, none of these editors has chosen to engage in discussion. I do not know what will happen next, but it may be helpful for you to respond to Martin Hogbin's question. Thank you FF-UK (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell is currently under temporary protection again, however it does not reduce the need to resolve the issue of the various UK nationalities. I am sure that your helpful re-engagement and advice would be appreciated. FF-UK (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@FF-UK: I'll drop by the linked talk page soon. I'd like to think I'm a voice of reason and moderation, but between a goodly number of Scottish nationalists and a vocal minority of British ultras, it's hard to strike the necessary balance of recognizing post-1700 biography subjects as both British and English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish and making it stick. It's another example of determined "advocates" taking Wikipedia in a direction different than the path of reliable sources and reality. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Per your request above, I have elaborated on my original UK nationality/citizenship comments with several alternative suggestions how this ongoing controversy might be resolved to the reasonable satisfaction of most concerned editors. Please let me know what you think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I think you have made a very appropriate summation. FF-UK (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Rivalry" article that should be deleted

The Louisiana Tech–Louisiana–Monroe football rivalry should be deleted. It does not meet Wikipedia:NRIVALRY nor WP:GNG. This series was never considered a rivalry by Louisiana Tech even though Louisiana-Monroe fans wished it was a rivalry. I removed one section of that article that was based on false speculation. The only other sections are an unsuccessful "attempted renewal" of the series and then the results of the series. There is no significant coverage nor independent reliable sources for this series, much less a "rivalry." Thank you for your help in cleaning up these non-rivalries! -AllisonFoley (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@AllisonFoley: Hey, Allison, please accept my apologies for taking several days to respond to your query above. I agree that the Tech–Monroe series does not rise to the level of notable college football rivalry as that has been decided pursuant to past AfD precedents, and I will add it to my list of marginal "rivalries" to be discussed at future AfDs in the near future. In the mean time, it would be helpful if you would explain your perspective to the article creator, User:Ejgreen, who has created a number of CFB rivalry articles. An AfD would be considerably easier if the article creator agreed in advance to merge relevant rivalry content to the two parent team articles. Please consider. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

World Cup

Unfortunately it was not to be - what a way to go out as well... GiantSnowman 11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: Cheering for the English national football teams has become a bit like being a Chicago Cubs fan: a mix of tribal loyalty, irrational optimism, and unrelenting frustration. "Wait 'til 2018." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA1

Dirtlawyer1, you have not commented on this review since May 8, over eight weeks ago. Please return to the review as soon as possible so it can continue. If you are no longer able to pursue the review, please let us know there so a new reviewer can be found. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Sorry about the delay: there was initially a long period during which the principal editor was sourcing the article pursuant to my GA review comments to get it into the GA ballpark, and I have been diverted by other wiki-work since. I will be back on the case later this evening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, it has been another eleven days, and while you've been quite active on Wikipedia, this nomination continues to languish. Thank you for giving it your immediate attention, or relinquishing it if you're unable to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'm on it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of David Larson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article David Larson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of David Larson

The article David Larson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:David Larson for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of David Larson

The article David Larson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:David Larson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! I opened a discussion here to try to get an NPOV resolution. So add your arguments --Cs california (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of David Larson

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the ones you supplied are 258 for the original and a whopping 424 for ALT1. They will have to be edited or replaced with one or more shorter hooks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mandarax: I believe that I have pared the hook and alternate for David Larson to the bare minimum. The primary is currently 200 characters (including "that", punctuation and spacing), but the alternate is stuck at 216, including "that", punctuation and spaces. The "Ghost Busters" primary hook will be more familiar to readers, but, IMHO, the two world records in day alternate is actually more noteworthy. If you can pare the alternate without gutting it, or make a de minimis exception for it, I believe it is the better hook. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

How about abbreviating the first names of the other four swimmers? Alakzi (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Remember that these are hooks intended to entice people to go read the full article, so "more noteworthy" should not necessarily be that important a factor. I think the first hook is much more "hooky", and would likely result in more people clicking through to read your article. As for the ALT, again, it's a hook, not a mini-article, and it doesn't have to include everything which a reader can discover when they see the whole article; I would omit the part about the other four swimmers entirely. But I'll leave that to you and whoever comes along to review it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mark Stockwell

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mark Stockwell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theresa Andrews

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theresa Andrews you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theresa Andrews

The article Theresa Andrews you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theresa Andrews for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mike Heath (swimmer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mike Heath (swimmer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tim McKee

Hello! Your submission of Tim McKee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Rob^Talk 11:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mark Stockwell

The article Mark Stockwell you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mark Stockwell for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mark Stockwell

The article Mark Stockwell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mark Stockwell for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Harassing Swarm"

Is this intended for me? Alakzi (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and everyone else involved. It's also intended to give Swarm some space to back away from this in a dignified manner, which he clearly wants to do. My comment is further intended to be a not-very-subtle warning to anyone who would attempt to re-insert more of the muddy-the-waters bullshit that has been deleted from the article in the last two days. I don't know if you saw [[4]], but it may be reasonably assumed that someone wants no article at all if it cannot be written in a manner that paints the subject in a positive light. I am determined the article will follow the substance of the independent reliable sources that are readily available online, and I can be a pitbull when needed. If the situation requires admin action in the future, please let me handle it. I do not want to see you get blocked or make long-term enemies; you have clearly become emotionally involved in this, and that leads to tactical mistakes that will get you in trouble. I (and many others) need you too much for other things. I have laid down markers on the article talk page, BLPN, ANI and elsewhere, and I am leaving a popcorn trail for others to follow if future admin action is required. You got me involved; presumably you were hoping for assistance along these lines. Now, go be non-controversial for a few days, ya trouble-maker. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could've found a way to extend your moral support to Swarm which did not entail accusing me of harassment of a career administrator. All I've said is that he's incompetent at being an admin; in response, I've been called a tendentious and unstable troglodyte, been compared to Hitler, and been told to f... <fill in the blank> his talk page. Granted, I could've approached this more constructively at WP:ANI, but it would've been insincere of me to retract the accusation - an accusation which I did substantiate. It's not like nobody's been offensive to me before, but I thought it more constructive to look into the substance of their complaint. Perhaps Swarm could've done the same. Anyway, I'm not going to fret over it. Your assistance is - of course - greatly appreciated. Alakzi (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The dumbest thing we've done in my 6+ years on Wikipedia is to effectively gut WP:CIVIL by de facto sanctioning the use of the f-word and other profanity in talk page discussions, such as you linked above, which would get an employee fired in most white-collar work environments. Then we create task forces and the WM foundation spends time, money and effort trying to recruit quality female editors like Opabinia and MelanieN, and we wonder why women aren't lined up for such online vulgar abuse. We don't need special treatment for women, but we do need to treat everyone with common courtesy, even when they seem incapable of responding in-kind. We all get worked up at times, but it's important to keep in mind why we're here -- and it's not to rub other folks' noses in situations we believe they could have handled better. When the environment is courteous and the editors are relatively friendly, even when they disagree, compromise is easier and assistance is often more forthcoming. You would do well to apologize to Swarm for your heated comments in a day or two and leave it at that, with no expectation of him reciprocating. Be the bigger man, and remember -- others are watching. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the substance of this but disagree about the profanity thing. We're cool with things like this and this but worry about swear words? The fact that arbitrators apparently have plenty of time to come down like a sack of hammers on someone with a fondness for Anglo-Saxonisms who made a grumpy post about a WMF grant, but are a month late deciding a case involving actual sexual harassment, is a complete embarrassment.

But I am probably not a good example. For better or worse, scientists are not very good at the white collar professionalism thing. I don't know what any of us would do without the office liquor cabinet. Well, I guess we'd probably swear more. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you've not been missing round two. The editor who initiated the HRC → HC move has asserted that there is no consensus to change her name in the infobox. Must've been quite the consensus last time. Alakzi (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd been intentionally avoiding that one and now you made me look! Argh, this is going to be a long election. Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment. I don't think that it is an issue with enforcement. You cannot force adults to act in a certain way; they might put on a facade, but cracks will begin to appear. Wikipedia contributors come from many different backgrounds and have got their own unique circumstances. We don't need language policing; what we need is a little understanding. When people try to understand one another, they will voluntarily stop behaving rudely. And I've failed at it more than once; I've got a short fuse and a pathological aversion to authority. Guilty as charged, indeed. Alakzi (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A: Common courtesy, civility, good manners and kindness are all "facades" of a sort -- but they are the grease of human civilization that enable us to organize, interact and cooperate even when we do not see the world and its inhabitants with 100% agreement. Rarely has one human being gained the cooperation of another through insults or badgering. Insults often cause the target to respond in kind, and badgering usually results in the target digging in his or her heels. Try a little honey.

OR: I am no one's idea of a prude; in my undergraduate days and early career, I was well known for my "colorful" speech, including a remarkable command of vernacular Anglo-Saxon and Middle English, even to the point of being teased by political consultants and reporters who I barely knew. It's not about the use of swear words per se; it's the calculated use of profanity with the intent to cause offense, or knowing full well that their use will cause others to be offended. A certain measure of professionalism should be expected. Even for wildly profane female scientists such as yourself, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnut you don't cut loose with a Tourette's syndrome blue streak when you're interviewing for academic tenure or a National Science Foundation research grant. I am constantly surprised by how much intentional rudeness we tolerate on Wikipedia, given the obviously corrosive effect that it has on productivity. (And kidding aside, I cannot recall you even using a mild profanity in talk page discussions.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but is posting a talk page comment more like a formal interview, or a meeting with coworkers at the job you already have, or an after-work happy hour with the subset of people with the time and interest to show up?

I agree that we seem to tolerate a lot of rude, hurtful, abrasive, and selfish behavior and could benefit from a little more kindness and generosity when dealing with difficult people; I just think things like profanities are a distraction. Once you've invoked Hitler and troglodytes, does the next word matter much? And I'd much rather someone swear at me than deliver a WP:OMGWTFBBQ alphabet-soup dump of smug officiousness. If I've really never used, rather than merely mentioned, a profanity on a talk page, I am retroactively impressed with my own restraint!

As for aversion to authority, can't argue with that one ;) Some people here seem to have a very "respect mah authoritah!" attitude that's really incongruous with volunteering for a crowdsourced free content project. Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of David Larson

Hello! Your submission of David Larson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Evelin Banev - Help please

Dear Dirtlawyer1, Please help with the Evelin Banev page - user Alakzi clearly is following an agenda in presenting once-sided story about the subject. In the WP:BLPN, I commented on the "fugitive" descriptor, on the cases in Italy and Romania, and in clearly downplaying the kidnapping of a 10-year to a "personal life" section - but instead of commenting in the noticeboard, Alakzi is engaging in an editing war. Please advice how to get objective ADMIN to review?ThanksDiscSquare (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• @DiscSquare: If you believe you (or the subject) are receiving unfair treatment at the Evelin Banev article, please post links to the Bulgarian language news articles you would like to use on the article talk page, and I will run their text through Google translate, and see if there is anything usable. Please note: I will only support the use of reliable sources per WP:RS, and that excludes most sources associated with the subject, blogs, opinion pieces, etc. I also note that when I translated one of your Bulgarian sources this morning, it was immediately apparent that you either (a) misunderstood the comments of the Italian judge regarding the evidence presented, or (b) mischaracterized them. Is English your first language? Bulgarian? If neither of those, what is your primary language? Also, I would be happy to get third-party editors involved who are fluent in Bulgarian to evaluate the content and reliability of Bulgarian-language news articles regarding Banev's criminal convictions, indictments and various extradition proceedings. As best I can tell from online English-language news sources (including Bulgarian news sources such as The Sofia Globe and Novinite.com), the last version by Alakzi fairly presented the present status of Banev's convictions in Italy and Bulgaria. Moreover, I am extremely skeptical of the conspiracy theories you have inserted into the kidnapping section of the article, and I will be critically reviewing the sources for reliability as well as their translations into English. I am not here to play any sort of game, and I am only interested in getting 100% factual article based on reliable media news articles. You would do well to review WP:RS, and ask questions regarding anything you do not understand. Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to accept sources whose reliability cannot be determined, nor translations whose accuracy is suspect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mike Heath (swimmer)

The article Mike Heath (swimmer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mike Heath (swimmer) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mike Heath (swimmer)

The article Mike Heath (swimmer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mike Heath (swimmer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for David Larson

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about a navbox

Hey Dirtlawyer! I've been dealing with this user, and now Bagumba, is dealing with him. I was wondering if the groupstyle of the Template:Seattle Seahawks is a contrast issue? I believe it is as the blue and gray don't go well together. I believe this version is a better one. Thoughts? Corkythehornetfan 00:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Corky. I don't believe the accessibility and color contrast guidelines apply to non-text graphics. The principle concern is the contrast between text and any background, so that the text is plainly legible for all readers. When you have you white text reversed out of a dark blue background, that's dangerously close to the maximum possible contrast. Am I missing something here? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait . . . were you talking about the dark blue text on the dark-ish silver/grey background in the interior of the navbox? Yes, that is a potential text-contrast issues impacting accessibility. Have you run the colors through one of the online contrast checks? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a contrast checker: [5]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes... sorry should've said that instead of the groupstyle! Yep... I was checking this tool before you responded! It indicates "sort of..." for the blue on gray. It is sort of legible when it isn't bolded, but isn't when bolded. The white of grey will not work either, so it looks like the best version would be the all blue background with white font. Thanks for your quick response! Corkythehornetfan 00:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I count six obfuscated wikilinks in that version. It would be best if the sports wikiprojects would stop tinkering with the style of navboxes. Alakzi (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry re Olympic medal

I am currently trying to purchase a 1976 Canadian Olympic bronze medal from someone who listed it for sale. I was hoping you may be able to help me find its rightful owner. I'm sure they would want it to remain in their family so I'm just trying to pay it forward. If there is any way you may be able to contact someone to find out who may be missing their medal I would love to give it back. My cell is xxx-xxx-xxxx. I'm in Waterloo Ontario — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.167.55 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Stockwell

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Literary Hall

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawer1, given that the BLP rules were put in place to protect those about whom Wikis are created -- in addition to providing the correct information for all consumers of Wikipedia -- it would seem that verifying information from the most reliable source about a birthplace, i.e. the person him/herself, would be the correct way to go. The reliable source you sent me in your message (http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/mi/betsy-mitchell-1.html ) is factually incorrect about both Besty Mitchell's birthplace and her legal name. I would hope that my changes, which are all correct, will not be needlessly reverted because someone, somewhere is assuming I don't know the rules. Why not try to verify the information rather than changing it back to something that is incorrect, or omitting something that is true and likely easy to verify? I appreciate you letting me know, and I'd love some help in finding a source I can cite to verify what you say is in need of further verification -- but unfortunately, the only citation you shared with me is actually incorrect so I'm not sure what to do next. Please advise. Your expertise here is greatly appreciated!