User talk:Dirtlawyer1

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

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

To my talk archives

J. Rex Farrior[edit]

Consider him on my "to-do" list. A great Gator with the notability and no article. Cake (talk) 14:44, 20 June 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 [1][2]. 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)

Infobox redundancy, chapter 1473[edit]

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)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

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)
I see that you've just posted that you're "on it" to the nomination page; it's good to see that you've started work. Your other in-progress GA review, Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1, has been fallow for over two months—it's the third oldest extant review, as compared to the football one, which is the oldest by over a month—so I hope you'll resume work on that as soon as you've made progress on the elder of the two. (If you'd rather, I can put this second one back into the reviewing pool, since you seem to have a great deal on your plate.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of David Larson[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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[edit]

The article David Larson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

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[edit]

The article David Larson you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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[edit]

The article Theresa Andrews you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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)[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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! ~ RobTalk 11:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mark Stockwell[edit]

The article Mark Stockwell you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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[edit]

The article Mark Stockwell you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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"[edit]

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 [[3]], 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[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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[edit]

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)[edit]

The article Mike Heath (swimmer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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)[edit]

The article Mike Heath (swimmer) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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[edit]

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

Question about a navbox[edit]

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: [4]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Betsy Mitchell: full name, birth place, etc.[edit]

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! Mkingsense (talk)

  • @Mkingsense: The subject's full name is "Faith Elizabeth Mitchell" per the 1986 Cactus yearbook for the University of Texas, the 1984 University of North Carolina graduation program which listed the full names of 1983-84 Tar Heel "monogram recipients" (i.e. varsity letter winners), and a 1989 NCAA news article that listed her as an outstanding student-athlete and graduate. That part of her full name is "Elizabeth" (as opposed to the nickname "Betsy") is confirmed by Sports-Reference.com, which uses International Olympic Committee (IOC) records as its primary reference; the source for the IOC is information provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee and the athlete herself.
Here are some of the relevant sources I found online:
1. Historical Dictionary of Competitive Swimming;
2. Sports-Reference.com;
3. 1988 Cactus, University of Texas yearbook;
4. 1986 Cactus, University of Texas yearbook;
5. Annual Commencement, 1984 University of North Carolina graduation program; and
6. The NCAA News, 1989 in-house NCAA newspaper article about student-athletes honors.
Please note that I have intentionally disregarded the many "mirror" sites that use the current or previous versions of the Wikipedia article text. All of the sources above are either independent sources or contemporary sources or both. In my personal experience in editing over 600 U.S. Olympic swimmer biography articles, Sports-Reference.com, the IOC, the USOC and USA Swimming -- and even the athletes themselves -- routinely confuse birth place and hometown, often as a result of ambiguously worded questions in personal information forms completed by the athletes. Recognizing this commonly occurring confusion over birth place vs. home town, and not waiting for your response, I sent Ms. Mitchell a personal email at her Cal Tech email address, asking her to confirm her actual birth place (as opposed to her home town). Hopefully, she will respond. Just from tracking her age-group swimmer career through online searches, it is apparent that she spent most of her childhood in Ohio, and at the time she attended UNC and UT, claimed Marietta, Ohio as her home town. I would be curious to hear what source you found which indicated Fort Lauderdale was her birth place; while it remains possible, I found nothing in my internet searches to support any personal or family connection to South Florida. Until I have something more definitive regarding her birth place, I have used a hidden text note to hide her birth place in the article's infobox.
Also, please don't forget to sign your talk page messages with the four-tilde (~~~~) code that automatically inserts your full user signature and message time stamp. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Theresa Andrews[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello from Melbourne[edit]

Hello..Are you a earthling.

30-day deadline notice[edit]

Please see WP:MMS about delivering a talk-page notice, as you have suggested. Alakzi (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Alakzi: Are you suggesting that we notify individual article editors via MMS? So far, I've only proposed that we place the 30-day notice on the talk pages of the affected articles. I've never used MMS, but I assume there would an extra level of work or two to identify recent editors of the articles and then notify them on their user talk pages. That said, if someone wants to go the extra mile to provide notice to individual editors, I certainly would not object. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The MassMessage extension can be used to send messages to any page, not just user talk pages. I was suggesting that we post a notice on the talk page of the affected articles. Alakzi (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Works for me, chief. I may learn a new trick or two in the process. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
        • You could ask for the right from Mr. Stradivarius or MSGJ, and I'll help you with compiling the list. Cheers. Alakzi (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Is this person notable? In looking through the history, it appears that, at the very least, there are definitely some WP:AUTO issues going on here. Thoughts? Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Ejgreen77: EJ, it certainly reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article, with plenty of self-indulgent details that no serious bio writer would include. That said, you know the test: significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Having read the article, but without having critically reviewed the footnoted sources, I am skeptical. I'll try to spend some time reviewing the sources later today, and let you know what I find.
BTW, what's your interest in this article? Is this something you just stumbled across randomly? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. This person's real "claim to fame," so to speak, is basically for being an attention-seeking Internet troll (which shouldn't equate to Wiki-notability, IMHO, but, maybe that's just me). If you see anything in Wikipedia articles about Buffalo, NY, the University at Buffalo, or the old AFL that includes a "reference" to one of his personal websites/attack pages (like this), I can practically guarantee you it was added by him. I've had some, um, rather unpleasant interactions with this person on other websites (not this one), so I can't get involved with the article in question, but I do want to get a neutral, third-party set of eyes on it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It does read as if the text was written by the subject or a family member. That said, we still need to go through the AfD notability/suitability drill for a stand-alone article. Like I said, I'm skeptical, given the present text, but it would not be the first poorly written article that survives a notability analysis after the available independent sources are reviewed. I'm happy to provide that "neutral" review, and you know I'm more of a stickler for GNG than many of our CFB brethren. I'll ping you after I've had a look-see. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, DL. Like I said, I really just want to get a neutral set of eyes on it, and, at the very least, hopefully trim some of the nonsense & hot air rhetoric out of it. It'll probably be added back in later (he seems to have multiple IP's at his disposal), but, hey, at least we'll be able to tell ourselves that we tried to do something about it! Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ejgreen77, is probably worth bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League and have the folks there take a closer look at the Coniglio article. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League, but that project is inactive. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction_ban_between_Alakzi_and_AlexTheWhovian[edit]

@Drmies, AussieLegend, and Alakzi: No more scab-picking on my talk page. Can I be any clearer? I should have removed Dr. Mies' comment in the first instance; the response was inevitable. Everyone agrees this needs to be resolved. Please focus. Sniping only delays resolution. Thank you, all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate mediation attempts[edit]

Mediation is a thankless task sometimes as it can get you pushed on hard by both sides of a dispute. I appreciate your efforts. It is unfortunate that some participants seem to have other goals than improving the template and articles using it. It appears even attempts to get things back on track are being opposed. Oh well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Ahhh, it's okay. Mr. Stradivarius will probably call a consensus close on the proposed resolution soon, and then we need to focus on implementation. Frietjes has made a bot request to gather information regarding compliance, and Alakzi can handle the mechanics of the notice message. We do need you and the WP:TV folks to prepare a draft notice message and compliance/color selection instructions. Now, if I can just curb the non-pertinent down-the-bunny-hole rhetorical digressions, all will be well. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Stalled GA Reviews[edit]

Dirtlawyer1, your Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA1 review is now 133 days old—the oldest ongoing review by nearly two months—and despite assertions on July 6, July 17, and July 24 that you would "be back on the case" that day, were "on it", and were "working on comments now", you have not posted any new review material to the review page since May 8. This is most unfair to the nominator, and even more so when you consider it was first nominated nearly ten months ago.

We have an ongoing GA Cup contest at the moment, and reviewers have an incentive for taking on the oldest of the reviews. With the next round starting later this week, this particular nomination would be selected for review in very short order, if it were made available. The same is true of Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1, which has been under review for 72 days, has not been posted to since May 20, and would be in the top ten oldest unreviewed nominations if it were made available to other reviewers.

Wikipedia runs on volunteers, and we all have our own priorities. Yours seem to be for work in areas of Wikipedia other than GAN. You have made well over a thousand edits since I first asked three weeks ago whether you would continue the older review or give it over to other hands, and none of those edits have continued the review. Indeed, over 150 have been made since the July 24 query on the review page.

As it says on the Good Article instructions page in the Reviewing section (Step 2), Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. This commitment has not been met on either of these reviews. I am asking you to give them over now or make significant progress on at least the older review page in the next couple of days. If you do neither before Friday, I will put them both back into the reviewing pool so they available to other reviewers, including those participating in the GA Cup. —BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox NFL player color question[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you could add the bordered NFL team colors to the template? For example, Robert Griffin III's (and all other Redskin players, etc) would have the gold border in the infobox, like it shows on the roster navbox. I tried to do it in the past myself, but got confused and gave up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your response to my edit to UF Libraries[edit]

Dirtlawyer1,

I am forwarding your email to Barbara Hood, Communications Director for UF Libraries.

  • Thank you. Please let Barbara know that I am ready, willing and able to help, including explaining the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which may seem somewhat arcane to new editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata[edit]

Yes, the sports should be disambiguated just as they are on Wikipedia. 'Football' is far too vague and there is no clear primary topic. GiantSnowman 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I would be grateful if you would handle this -- it's less likely to be perceived as "hostile" if the correction is made by someone associated with WP:FOOTY. The Wikidata subject profile is here [5], and the profile talk page is here [6]. I've already started a discussion on the profile talk page. FYI, the primary English language label was "association football" as recently as April 2015. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. GiantSnowman 17:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)