User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2013/June

Question

Hi, Dirtlawyer. I've recently started the College softball task force, working to help expand Wikipedia's college softball coverage. One of the articles we are looking for is a Virginia Cavaliers softball article. I know your primary interest is in the Gators, but if I remember correctly, I believe I remember you had also said somewhere that you were also knowledgeable about the Virginia athletic teams, so I was wondering if you would be willing to consider adopting the Virginia page and writing a team article. Let me know if you're interested, and thanks. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, EJ. Yes, I do have an affiliation with UVa, too, and I would be willing to create the UVa softball article -- as long as it does not need to be done urgently. I've got two or three WP commitments and a busy time at work through the next ten days or so. After that, I should have a free weekend to fulfill some WP promises, including starting a softball team for the Lady Cavs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirtlawyer. No, there's no rush at all, so you can work on it whenever you can. Thanks again, Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd

Greetings!

Seeing that you're a member of WikiProject University of Florida, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Vincent. I now live and work in Atlanta full-time, and I typically only get back to Gainesville once or twice a year. Please keep me on you list, however; if any of your Gainesville area events correspond to my future travel schedule or free time, I would be happy to attend. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Owe votes"

While we're on the topic of owing votes, I believe there are some music discussions... pbp 14:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PBP, here's the problem: I'm not sold on the idea of adding articles regarding national bodies of music to the VA/E list. The United States, for example, is already well represented by individual musicians, composers, performers, and works. Where I am considering such national bodies of music is, for example, Music of China, whose individual artists and works are under-represented on the list and adding the broad parent article may be appropriate. On the other hand, adding two or three such articles regarding national bodies of music then becomes a precedent for adding bunches more at a time when our first priority should be cutting, not expanding virtually every sublist. Perhaps you could help talk me through this by sharing your thinking on point?

My thinking boils down to this: it seems as though we're missing a level here. Music of the United States/Germany/China/any region or country is bound to be a more general topic than a specific work or artist. These articles are likely to mention the important guys like Bach or Elvis, but also lesser-known aspects, as well as providing the big picture to contextualize the artists. For all but the most seminal of artists (I.E. the musicians that were on WP:VA before certain ill-conceived additions), the national music is more overarching than the artist pbp 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there other topics and/or subject areas you feel I have neglected? I am trying to work my way through all pending discussions systematically, but some topics require background reading and some real thought before !voting. If you have specific priorities, let me know. Personally, I'd like to wrap up the remaining constellation discussions and close the thread for that subject area. the Journalists list has a bunch of pending discussions, too. We've got harder, more involved discussions coming in specialist areas that are going to require more new participants and more careful consideration on the part of the VA/E regulars (Dancers, Biology, Physical sciences, and Mathematics all come immediately to mind.) And, of course, we need to keep chewing on the pop culture lists to get those numbers down. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We've got a wave of things started on May 19 that I'll close. As for the journalists, there are a number of them that have 3-4 support votes, and we're waiting for the last 1-2 (yes, I'm well aware that Tom Brokaw has four supports and I could be the fifth, but Brokaw remaining on there doesn't tie my briefs in knots like Whitney Houston or some of the other journalists does/did). pbp 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• As to your removed articles quandary, I have updated the removed articles list to reflect biography removals from the past 12 months. I will update the other sections within the next few days pbp 04:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montori Hughes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derek Dooley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Domonique Foxworth and NFLPA leadership navbox

Hi there, Dirtlawyer1, I've just replied to your comment at Talk:Domonique Foxworth. I look forward to seeing your changes, and I love the navbox idea. Let's talk more soon! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I've put together proposed navboxes based on the information in the NFLPA article, and have posted them in my userspace here:

• User:WWB_Too/NFLPAExecutiveDirector
• User:WWB_Too/NFLPAPresident

Let me know what you think, and if you're interested in moving these into the relevant articles (linked in each navbox, of course) that would be awesome. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, WWB. I tweaked the formatting of the navboxes to make them consistent with that for NFL head coaches and other NFL personnel. For the NFLPA presidents, in particular, there is now a clean succession before and after the AFL/NFL merger, with the AFLPA presidents under a separate subheader. I have move both of them "live" to template space, and have started to add them to the relevant bio articles. I should finish with that this evening.

I have also taken an initial pass at the Foxworth article. It's a mess of a dog's breakfast, and needs all sorts of work. In addition to adding a new post-playing career section about his NFLPA work, it currently lacks anything of substance about his being born and raised in England, his family, their move to the United States, his introduction to American football, high school and early football, his college career highlights (did he leave for the draft early?), and some relevant stats and other substance for his NFL career. I think it would be appropriate to include two to three sentences regarding his relatively short time as NFLPA president, but there should also be some discussion of his wife and children, if any, as well as some follow-up regarding his return to NC State (presumably to complete his degree). If you have time to find reliable source links for these topics, it would accelerate my clean-up of the article; having the references at hand to incorporate is more than half the battle, and leads to a better, more stable article that random users are less likely to vandalize.

I'll keep chewing on it. It looks like a lot of the articles of most of the previous NFLPA presidents could use some serious clean-up, too. How much time do you have for research, my friend? Cheers! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dirt! I saw you made some changes last night, and it's starting to look better. You are correct, the article is a mess, all right. I hadn't planned to spend a whole lot more time with it, but now that you mention it, the personal and player bio info really should be covered. Research is definitely a thing I have time for, so I could provide sources and you could write, or I could do both and you could review and edit. I would be all about improving other NFLPA leadership bios after this one, and since I work with NFLPA's comms team, they could help me track down coverage or details we might not know to look for. I'll start by looking into Foxworth profiles to see how we can fill in his background, and let me know how you want to proceed. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

WWB, the easiest way for me to write improved text quickly is for you or the NFLPA staff to provide weblinks to various online sources, especially independent, reliable sources from current online newspapers, old newspaper articles from Google News Archive, official organization website profiles. I know where to find all of the usual suspects like All-American and CFB awards lists, Pro-Football-Reference.com, NFL.com, etc. If someone finds hard-copy references, the relevant portions can be copied and emailed to me by PDF attachment. We can work it out as we go with the first article for Foxworth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. I have plans to work on these subjects through most of the year at least, so I'll start looking for sources on Foxworth as mentioned above, and let's see what we can do. I'm guessing my contacts at NFLPA are most interested in current-ish topics (leadership and otherwise; I'd like to work on improving 2012 NFL referee lockout soon, as well; not to mention it will be easier to find sources on more recent topics). As an NFL fan, besides my affiliation with NFLPA, I'm really excited to help improve these articles. I'll be in touch soon, and feel free to ask me any questions on related subjects! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 07:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dirt, just wanted to let you know that I've finally had a chance to compile some sources that you can use to improve the Domonique Foxworth article, per our previous discussion. I've posted them over at Talk:Domonique Foxworth. Sorry for the delay here, but hopefully these sources will help you flesh out Foxworth's article. Let me know if you need help with anything else here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Frank Dempsey

Frank Dempsey obit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

GA

I put the César Cielo and Thiago Pereira articles for GA. Could you help me, and check if the articles fit, like you told me up there in the "Hi" topic? Rauzaruku (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08 / USF

I received an email from USF saying that USF's Student Judicial Services finally met with the student identified by the network guys over there. The student has assured them he will "cease his disruptive update activities" and my contact has asked that we notify him if we see edits that appear to be coming from the same individual. I've noticed one account (Biggerandbetterthings) that is a possibility but I haven't had a chance to sit down and do a real comparison. If you see anything, let me know and I'll pass it along. --auburnpilot talk 17:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, AP. Glad to hear that the USF computer services guys jumped on this, even if the student judicial services gave him a conduct warning. Hopefully, the warning combined with the potential for further action will be enough to deter him from being a nuisance again. I've also been watching the new account Biggerandbetterthings for the last couple of weeks, too, and I will continue to do so. The minute Drago's newest sock returns to making hex color and other template changes, etc., I will jump on it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Will we be seeing this turn blue?

Hey Dirtlawyer, hard to believe it's been four months since it. I just want you to know I would still wholeheartedly support. Go Phightins! 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Phightins, I thank you for your moral support. It's nice to know that someone still thinks I'm worthy in the aftermath of my RfA, but it will be a while before I'm ready to do it again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: Number

How about an update on the number of vital articles, to know how is the process now? I would like to know how many are for now. Otherwise, I would like to cancel a swap between Socrates and Paulo Roberto Falcao, and do a swap bewteen Socrates and Garrincha, to put Garricha who is much more important. Need to cancel the old ones? Rauzaruku (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaraku, check with Purplebackpack and Carlwev to do a current count. PBP and Carl have been doing periodic updates, but we really should be keeping a running count with every addition, deletion and swap.

Rather than cancelling the pending discussions, I would find another lower priority, less "vital" athlete. There are plenty of them.

BTW, thank you for your recent participation in VA/E topic discussions. Yours has been a needed South American perspective. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Re Gerhart

Added source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toby_Gerhart&diff=559479266&oldid=559475069

Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles -- dance

The ballet dancers are all of high significance, as are the moderns, some of whom also work(ed) in ballet. -- Robert Greer (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert, among the 26 dancers listed, who are the least significant two or three, recognizing that at least one of them is going to be removed from the VA/E list? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem for me in that some of the people named would clearly fit Vital articles/Expanded/People not ass dancers but as choreographers, I see that music and film have separate composer/producer lists. If you are only going to have one dancers list it is unfortunate that it conflates performance and production categories. Rudolf von Laban I was aware of not as a dancer, along with Marius Petipa, Maurice Béjart, with Jerome Robbins (more notable as a (theater) producer than a dancer). I note Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly are listed as actors. Paul foord (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul, thank you for your response. We are not locked into the present breakdown of the sublists. If there is a good reason for it, we could create a sublist for choreographers. This is exactly the kind of feedback and insight we are looking for dance project members to provide. Obviously, there is also going to be overlap among certain kinds of performing artists, and as you have noted there is no easy solution to how the crossovers such as Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire should be classified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Before I knock one or two on the list, let me say no list should be without George Balanchine: "Arguably the single most influential figure in 20th century ballet, and widely regarded as the chief architect of classical ballet in the US" -- so says the Oxford Dictionary of dance. He was a principle dancer and a major choreographer, developing over 200 works, mainly for the New York City ballet.

It is very difficult to judge male dancers before Nijinsky. He changed our expectations of what could be expected. Before him, it has been said that male ballet dancers were only required to look good and, from time to time, hold the prima ballerina when she needed support...

I think you have to leave Marius Petipa in as "Arguably the most influential choreographer in the history of ballet"(!) Same source. Folllowing a comment above, the list has to cover more than just the act of dancing, for choreography is a hugely significant part of ballet (and other dance forms).

If names have to be cut, then Maria Tallchief, Frederick Ashton, Maurice Bejart, Gaetano Vestris would need a closer look. Their claims to a place are not quite so secure as the others.

Modern dancers: I certainly think Astaire should be listed as a dancer rather than an actor. And Gene Kelly. They would not be on the list at all were it not for their dancing. Less persuasive is Cyd Charisse. Strangely, considering the hundreds who danced on film, it is hard to think of a female dancer at the level of Astaire and Kelly. Also, Rudolf Laban and Arthur Mitchell might be reconsidered; their places are marginal. Judging in this field is even more difficult than judging classical ballet... Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. This kind of commentary and insight is exactly what I was hoping for. Anything you might wish to add would be welcome. I will read the referenced bios, and I will no doubt have additional questions for you later. I will be interested in hearing the further comments from your fellow dance project editors; if there is consensus among you, that would give us a strong basis on which to proceed with updating the VA/E sublist, and perhaps doing a break-out for choreographers. Alternatively, we could rename the existing sublist as "Dancers and choreographers." After further review, it might also make sense to move Astaire and Kelley to the dancers sublist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is what I'm hearing here is that it might not be a bad idea to not break down entertainers into actors, dancers and comedians? A couple weeks ago Carlvew pointed out that there are people like Betty White who are/were on the list who are both actors and comedians. Then there are people like Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse who were both actors and dancers. Plus the "hosts and performers" section of people we don't know what to do with exactly. Mac, would you support said proposal? pbp 20:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Various thoughts... There are very few people who perform at the very top in more than one category. Take Astaire as an example. As a dancer: world class; as a singer: very notable; as an actor: notable. Or Charles Darwin: as a scientist: historic, hugely important; as a writer: very notable; as an explorer: probably notable, but would you bother to mention it? My inclination is to use the top category for our classification. For some one could add a rider: classify Astaire as a dancer and add "(also singer, actor)" -- but that would spoil the nice neat layout of the list. Perhaps Nijinsky was as influential as a choreographer as he was as a dancer (because of his influence on modern dance), but still I'd put him under dancers. We may need an "entertainers" category for those who deserve it, yet are not well captured as "singers" or "actors". Suppose we wanted to list Josephine Baker. Where would we put her? [At present, we use "Entertainers" as a higher-level category, with names assigned to lower-level categories]. Maybe we should split "Performers" from "Hosts and performers". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, we've been known to make invisible notes on entries using <!--these-->. "Hosts and performers" at present consists of four hosts and two performers (Houdini and Marcel Marceau); Houdini had been in the magicians subcategory, but that subcategory (along with the two other magicians in it) was deleted awhile back. I'm not entirely sure hosts and performers are viable separately, but I get what you're saying about it being a holding area for people we couldn't find a place for elsewhere pbp 12:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been hesitating, wondering whether my thoughts would make your difficult job well-nigh impossible. Well, here goes... Our dance section only recognises the culturally elite categories of ballet and modern dance, when there are so many other types which might be included. Of course in, for the sake of example, flamenco and ballroom dance, our present biographies might not be up to much, but are we sure they (and many other forms of dance) are not included because of the usual elitist condescension? I notice too, that the few non-elite persons under modern dance are all American. This is a rather obvious characteristic of the wiki as a whole, but one needs to remember that dance is a real human fundamental, common (as far as we know) to all societies. On the other hand, I remember you are trying to cut the lists down rather than add more names... Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are trying to cut, but we are not opposed to swapping higher priority topics for lower priority ones, too. If that means we need to cut bios of specific dancers/choreographers in order to make room for broader categories of dance, we can and should do that if it improves the "vitality" of the VA/E list. This has become a common part of the process, and although other participants have proposed a dancer or two to be cut, I have avoided participating in these discussion until I receive more feedback from your band of dance editors. Please let me know what your specific thoughts are, Mac. It would be nice to have a strategy and targets for dance-related topics. What I don't want to see is the dance-related topics get decimated while other pop-culture topics are maintained. It becomes difficult to delete the bios of well-known pop music artists and actors, but I have been doing my best to force VA/E participants to prioritize and make difficult choices. With regard to dance and other "elite" performing arts, we really do need the participation of more specialized editors like yourself in order to make good decisions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK then, switching to "Dance" under Performing arts, I have comments as follows: I would definitely add Dance in India. I would also like to add the Mariinsky Ballet because that is IMO the best ballet company in the world at present (though not by much ahead of Bolshoi), and the Ballets Russes. The importance of this company to all forms of 'art dance' in the 20th C. just cannot be overstated.
Under "Theatre". I applaud the inclusion of Noh and Kabuki. There's really no reason to have stock character: that's too fine-grained a level to be "vital". I would definitely add Flamenco.
"Specific works"? This needs to be weeded, and new plants put in. No way is The Fantasticks vital. Instead, I'd like to reflect the importance of the Diaghilev era by suggesting the pivotal work The Firebird, the hinge between classical and modern ballet, and still danced frequently today. Has Stravinsky's first ballet score, so ought to get music nerds' votes as well... I would like to add Les Noces, of which the Oxford Dictionary of Dance says (correctly) "Without doubt one of the greatest works of the 20th century". It is still performed regularly, but maybe not well known to the wider public. If added, I will revise its page substantially, so readers will understand why it is so significant. That's all for now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

American vs. British

I have numerous technical books (programming and some math) written and published by Americans that use the British style of punctuation. The idea is simple, including a period or comma inside a quotation marks containing computer code will drastically change what happens when that code is executed. The same principle holds for math equations and the like. While these kinds of technical books are a small minority of the total output of published material they are significant in number. And I, a published American author, use the British style in my fiction. When I say "published" I do mean very small publishing houses, but whatever.

In any case, I'm not going to argue the inclusion of that phrase as it was badly written and largely unnecessary as the text does not strongly imply that the use of either style is a "rule" that just has to followed based on one's geographic location. SQGibbon (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered follow-up, SQ. While I readily acknowledge that British style/logical quotation is found with somewhat greater frequency in American programming and other technical publications than elsewhere, it is not the majority practice even within American scientific publishing niches. And, as I am sure you know from your personal publishing experiences, it is a very small minority practice in American newspaper, magazine, fiction, and other mainstream publishing. In the case of your own works, that is clearly a personal style choice of the author, and one I shall not contest! Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013

You're invited. Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 5. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Casares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reception (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for another NFLPA-related article

Hey Dirt, hope you're well! I've recently been working on another project at the behest of the NFLPA, this time to sort out what is happening with the NFLPA Game article. As you can see from the Talk page there, the article's a bit (OK, a lot) of a mess. After some discussion over at WP:NFL, though, I think we've sorted out what's happening, and I've posted my recommendations about how to handle things over at Talk:NFLPA Game. Any chance you might have time to take a look at my suggestions and weigh in? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert A. Bryan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert A. Bryan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Bryan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the head's up, Gamaliel. Please note that I have added new text and sourced footnotes to more firmly establish Bryan's notability per the general notability guidelines. I respectfully ask that you review your initial AfD reaction in light of these sources. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Erik Murphy

You missed your chance at making Erik Murphy's article prior to the 2013 NBA Draft! Ah, DL, I thought you had that one covered haha. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I've been b-b-busy with other Wikistuff, and Real Life has been intruding, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

If I could earn a living writing articles for Wikipedia I wouldn't work a day in my life. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC Logical Quotation vs. American Style

Added my two cents to the discussion. Thanks for letting me know. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was an issue in which you might be interested, given your grammarian bent and eye for detail. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)