User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2013/February

You've got mail!
Automatic Strikeout ( T  •  C ) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


 * Hi Dirtlawyer. My comments at your RfA might not have been the clearest, so let me expand on them a little. In my first diff you said "Prior to deletion, someone should double-check to confirm that all notable listees are included in the parent article." From this, I took it that you would be ok with merging any missing listees into the parent article and then deleting the page. However, if any of the listees were originally added at the daughter article, rather than the parent article, then deleting the page would break the attribution. In my second diff, you said that there was a "relatively trivial difference between a redirect and deletion at this point" after you had merged content from the nominated article into the proposed redirect target. However, I believe that if you had been aware of the licensing issues involved in deleting the attribution history of the merged content, then you wouldn't have seen deletion and redirection as equally worthwhile options. This is an important policy point to understand for admins involved in deletion, but I didn't think it was worth opposing over. That's because once you understand the principles involved, you understand them, and I have every reason to believe that if I pointed them out to you then you would understand them and bear them in mind in your deletion work. I hope this explains things a bit better, but please do ask if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

DragoLink08, 2nd edition
Could you perhaps give more input on the DragoLink08 situation and the consequent rangeblock for the University of South Florida? I've just gotten a message from Hflw27, who says "I may be able to help with range configuration - I'm in the CSE department of USF and may be able to track down relevant and necessary details. I know that the 131.247.2.* and 131.247.3.0-64 blocks are regulated static IP addresses for Engineering". I'm going to leave a message on his talk page explaining that I implemented the rangeblock on others' recommendations, that I don't really know how to help, and that I'll ask others to help him; if you can help, please respond at his talk page. Please note that you're not the only one I'm asking; I'm leaving this message for five other users who commented on Drago's situation at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783, as well as you. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

Listing templates for deletion
FYI, if you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2013_January_28&diff=537077595&oldid=537064841 add a template to a discussion], you need to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAFL_%2F_AFC_Champion_coaches&diff=537167728&oldid=534102093 tag it for deletion]. It's very important to follow the correct procedure, or the TfD result might be considered invalid. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


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

A barnstar for you!

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

Notice
Hello Dirtlawyer1. I'm sorry to inform you, but I've closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Given that a majority of the community did support you, I would suggest you look to the opposition as areas you can grow further in as an editor and consider seeking adminship at a later date. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MBisanz. It was not unexpected.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, I do hope to place a support !vote next time you intend to run.  Zappa  O  Mati   04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zappy. We'll see.  The Wiki clearly has gotten by without me as an admin for quite some time, and some perspective must be maintained.  Sure, it's a disappointment, but it's not a tragedy.  No one died, and no one went to prison.  Still plenty of college sports article to work on.  Cheers, my friend.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Np, I'm glad that I supported your RFA but really sad to know that it didn't go so well. I hope it will be better next time when you try to improve more from the comments (especially from oppose sections) you have received during this RFA. Good luck. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments, Torres. I will do my best to treating it as a learning experience.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer, I am confident you will be an admin in the future. Your one of the few people I look up to on Wikipedia and one of the brightest editors on the project. Just keep on doing what your doing! Philipmj24 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, Philip. I don't pretend to know what the future may hold, but being an administrator is not something for which I'm questing or can't live without.  It may or may not ever happen.  Given the hostility encountered during my RfA, particularly from people with whom I've never even interacted before my RfA, I have to consider whether any future RfA would generate more heat than light.  There's plenty of work to be done as writers and editors of content -- especially in the area of Olympic swimming!  Generating good encyclopedic content should always be the primary goal.  Cheers, my friend.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is. I saw your RfA, but decided not to comment. You and I have had both positive and negative interactions in the past, as you're of course aware. I wasn't sure that I could add anything worthwhile in that forum. I came here to your talk page because I felt I could post something worthwhile here, post RfA closure (regardless of the outcome)...
 * The idea that "adminship is no big deal" is a joke. I think we all know that. What's less commonly understood is that it works in negative ways as well. Adminship is held like the sword of Damocles. I have seen a number of admins over whom the community attempts to express control by threatening them with loss of their adminship. Expectations of appropriate behavior are widely varied, with no clear signals to guide an administrator. It is effectively impossible to handle being an active administrator without becoming embroiled in controversy. Nobody is immune to this. Even ArbCom has stripped administrators of their admin rights for perceptions of poor behavior, rather than actual acts in contravention of policy.
 * There is a tendency among humans which I am sure has a name within the realms of learned psychology. When some humans excel, the great masses of the people work to bring them back down to their level. This principle applies to the masses vs. admins as well. Admins are routinely threatened with loss of their admin bits for various supposed objectionable behaviors. I even once had an editor attempt to influence me by threatening to have my administrator rights removed. Of course, I have none to remove. In fact, I have no flags that can be removed except banning me from the site. I don't even have autopatrol. Someone gave me rights once without asking and I insisted they remove them . Having (almost) nothing to lose here provides a great deal of freedom. I heartily recommend it.
 * You've been an editor here now for some years, with 88% of your contributions being made in the article space. I think adding "admin" to your privilege set would make you very unhappy with the project in the long term. That's not to say I think you would make a good or bad admin; I have no opinion on that. I just feel being an admin would be a detriment to you personally. With all respect, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, your comments are insightful and interesting as always. We've both come a long way since we first encountered each other in September 2009; I would like to believe that our interactions have been mostly positive since then, with an increasingly positive trend.  I'm running out of the office door right now, but I would like to chat with you more later, either on one of our talk pages or via email.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm at your disposal. Just don't put me here. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dirtlawyer1, I said at the RfA how awful I felt about how it went, and I still feel badly about it. I'm gratified to see, here, how sensibly you are handling it. You have a good sense of perspective. Please know that I continue to have a high opinion of your ability to size up a situation, and please feel free to get in touch with me any time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me, Tryptofish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested reading
You might want to consider brushing up on your Gator football knowledge with the following subjects if you believe these trophies are insignificant in the context of the rivalry games of the Gators: Enjoy! NThomas (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Florida Cup (Florida State, Miami)
 * Okefenokee Oar (Georgia)
 * Seminole War Canoe (Miami)


 * Thanks, NThomas. Just so you know, I am already intimately familiar with the links provided.  I have edited the Florida Cup article, I was responsible for the merger of the former standalone Okefenokee Oar article into the Florida-Georgia rivalry article, and I'm the editor who moved the former Seminole Ware Canoe article to its present Florida-Miami football rivalry title.  These trophies have little significance to the Gators in the context of the present-day rivalries; the Gators do not have "trophy rivalries" in the same way that Big Ten teams do.  The Florida Cup is rarely awarded because of the infrequent nature of the Florida-Miami rivalry, and is a round-robin trophy that is not specific to Florida-Florida State.  The Okefenokee Oar is of recent origin, is little known or recognized, and has very little significance to the teams or fans in the Florida-Georgia rivalry; it's a student government trophy.  The Seminole War Canoe was significant in the context of Florida-Miami rivalry 30 or 40 years ago, but no longer changes hands; it's now a museum piece in Coral Gables.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I could care less about Florida's traveling trophies, but the fact is your argument is a personal bias about how you perceive the traveling trophies in context to the overall rivalry and treading dangerously on RECENT. If you want to continue this converstation about the format of the navboxes I suggest you do where I explained the concept thoroughly. NThomas (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow-up, NThomas. I have already commented at WT:CFB.  The issue here is including redundant redirect links for the the War Canoe Trophy and the Okefenokee Oar, which redirect to the Florida–Miami football rivalry and the Florida–Georgia football rivalry, respectively, both of which are already linked on the navbox.  In short, we do not include redundant redirect links that link to the same articles already linked.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Okefenokee Oar is a targeted redirect, the content is specific to the section. Additionally, the Seminole War Canoe has enough information that it could be a targeted redirect to a separate section within Florida–Miami football rivalry. Of course since neither traveling trophy holds "significance to the teams or fans" perhaps the information should be removed? NThomas (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * NThomas, please see WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK. Repeating links is disfavored; no new information is provided.  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of those policies refer to the linking of terms. There is no policy that I am aware of that discourages linking to the same page twice.  It's quite possible that someone will be familiar with the Florida–Miami football rivalry but not the War Canoe Trophy. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan, whether it's a piped link or an unpiped link, it is linking to the same term, which is located at the same page, right? If we pipe-link "Florida," "Florida Gators," "Gators," and "Florida Gators football" to Florida gators football, those are still the same link repeated, regardless of their hypertext display appearance.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point. The purpose of links are to assist readers with something they might be unfamiliar with. You are also incorrect in your idea that two links go to the same term. Just using the wiktionary definition, a term is "word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge". In this instance, we have two terms going to the same article. Nothing in OVERLINK or REPEATLINK advises against that. Ryan Vesey 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I am literally too tired to argue this one much further (it's been a fairly brutal week in my world, and it's not over yet -- I have a hotel closing on Thursday). I've never seen anyone accept your term-vs.-link distinction in nearly four years of Wikipedia editing.  Term = link = page, regardless of whether the hypertext link display is pipe-linked.  It's okay if you don't believe me; I'm not offended.  Please feel free to get a second opinion at the Village Pump or the talk page for link policy.  If it turns out I'm wrong, then we've both learned something.  Another good person for a second opinion on link policy is User:Tony1, who has been very active in this policy area, both at MOS and the link policy page.  Tony can give you the entire policy history.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ryan, I just re-read my reply immediately above.  Please accept my apologies if it sounds surly; that was not my intent.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * on the whole, I agree with  Dirtlawyer.  It's semantics whether it's one word, one term or piped term that leads to a second link to the same article. Firstly, I would not necessarily link to any unfamiliar term; moslink is clear that the term should be relevant. If some term leads to the same piped link, you owe it to the reader to be transparent and not to create an easter egg. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, seconding Ohconfucius here. Tony   (talk)  08:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Seconded. I don't think we've interacted before, nor have I done so with any of the regular contributors to the MOS. But I feel compelled to say that I can't recall having previously seen an RfA that bore as strong a resemblance to a mugging.
 * I'm sorry I didn't see the relevant pages/threads before they were closed; it probably wouldn't have changed the result at all, but I would have supported your candidacy; I think you'd be a fine admin. The takeaway seems to me to be that anyone who's ever edited in any controversial area can pretty much forget about ever becoming an administrator.
 * It just takes so few determined opponents to sink a strong candidate, largely, I think because people tend to suspect "where there's smoke there's fire" rather than following the links opponents put up and examining the purported evidence of bad behavior. As Carrite said, you needn't take the process or result as saying anything at all about you, personally, nothing at all. I spent much more time than I should have done, reviewing the debacle, and I don't think it does. It says much more about some who opposed you. Cordially, --OhioStandard (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, RFAs are punishing, and even though I opposed, I do empathise with the emotional aspect. It's difficult, but let's hope it passes soon. Best.  Tony   (talk)  08:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I opposed too, but you have my condolences. It's not an easy process: just the fact that you were willing to go through it says a lot. If it's any consolation, your contributions in the field of sports seem to be much appreciated. —Neotarf (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

U of M Olympians
I would think would be better at that than I. I rarely venture away from football and basketball for U of M athletes. He has much more experience researching the broader history of Michigan Wolverines.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tony. I will.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA support
C mach  7  19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

New IP sock
Drago has found himself a new IP (or possible IP range...I guess we'd have to see if more crop up). I was alerted to 108.33.96.224 when he edited 1946 Oklahoma A&M Aggies men's basketball navbox, which I have on my watchlist because of DragoLink08. Who is the best in-the-know admin to get to block this IP? Jrcla2 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A: AuburnPilot blocked a leftover Drago sock for me just a few days ago. AP may take a few hours to respond.  Cuchullain handled most of the Drago sock blocks until AP got involved.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I took care of it, 3 months. Secret account 05:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Secret. This IP definitely fits the DragoLink08 pattern of futzing with template hex colors, college sports, mixed martial arts and anime.  Drago is a serial sock master, dating back three years.  A recent ANI resulted in a range block for the entire University of South Florida.  Because of his long history of sock puppetry and disruptive editing, Cuchullain and AuburnPilot have been hitting all of Drago's registered sock accounts and every IP with an indefinite block.  You may want to consider the same.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to wonder whether DragoLink08 has ties to al-Qaeda. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for guidance on the admins. I've never wished actual ill will toward any editors before, but Drago has become the first (this world would be better without such a dolt). Jrcla2 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Drago is running out of internet access options now that they range-blocked USF. The IP that was blocked last night appears to be a private service provider; it may actually be his home service.  The guy is clearly obsessive and won't quit until all of his access options are gone.  I suggest we keep monitoring the usual articles and templates; he's not done yet.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects and navboxes
Hi Dirtlawyer,

Thanks for your messages. I appreciate any help you can give to the ACC Wikiproject, even just looking it over to see if there are any components to the project that would help it out, or, adding things to the to-do-list. Anything really. Within that sphere, I'm currently in the middle of constructing a portal for it, and I hope to get a good chunk of the structure of that done in the next week.

As far as Navboxes, my primary concern is the prior insistence on Jweiss11 to refuse any flexibility, and it is really just him acting singularly. When he first went around replacing all navboxes with his version, he didn't allow any editing of it, to the point of edit warring while refusing discussion of appropriate content for a navbox on its talk page. He just flat out refused to engage in it. Now, overtime, I see that he has loosened his strangle on that. For instance, Florida's navbox that you are involved with maintaining now has additional articles linked under people, like the Ring of Honor and Hall of Fame members. That flexibility is a bare minimum, but at least represents an improvement over his initial behavior.

I don't need to re-list my concerns. I am all for guidelines, and even some standardization through guidelines, and I even think, in general, his standardization was a good thing because it improved many bad or missing navboxes...but that structure should be a starting point for editors to build navagation, not an endpoint. I am absolutely not for the CFB project (which represents only a small active group of participants), nor particularly Jweiss acting alone, having control over 200+ navboxes on individual topics that he simply is not familiar with. Beyond specifics of the CFB Wikiproject, I see that as an unacceptable precedent for Wikipedia in general As I have pointed out, for all other navbox topics and Wikiprojects, from MLB to the NFL, to city and country navboxes, to university navboxes and company navboxes, really anything you can think off, there is no precedence for this anywhere.

Stylistically, there is no reason that a consensus of editors on a topic (which in this case is an individual football program) can not determine for itself to provide links to biographical articles on, say, five Heisman winners' or five retired jersey biographies, but instead be forced to include 100 red-lined or redirected linked years. Prohibiting that sort of consensus is, IMO, a type of mindless rule-mongering that is not only inappropriate, but results in bad navigation boxes. I really have no interest in this type of bureaucratic nonsense taking time away from me building and editing content of articles, but I do feel it is important enough for the entire Wikipedia community, that if he persists to act unilaterally in enforcing his inflexible style across 200+ articles, that it should go to a wider community discussion. This is just not an issue for WP:CFB. This is about one or two editors of a WikiProject asserting ownership over 100s of files and articles in the name of a "Wikiproject" as if that gives some higher authority to ignore any individual article's or template's consensus; or more importantly, preventing the readers of these articles from having the best navigation tool to help them find the most important related articles so that they can attain the best possible understanding of the topic (THE individual teams, NOT college football in general), per WP:NAV.

Since you asked about the Pitt Panthers navbox, there are several levels where it could be improved. Recently, I mimicked your additions with the intent to fill in some articles, like All-Americans which I am modeling on your Florida version (currently in my sandbox). NThomas addressed my concerns with the Pitt Navbox with creating a sandboxed version of the template here, which is actually superior. For one, it clears up the issue with Rivalry games being confused with bowls by separating the topics. It also puts the most relevant topics for understand Pitt football at the top of the Nav box...essentially the history. For Pitt football, the long list of venues, like Rec Park and Expo Park and Three Rivers Stadium, venues used but for a handful of games, some 100 years ago, are thoroughly irrelevant for understanding the topic. Hence the need for flexibility because urban football programs are different than rural ones with less venues over their history. Similarly, including invidual links to seasons in 1892, 1893, 1894, even if full featured articles existed, is completely irrelevant for understanding the topic of Pitt football (and frankly a definitive example of overlinking...IMO, seasons should have a separate navbox). In contrast to the current template model, this old template, with some tweeking, would have been superior for providing a reader with links to the most pertinent information about Pitt football. It was smaller, more concise, and this linked information was infinitely more relevant to what the football program is about both contemporaneously and historically. You could say the same for Florida. It would make a lot more sense to highlight 1996, 2006, and 2008 for UF, and list its 8 SEC championships, etc, rather than have them buried in 100 successive (and to the typical Wikipedia reader, meaningless) dates. It would also make a lot more sense for UF to link directly to the biographies of its 3 Heisman winners, rather than simply provide a repetitive redirect link to the main article subsection that lists those three winners. I don't know why Jweiss believes all football programs have to be reduced to some standard format that eliminates highlighting the most significant achievements of a program for fear of a trophy case, that frankly, is something to be discussed on a program-by-program basis and has zero guideline or policy prohibitions. The real issue, however, is that in many cases, this prevents a navbox linking directly to those relevant articles instead of creating redundant articles or redirects to the main article. As I said previously, you can't shove Akron's kangaroo into the shape of a four leaf clover and expect it to make sense. Programs aren't equally successful, but that doesn't mean you should destroy navigation to their most pertinent articles in the name of some sort of false egalitarianism.

Sorry for the length of reply. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * CP, thanks for the detailed reply -- no need to apologize. Your response is exactly what I requested.  Please give me a day or so to digest it all, and to review the previous WP:CFB discussions on point.  I am willing to initiate a structured discussion regarding flexibility on the WP:CFB talk page, and in fact promised to do so 14 months ago, but other priorities intervened.  I think enough time has now passed that the project can discuss the relative merits of the existing navbox items as well as additional program-specific options within the standardized navbox.  I will probably want to explore that further with you before bringing it to the WP:CFB talk page for general discussion.  Better defined statements of problems and issues usually yield better discussion results.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I agree. And just to clarify, I have no interest in undoing all of Jweiss' work or making wholesale changes across 100s of navboxes. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Tackles and tackles
DL, noticed a bunch of your edits to disambiguate links related to "tackles", e.g. on London Fletcher. The links for "Tackles" in the infobox is now pointing to Tackle (American and Canadian football), the article about the position, when it's the football move/statistic (Tackle (football move)) that we want. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. That was a rather large and embarrassing brain fart on my part.  The misdirected "tackle" links are now fixed.  I've been gradually cleaning up the bios of consensus All-Americans and Pro Bowl selections so that we have good examples of how the infobox and lead should be structured.  It doesn't help when I make goofy mistakes of my own.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: RfA: thank you for your support
Hi, Dirtlawyer1. Good luck in the next time. Érico Wouters msg 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind thoughts, EJW. Before I would consider doing it again, I have a number of things to consider, but I sincerely appreciate your encouragement.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: "RfC" for RfA guideline changes re canvassing and thank-yous

 * ✅ Thanks very much for discussing this. -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for RfA conduct clarification
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Message reply.
I've replied to your message at User talk:Crazypaco. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your message at User talk:Crazypaco. CrazyPaco (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)