User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/January

jj arrington
You have no right to write or post anything about my dad OK IDC who u are I will file a police report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.81.30 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Cade
 Harrias  talk 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ice_Bucket_Challenge_participants#List_of_Ice_Bucket_Challenge_participants
This is an extremely delayed message, but I'm just dropping by to let you know that I'm an infrequent editor, not a sockpuppet as you suspected in the above discussion. I understand your reasoning and am not offended in any way, I'm just letting you know. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it, Soupy. And, under the circumstances, I am glad to have been wrong.  Surprising to me at the time, that AfD attracted a lot of outside attention as a popular culture phenomenon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Joe Haden
It's been going on for a while now. Jeez, looking at the edit history I didn't even realize how many times I have reverted. Shame on me.--Yankees10 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Be careful, but that wasn't a warning. It was a suggestion.  I'm going to leave a 3RR warning on the guy's talk page.  I've already left a request/explanation about the shitty low-resolution photo -- he ignored it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. The other guy has now been blocked for a variety of behaviors, including edit-warring.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your input is also requested
Dirtlawyer1, I have responded to your query for the CFB Player Template re-working. I would also like your opinion on a requested move I have begun A MONTH AGO on Talk:1973 college football season & Talk:1977 college football season. It seems odd to me that such a move hasn't garnered much interest out of the WikiProject. Whichever side you choose, I will respect, but I would like to see the matter closed soon. Thanks-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bluejay, that was easy. Ping Jweiss and the rest of the WP:CFB regulars on their user talk pages with a neutral reminder; this should be a  non-controversial no-brainer.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay will do. Also to your comment on the 1973 I have a proposal already on the Project Talk page.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Winsipedia?
I have posted a question on the WP:CFB page about this but I trust your opinion as a regular CFB editor, so I decided to come to the horse's mouth? What do you think of these edits? Thanks,-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TfD closure
Hi Dirtlawyer. As far as I know, this is the first time we met on Wikipedia. I looked over your contributions, and they were quite impressive. You're doing a lot of great work creating great content among which a whole bunch of GA's. That's a great accomplishment to be proud of, and a great boon the to encyclopedia. Thank you for that. You've done a lot of amazing work with our American football articles and templates, from what I can see, being a driving force in the wikiproject, quite effectively working together with template editors to improve and tweak the infoboxes. Thank your for that too. You're one of the people that makes Wikipedia great. But along with the great work you've done, and continue doing for the templates for NFL players, there is also some less great work. The canvassing you did is really not on. It's understandable to want to protect the content you worked hard to create, and used to create remarkable work with, and if there is one thing important in templates, it's that people on the ground can work well with them. It effectively poisoned the well for the discussion, raising animosity, making it all but impossible to come to an amicable conclusion on how to move forward. It results in gaming the system at best, and undermines the consensus model. Please never pull such shenanigans again. If you think I'm wrong in that regard - and I definitely could be, I've been plenty wrong in the past - I could suggest going for an editor review to validate that idea. The longest outstanding merge request also is an american football infobox related merge request, which was put on hold over a year ago, because you asked to first study the merge before anything else happened. That's more than a year ago now. Between the canvassing and that request, I'm getting the impression that you're very scared merges and other template work goes wrong if you aren't the one overseeing it. That is clashing and will continue to clash with the community. Is there anything I or anyone else can do to help you trust the community processes more? I'd love to hear from you, Kind regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, Martijn. You are both right and wrong in several material respects.  First of all, my WP:CFB talk page notice regarding this TfD was an angry moment, one that I should not have posted, and one that clearly violated the neutrally worded requirements regarding talk page notices for RfCs and XfDs.  Mea maxima culpa.  Please accept my apologies for that.  There are several other points to which I would like to respond, including those regarding the pending merge from the November 2012 TfD.  Suffice it to say, there was a great deal wrong with how that TfD was handled, and the facts are not exactly as Andy represented them in his recent TfD comments.  There are also a other things I would like to share with you regarding what I see as being wrong with the current TfD processes, but I would like to take my time in responding.  You appear to be sincere, thoughtful and well intended, Martijn, and it was your comments regarding the recent problems with TfD notices that prompted me to ask you to close this dead-end TfD.  Your comments above are well formulated, and deserve thoughtful responses from me.  I'll ping you back later, when I've had time to write the responses your comments deserve.  Until then -- thank you.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and apologies accepted. I look forward to your replies. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Two new SEC rivalry articles
DL, thoughts about these two new SEC rivalry articles: Auburn–Florida State football rivalry and Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Auburn-Tennessee series obviously has more history, and was considered one of the better intermittent series in the SEC before conference expansion and separation into divisions forced the game to become very infrequently played -- even more so now that the SEC has expanded to 14 members. I think they play once every six years, and twice every twelve now (unless they meeting in the SEC Championship Game).


 * The Auburn-FSU series was an attempt to manufacture a rivalry while Bobby Bowden was coach, and was played nine or ten times during Bowden's early years. It died and abrupt death as a result of SEC expansion in 1992.  Frankly, I hate these non-subtstantive articles for secondary "rivalries" that have little history and tradition -- it's a "rivalry" because the SID/PR department said it is.  Whether you can find significant coverage of either series in non-hometown, non-regional media remains to be be seen.  Nominate them for AfD and let's see what happens.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Add Auburn–Clemson football rivalry and Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry to this list. You seem to have far more expertise than I do when it comes to these southern rivalries.  I'll leave the AfDs to you.  Just wanted to bring these to your attention.  Jweiss11 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw -- the editor keeps adding them to the rivalry template, which I have watch-listed. Auburn apparently has eight noteworthy rivalries.  We really need to adopt a specific notability guideline for CFB rivalries, as well as a detailed WP:CFB written policy on point setting forth the WikiProject's criteria for inclusion.  I will add that to my to-do list for the next 60 days.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * DL Pat Dye came to Auburn he has lot of players Bo Jackson, Brent Fullwood, Lionel James, Randy Campbell and More he has beating Florida State in the 1980s but series was cancelled of two year home-and-home series in 1999 AuburnDee (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2015 (CST)

Comment
Thanks for your comment, tracking categories for |dbf and |currentnumber could also be made since those are outdated. Can do that later though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Better resolution UF seal
I've found a image of the UF seal that is slightly larger and better resolution than the one currently on the UF wiki page, but I don't really know how to get it on the page. It's 220px x 220px (which seems like a close to ideal size), and black and transparent. It would be nice if the seal on the wiki page wasn't so blurry. See:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAFLNHDC (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Southeastern Conference: Elaborate founding date?
Elaborate? What do you mean by that? jlog3000 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The SEC founding date is 1932, not 1933, but conference play did not begin until 1933. This is already explained in the main body text, but if you believe this requires further explanation, please feel free to expand the existing text.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nicole Haislett
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nicole Haislett you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. I appreciate your willingness to do these GA reviews, and I promise this one will be quick and painless!.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nicole Haislett
The article Nicole Haislett you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nicole Haislett for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Wayte
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary Wayte you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nicole Haislett
The article Nicole Haislett you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nicole Haislett 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Wayte
The article Mary Wayte you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mary Wayte for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dara Torres
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dara Torres you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dara Torres
The article Dara Torres you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dara Torres for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

National team championships
The Format that I used for the Florida National Team Championships is a consistent format with every other NCAA School. Please don't create a special format for the Florida Gators. Please look at other schools in the B1G, Pac-12, and SEC.


 * I have reverted your changes to the Florida Gators article, and again, please do not implement any further such changes without discussing what you are doing on the Talk:Florida Gators talk page AND the Talk:WikiProject College football talk page. You have no consensus to implement the changes you are making to this article and others, and you are violating various guidelines starting with MOS:CAPS.  Please do not edit war per WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR.  Thank you.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Wayte
The article Mary Wayte you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary Wayte 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dara Torres
The article Dara Torres you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dara Torres 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking you've only submitted five or ten articles to GA? You've done so much here that I find that hard to believe, but I see from your user page that you now have eight GAs under your belt.  Have you considered doing some GA reviews?  You would make an excellent GA reviewer, particularly in the sports area, where there are often long backlogs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dara Torres article is my 10th Good Article for which I was primarily responsible for most of the prose. I also completed the GA review process for another swimmer article (Davis Tarwater) when the nominator dropped out in the middle of the review, and I made the final corrections and tweaks to get it over the hump; I don't claim credit for it because the nominator already had done 90+% of the work (and it's a little more People magazine than my typical style).


 * My ten GAs are split between five university-level academics and five sports biographies. My GA plans for 2015 include another two or three swimmers, two American football players, and another three or four university presidents.  And, yes, having been through the GA process 11 times, it probably is time for me to give back and perform some reviews in my areas of interest.  The downside regarding the GA review of many (if not most) sports articles is that they need a substantial rewrite (and a lot of effort from the reviewer) to satisfy the GA standards.  Of course, I still need to start the Feature Article review for Andrew Sledd, too -- that's long overdue.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

UF Project work
Hi Dirtlawyer, thanks for the welcome. I'd love to help out where I can. I'm new to editing on wiki, so I've mostly been playing around and adding a few things here and there, or trying to improve the appearance of things. Generally, I've been trying to make what is already there better or more complete. I've been thinking about focusing on the academic aspects before delving into the other UF stuff on here. I'd really like to get some consistency across the UF academic pages, but for now I think it best to focus on the main UF article. Ultimately, I'd like to get the UF article to featured article status, if the other members of the project agree. A quiet project is not necessarily a bad thing. Too many cooks in the kitchen make it difficult to implement things on a large scale, and there are a lot of UF articles out there.

I'd be glad to hash out some ideas and goal for improving things within the UF wiki universe. Look forward to working on this with you and the others. CAFLNHDC (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * CAFL, jumping from its present mess to Feature Article status is probably a bridge too far. I'd like to do clean it up to my (our) satisfaction, run it by User:ElKevbo for a peer review, then submit it for Good Article review.  GA is easily do-able, I think, in the first half of 2015; FA is a much higher standard, and the FA reviews can get "political."  In any event, I appreciate your ambition -- doing a comprehensive clean-up of the main article has been on my to-do list for 5+ years.  In fairness to myself, I do have 10 GAs to my credit, all UF-related, so I haven't been completely asleep at the wheel since 2009.  *smile*


 * Given the dwindling number of UF cooks, more would probably be a good thing, but I also believe in having a plan and a prioritized framework in place before inviting more to join a "re-activated" project. Take a few days, explore the articles you find in the University of Florida and Florida Gators category trees, and then ping me back in a few days.  I would love to hash out some ideas for pushing the whole thing forward over the next week or two.  Let me know when you're ready.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)