User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2016/March

Dan Shamash
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am buried right now, John, but this article looks like a likely candidate for AfD. The comments by the requesting IP user at REFUND do not instill confidence, either.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree, but I don't think I'm interested enough to do the checks and nominate it myself. It may be that someone else reading WP:REFUND will nominate it; otherwise, do it when you have time. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

SEC culture question
Now I am not from SEC country so I don't know why (not you) SEC fans think every dang conference matchup is a rivalry. See Arkansas-Georgia football rivalry for details of yet another conference matchup that somebody thinks is a rivalry.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I can answer this, being from SEC country. DL hasn't been on for about a month now, but I'm pretty sure he would agree that doesn't constitute a rivalry. They're not even in the same division. I'd say put it up for AfD before we get any more of these. Lizard  (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Back (for realz)
I'm more thoroughly back now. I probably won't be as active as I was over last summer, but I'll definitely be around with some consistency and working on project stuff. The template namespace mostly, I think, but happy to help out with bot work if necessary. ~ RobTalk 05:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've implicated a section of clay in a murder
In hopes of bringing you back from your recent hiatus. I finally got through all of the scoring summaries for the '96 Gators. When you can, you may want to look those over. Cake (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And if that doesn't work I know a few voodoo priestesses versed in necromancy. Lizard  (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duncan Armstrong
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duncan Armstrong 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 MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duncan Armstrong
The article Duncan Armstrong 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:Duncan Armstrong for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)