User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2012/October

Medals for heats

Hey Dirtlawayer, it appears you have found your answer, but just in case you wanted to make sure an official from the IOC Olympic Studies Centre told me it was 1984. He pointed me to the 1984 Olympic Charter (http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Olympic%20Charter/Olympic_Charter_through_time/1984-Olympic_Charter). I did look through it, but was unable to find the specific rule, maybe you can have better luck. Philipmj24 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Philip, I had not found any kind of conclusive answer as to the first year the rule was implemented; I only knew that for 1968 and prior games, preliminary heat relay swimmers for the medalist teams did not receive medals. That the practice of awarding medals to prelim swimmers started in 1984 makes sense; I had confirmed that Geoff Gaberino, one of the University of Florida swimmers, received a 1984 gold for swimming in the morning 4x200 prelimns and helped set a short-lived world record in the process. The U.S. team traded out two swimmers, and set another world record in the final in the afternoon later on the same day. That's a pretty good story.

I will search the 1984 charter document, but when someone at IOC says that it was 1984, clearly that's a pretty good place to start looking. Presumably, it's in there somewhere. I had given up trying to find any kind of general pronouncement and was looking at newspaper articles and online bios of the preliminary heat relay swimmers to see when they started claiming the medals. Once we confirm 1984 with 100% certainty, we need to change our medals record table for the Olympic relay events to reflect the rule change and the official medal awards for each year. It could be as simple as adding the prelim swimmers in italics immediately below the four finalists, with an explanatory footnote or endnote. For the first year, we probably should explain the rule change in the article text and cite the charter or other official IOC document that implemented the rule change. By doing so, Wikipedia will no doubt become the go-to source on point.

If you've been following my recent swimmer bio edits, you can see that I've been deleting the pre-1968 medals from the infobox medals table, and rewriting the text along the line of "Jones swam the breaststroke leg for the gold medal-winning U.S. team in the preliminary heats of the 4x100-meter medley relay." Please note that Sports-Reference.com is incorrectly showing an award of medals for preliminary heat relay swimmers before 1984; someone should let them know of the error.

Thanks for your due diligence and follow-up on this. I've been delving into the U.S. Olympic swimmer bios over the last couple of weeks, and I have a number of observations, questions, changes, etc., that I will share with you when I have more time this weekend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have e-mailed the IOC, FINA, and Sports Reference. If you want me to forward the IOC e-mail to you, I wouldn't mind. They said:

Dear Mr. Johnson,

According to the Olympic Charter and the Rules for Aquatics events, it was in 1984 that the swimmers in the relays who did not swam in the final but only in the preliminaries received medals.

We hope that it will be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Research and Reference Service IOC Olympic Studies Centre

I'm still waiting on a response from the other organizations (hopefully their answers will match up), and I will let you know. When sports reference e-mails me back, I can inform them that they may be erroneously showing individuals in the heats before 1984 are receiving medals when they shouldn't be. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Philip, that's more or less consistent with the Olympics.org website reporting of medalists. If you search their medalists database by name, the website shows the preliminary heat relay swimmers as medalists beginning with the 1988 Olympics. For some unknown reason, they are not reporting the 1984 prelim swimmers as medalists.

FYI, the link to the 1984 charter is dead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This link leads to all the charters - http://www.olympic.org/olympic-charters?tab=The-Charter-through-time Philipmj24 (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dirtlawyer, I believe I found the specific rule. In the 1984 Olympic Charter, Rule 64 under the heading "Medals and diplomas" it states,

"In team sports and in team events included in other sports, except those of an "artificial" nature (i.e. those in which placings are determined by position of the contestant in the individual competition), each member of a winning team participating in at least one match or comppetition held during the Olympic Games shall be awarded a silver-gilt medal and a diploma, ..."

I'm just trying to think how we would word this generally because I'm sure every Olympic Charter since then changed (maybe it's in a different rule or the wording is different). But we know for sure it started in 1984. 146.7.93.3 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Philip, I pulled up the searchable PDF version of the 1984 charter, and ran searches for "swimming," "track and field" and "relays." I could not find anything more specific than the Rule 64 you located. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that we need to be looking at the FINA rules, since the IOC delegates most of the sport-specific rule-making authority to the international governing bodies for each of the particular Olympic sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Try this link - http://doc.rero.ch/record/28943 and look under aquatics. I will be searching it later today. 146.7.57.226 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Section 9.2 of the Aquatics pamphlet states that each "participating member" of a top-three relay team will receive a medal and certificate. Unfortunately, the pamphlet does not specifically define the meaning of "participating member." Short of the actual FINA rules, however, this may be as good as it gets. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Douglas Russell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don McKenzie (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) 11:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012

Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Merki

I thought perhaps the NYT link didn't work so I added another source. In any case, I'm confused about why you don't think this is encyclopedic, or relevant to Lees. To my knowledge, this is the only time anyone has ever collapsed in the pool in the Olympics and been rescued by other swimmers. Given the context, it seems notable enough to me. --Esprqii (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Merki didn't collapse; Merki didn't rescue the collapsed swimmer; Merki was not involved, and the incident had no impact on her performance. It's irrelevant trivia in a 500-word biography about Merki. If you want to put the text some place where it might be germane to the main topic, consider including it in the Greta Andersen article or Swimming at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre freestyle or Elemér Szathmáry. Oddly, the incident is not mentioned in any of those three articles where it is directly relevant to the main topic of the article, unlike Nancy Merki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The cited articles indicate that she did save the swimmer; that's the point. I had created the Merki article long ago and at the time, no articles existed for Andersen or Szathmary. I do agree the info should be added there. I just hadn't gotten back to it. --Esprqii (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(update) Oops,when I added back the citation yesterday, I munged the reference name so the wrong citation came up. If you have NYT access, this article contains the details (and even has a picture of the event). --Esprqii (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The New York Times article substantiates the story. The AP wire article in the The Register-Guard from Google News Archive gets it, too. Clearly the April 1948 NYT article is not applicable. I say the anecdote is still trivia, but given her direct involvement, it's at least related to Merki. Part of my confusion arose from her rather complicated marital history and the change from maiden to married name midway through the article. We should certainly explain her history of dead husbands, but I would suggest that we use "Merki" throughout when not using pronouns. Otherwise, to be consistent, we are going to have three separate name changes that can only be confusing to the reader.

FYI, I've been working through the entire history of the U.S. Olympic swim teams, adding consistently formatted infoboxes, deleting the most egregious trivia and fancruft, making sure that the article text includes the basics of the swimmers' Olympic performances (with event links), adding directly relevant "see also" articles and external links, etc. Most of these Olympic swimmer articles were either bare stubs or complete mish-mashes. My personal goal is to get these U.S. Olympic swimmer articles to a standard of respectability where they are not an embarrassment to Wikipedia and the athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've definitely noticed and appreciated your great work on the swimmer articles I've worked on. Thanks for your input here. I'll see if I can clean up the murky Merki article. I've never been quite sure how to deal with the married name situation in general, which is trickier when someone has a different birth name than they are commonly known by, and in this case, trickier still when there are multiple marriages. She seems to have been "Merki Lees" at the Olympics (judging from contemporary reports), so maybe I'll use that. --Esprqii (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday must have been a pretty good day for you

Big win over LSU and the Seminoles lose? You must be riding high today. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that the Seminoles lost until you mentioned it. I generally don't cheer against them; I've always thought it was better for Florida college football when both teams were undefeated when they met in November. The Seminoles are good, but were obviously ranked too high. They will get better, but rating your team against ACC competition does not give one a true picture of the team's standing in CFB generally. In any event, Florida State does not look invincible.

Gators got a big win the old-fashioned way: smash-mouth running game and solid defense. They might be pretty darn good before the season is over. Still need to find a passing game, but I like what Muschamp is doing. Not the most articulate coach the Gators have ever had, but the players are responding to him.

Aggies have two solid SEC wins, too, and the loss to Florida looks more respectable with every Gators win. Wish the Gators were playing A&M every year rather than Mizzou. Florida and A&M share a lot of common history as land-grant military schools, and the match-up has a lot of potential with two universities in the two biggest recruiting states. Unfortunately, with the current 6-1-1 SEC scheduling, Aggies and Gators will only play twice every twelve years. I hope the SEC will go to a nine-game conference schedule with a 6-1-2 inter-divisional rotation in the near future. The current 6-1-1 scheduling had pretty much killed the Auburn-Florida rivalry even before expansion; it was once one of the three of four best rivalries in the SEC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You are a better man than I am regarding the Seminoles - I ALWAYS cheer against Duke in basketball! Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matt Biondi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Gross (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) 13:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA?

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in making a run for adminship? I've been hearing talk about how Wikipedia needs more admins, and the best way to resolve that problem is for experienced editors such as yourself to throw a hat in the ring. If you'd like, I'm willing to nominate you. AutomaticStrikeout 19:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and the offer to nominate me, ASO. I may do it in the future. Secret and Cbl62 suggested the same thing a couple of months ago. I've been a part of a couple minor controversies (no blocks, mind you), and that concerns me somewhat. It's never fun to stand in front of the wall as a pledge and have the drunken brotherhood throw things at you. Nevertheless, I will consider it. It may just be a question of timing; my impression of RfA is that you need to be available pretty much the whole week during the process to quickly field whatever balls are hit your way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to let me know when you're ready, if you'd like. AutomaticStrikeout 19:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're a gentleman, a scholar, and a pretty darn knowledgeable baseball guy, ASO. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) AutomaticStrikeout 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfA process can be an unpleasant one, but your solid record of positive contributions and measured approach should demonstrate your qualification. Everyone's human and is entitled to a few "pissy" moments, even on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't let that deter you. There was a discussion just this week on Jimbo Wales' talk page about this being the first month in Wikipedia history in which no new admins were approved. So, as Strikeout said, there is a need for good admins, if and when you decide to give it a go. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Cbl. Coming from you, that means a lot. If I were to be an administrator, you would, of course, be on my short list of examples of someone who does it right. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want you to feel pressured, but given the concern that some have as we are in danger of going two straight months without a new admin, your chances may be a little bit better at this time. AutomaticStrikeout 01:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, ASO, but the timing is really bad for me right now, especially this week. This is a week when I must focus on earning a living. Good things are starting to happen again in my practice, following the last four years of economic unpleasantness, and I must take advantage of several opportunities as well as fulfilling several existing obligations. Your kind consideration is appreciated, but I must defer at this time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problem with that at all. Best of luck to you. AutomaticStrikeout 02:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeanne Hallock

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jeanne Hallock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jethro B 02:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, this is not the first article I have created. Please review WP:NOLYMPICS; all Olympic athletes are presumed to be notable. Please remove your CSD A7 tag from the article, and save another experienced editor the trouble of doing so. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Jeanne Hallock

Hi Dirtlawyer1, you recently removed a deletion tag from Jeanne Hallock. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I contested this one. Baffled by it. Go Phightins! 02:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Phightins, I saw that—thanks. The speedy nominator clearly has a few tricks to learn yet, but we all started somewhere. Personally, I think it's a much stronger presumption of notability for an Olympic athlete who was the fourth or fifth fastest in the world in his or her event, as compared to some NFL bench-warmer who got into a single regular season game for a play or two during garbage time, but I wasn't around when they were drafting WP:NSPORTS. I have some real problems with the one-game, one-play presumption of notability for professional athletes, especially when applied to categories like Arena football players . . . and we still don't have a presumption for consensus All-American football players. I've just learned to bite my tongue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Any reason you don't want Wikipedia:Autopatrolled status? It doesn't seem you create all that many articles, but it would stop unwarranted speedies being applied to Olympians. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

BG, if you're passing out Autopatrolled user rights, I will accept them. I plan to create 40 to 50 new Olympic swimmer articles over the next two months to finish out the U.S. Olympic team history from 1896 to 2012. It would be helpful, of course, not to have to explain the inherent notability of Olympic athletes to newbie members of the new page patrol. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a low-life scum (aka admin), so I can't hand out rights, but I will nominate you. Don't worry, I will still apply speedy deletes to your articles for nostalgia sake. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah crap. I just looked at your user page. As a former resident of Athens, Georgia, I cannot allow any Gator crack-pot to gain even more rights around here. Now, where do I go to get you banned? Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jan Henne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Susan Pedersen (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) 11:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of family relations in American football

No problems - as I've stated at the AfD, I feel this article has potential and is non-trivial. Further improvement, rather than deletion, would be most beneficial to Wikipedia. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

GS, Pro-Football-Reference.com often mentions other immediate family members who played pro football in its player profiles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Dirtlawyer1, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Dianna (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! 00:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swimming at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Edgar (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) 09:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)