Jump to content

User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2014/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article assessments

DL, I've noticed you've been tagging the talk pages for a number of college football articles with Florida-related project templates. In the process you seem to have changed the existing class assessments for WikiProject College football, e.g. Talk:1995 SEC Championship Game. With two sentences of prose, that certainly looks like it should remain a stub. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That was an "oops!" moment. Having now reviewed a lot of the SEC CGs, bowl games, etc., I've got to say that many of the CFB importance assessments don't seem to make a lot of sense -- I was already planning on pinging you about it. The quality assessments are usually obvious (two sentences = stub), but if there's a coherent WP:CFB importance assessment grading scheme, it's lost on me. My major mission was to get all Florida Gators-related articles tagged for WP:Gators and WP:UF so they can all be tracked; that's largely been completed, and I'm down to tagging Gators-related photos. There was certainly no intent to upset the WP:CFB grading system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I figured it was an oops moment. Just wanted to give you the heads-up. While I'm pretty experienced with quality assessments, I haven't done much in the way of importance assessments. There is a chart that lays out a WP:CFB importance assessment grading scheme here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment. I believe that Cmadler took the lead on putting this together a couple years back. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Multi-article AfDs

Yes, it's a college team. But they put there team in the same league as the others. Kingjeff (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY matches

Um no, not that I know of - finals of major tournaments are normally assumed to be notable, so get a freer pass, but normal matches need to meet WP:GNG i.e. significant coverage. GiantSnowman 07:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: CFB single-game articles

I am not nearly as versed as you are in WP policies relevant to AfD, and I would like to thank you for undertaking this unforgiving and long-overdue purge of single-game articles. On you question of my opinion on the 2000s articles, for Bama I would say all but 2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game and Kick Bama Kick are simply WP:ROUTINE in nature and I would support AfDs for the others. For the rest of the 2000s articles, I would suggest the following as being likely AfD candidates:

I would also throw in 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game and Bo Over the Top as it probably means nothing to CFB fans outside of the state of Alabama. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Patriarca12: Thanks, P12 -- this is exactly what I was looking for. Your thinking on point is very similar to my own. Have you reviewed the Bama games you have recommended above, and compared them to the Iron Bowl memorable game summaries? I don't want to lose any truly memorable highlights that should be memorialized in the relevant season or rivalry articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion: Serbia national basketball team

Hey, I would like to invite you for a discussion here: Final disscussion: Results/medals history. Please, participate.--AirWolf talk 13:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Tampa Tribune

attempting to characterize The Tampa Tribune as right-wing is just plain nuts (I grew up in Florida, reading the Trib -- it's always been a moderate paper that endorsed more Democrats than Republicans...

The source in question is a right wing paper, and the column itself is written by a man who both refers to himself as a conservative and a climate change denier. As another editor said on the talk page, you must have it confused with something else. As for the so-called "conspiracy", it's really not. Heartland and Discovery, and even the National Review, have been extremely open and explicit about why they think this misquote matters. They all say the same thing: "If Tyson cant be trusted to cite a quote about Bush effectively, then how can he be trusted to communicate climate science and evolution?" Now, it's possible that you've missed this or you got confused in some way, but if you can't acknowledge that this is a classic, fallacious manufactured controversy whose only purpose is to do a runaround on climate science and evolution by attacking the messenger, then I suggest you do some research. Heartland and Discovery have been at this game for a long time now. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No confusion on my part, nor misplaced misapprehensions about either end of the American political spectrum. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I see that you failed to do the research as I suggested. If you did, you would discover that "80 percent of op-ed columnists featured by the Tampa Tribune are conservative"[1] with the paper itself describing its own editorials as "more moderate to conservative" than other regional newspapers. [2]. So, it appears you were confused. As for Heartland, their own people publish the Federalist, which pushes a fringe perspective on climate change denial while hosting similar attacks from Discovery Institute creationists on its own site. They have been at this since Tyson rebooted Cosmos and began talking about climate change and criticizing creationism on the television series. There are numerous reliable sources on this. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring, of course, that if Dr. Tyson had not spent six or seven years publicly disparaging a former president of the United States on false grounds there would have been no room for anyone to attack him? Or if he had simply acknowledged his "error" in the first week or so after the story had broke, instead of denying that he had done anything wrong, that it would have had zero traction?
I'm sorry, Viriditas, but your perspective in these matters carries the taint of an angry partisan, and it colors every comment you made on the WP:BLP/N talk page, and even those immediately above here on my user talk page. As a previously uninvolved party in the "quotegate" controversy, I am appalled by the level of political partisanship on open and obvious display, and saddened by the twisted manipulation of our BLP policy to achieve a desired partisan outcome in a run-of-the-mill content dispute. No one on Wikipedia knows my personal politics, because I choose not to share them. I pride myself on keeping my politics to myself on-wiki, and believe that it's a damn shame that other editors do not at least try to do the same.
FYI, Media Matters is not exactly what any politically sophisticated American would call an objective, non-partisan evaluator of the political proclivities of newspaper editorial pages. But I suspect you already knew that, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a pattern to your comments up above. Whenever I bring up evidence directly addressing your point, you distract from the point and go ad hominem. For example, you questioned the assertion that the source was conservative, even though the paper itself notes it is more conservative than other papers in the region, and that an independent, data-driven report also notes it is conservative. Faced with this evidence, what did you do? You attacked my motivations and then you attacked the motivations of the report. The report itself simply notes who identifies as conservative and who does not. How could that possibly be politically motivated? Further, your comments are quite telling. You claim I am an "angry" political partisan, which is simply hilarious, as 1) I have nothing to be angry about, and 2) I do not support any political party, nor have I expressed any support of any political party here or anywhere else, and 3) you erroneously argue by implication that climate change and evolution are political topics, which is simply false, they are scientific facts. So, your own comments give your agenda away. It is the Heartland and Discovery Institute who have spent lots of money trying to promote the false notion that climate change and evolution are politically motivated. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, you are a guest on my talk page, who for some reason feels compelled to discuss right-wing conspiracy theories to which I do not subscribe. You jump to nonsensical conclusions about me -- that I have an "agenda," that I "support the Heartland and Discovery Institute," that I "believe that climate change and evolution are political topics," etc. You know nothing about me, and yet you draw these conclusions in much the same way you found a grand conspiracy against Dr. Tyson for having made some very foolish statements. And, unsurprisingly, you are wrong on all counts. I have four university degrees -- three from American universities, and one from a British university, so you can safely assume that virtually all of your conclusions about the character and sophistication of my political beliefs are completely wrong. And so now I ask you, as a good talk page guest, to drop the stick, give it a rest, and perhaps return on another day for a more open-minded chat. G'night. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A (half) barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
For your work with Mr swordfish on loosing the Gordian Knot at the discussion on the Federalist. LHMask me a question 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice thought, but we've got a long way to go, my friend! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Fingers crossed, but a review of the recent edits at the other discussion on the BLP/N talk page will temper your optimism. Color me cautiously optimistic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    My use of the word "loosing" instead of "cutting" or "untying" in the barnstar's prose was intentional... :) LHMask me a question 19:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • And, the Gordian Knot is retightening, as the warring sides begin to retrench in their "no inclusion ever no matter what" and "those passages don't go nearly far enough" foxholes. This mess has actually made it into the reportage about the issue, which is an embarrassment for the project. LHMask me a question 02:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I expected that. That's okay. It's helpful to get them to commit to that immovable position; it was unclear that they were that recalcitrant before. Not all of the previous "pro-deletion" editors are 100% against compromises. It appears that 4 or 5 are. Many other folks appear inclined to work it out. We need to keep advancing the ball on an acceptable compromise text, and an acceptable consensus may emerge with the buy-in of the compromise. We don't unanimity, just an obvious majority of 60+%. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

SoCal Coyotes

I have followed to some extent, and commented there amongst the wall created by the author. However, I had stepped away, questioning the value of spending more time on it due to the effort required to deal with the author's relentless promotional efforts, including presentation of articles generated by the organization or its personnel as independent. Here's the summary of what I found for sources using various types of Google search: A fair amount of coverage in reliable media local to the Palm Springs/Riverside County area (regular beat-type coverage, although the team does not have a stable league arrangement to play in and frequently jumps between leagues as can be seen from the article text) and nothing else reliable focusing on the team/organization itself (discussion of it in association with focus on its players in their former home areas, or on team personalities notable for activities outside their association with the team), including (especially) not even passing coverage from reliable sources following opponents (if such sources exist) as would be expected for a notable athletic team. The title of the Las Vegas Review-Journal article on Mouse Davis, in fact, uses the words "semi-pro obscurity" to describe the situation. If the article is kept based on the local sources, the author (who in the discussion at AFD indicated detailed knowledge of team interactions) should probably step away due to likely COI and pervasive promotional language and article should be rebuilt in non-promotional fashion by someone else from the ground up. Koumz (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Treon Harris

DL, you might want to take a look at this new article for Treon Harris. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Nice. With plenty of footnotes. Well written too, huh? Please slap a BLP concerns template on it, and let somebody else deal with it. The allegations were made, but what the truth is . . . I don't have a clue. If I do anything to clean it up, the author will accuse me of being a "Gator partisan" sweeping scandal under the rug. Perhaps we should post it on the WP:BLP/Noticeboard? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT FEDERAL EXPRESS

AND I AM NO CARDBOARD MAILING ENVELOPE TO BE "DELIVERED", SIR.

Funny, eh? I'm real funny. Aahahahahahahaha. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sir, you're pretty funny. Plus you look pretty good in white, orange and purple.  : P Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out at talk. Barnstars and such for your work. I replied at my talk. Also please see my latest comments on the NDGT page... an effort to split the knot. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

re:Compromise: something everyone dislikes

Im totally ok with some kind of compromise. but i think there are a fair number of editors who are wont stand for anything less than total exclusion of this material. I offered what i felt like was as compromise here [3] but it was mostly ignored and banished to the abyss of page archives. Im not in love with your proposal, but i guess thats the point, no one gets all that they want, right? Bonewah (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • It is increasingly apparent that there are approximately a half dozen editors who will accept no mention of the "quotegate" controversy in the NDGT article whatsoever, and another three to four who will only accept a "compromise" that balances NDGT's admission of repeatedly misquoting/quoting Bush out of context with an indictment of what they perceive as the right-wing echo chamber's unfair attacks on NDGT. It is apparently irrelevant to these editors that NDGT's recorded speeches demonstrate that NDGT repeatedly misquoted Bush and used the misquote to imply that Bush said something he never said nor implied, and to make Bush appear as if he were foolishly ignorant of science and religion for something he never said nor implied. Yeah, it's a problem. I'm going to think on it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Issue

most Ph.D. professors will make significant good faith efforts to help minorities in American universities

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but it almost sounds like you think the problem is that minorities can't cut it in academia, so they need special help, and that's a problematic statement. Minorities don't want help, they want equal access to the same opportunities, which is the problem you have neglected to address and which Tyson touched upon. Here's your homework assignment: White privilege. Please read and understand it. There will be a test. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Viriditas, you're an odd guy. Yesterday, you came on my user talk page to warn me about making personal attacks because I suggested that you were letting some inner anger cloud your talk page responses (Seriously: angry = personal attack?), but now you've returned to make veiled and completely unsubstantiated accusations of racism, racial insensitivity, and "white privilege" against me? Seriously? Suggesting someone is racist, racially insensitive, or lacks perspective because they suffer from white privilege is pretty inflammatory stuff where I sit. I won't even push back with an NPA warning: I'll simply remind you that you don't know me, and ask you not to engage in this sort of provocative behavior and personal commentary against me or anyone else. There is already plenty of heat and not enough light on the BLP/Noticeboard and the talk pages for NDGT and The Federalist, and such personalization does nothing to reduce the heat and increase the light, nor promote a resolution of the present impasse. Please consider carefully: do you want to be part of the problem, or part of the solution? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Tyson directly touched upon the topic of white privilege when he claimed he was followed around and harassed by the university security forces for attending to his Astrophysics studies while black. How does this statement suggest you are racist? I suggested that your statement "most Ph.D. professors will make significant good faith efforts to help minorities in American universities" was problematic, as it implied that minorities aren't intelligent and can't cut it in academia without special help from their White masters. That is what it sounds like. But that wasn't what Tyson was talking about now, was it? He was talking about how he was treated for daring to study Astrophysics. Did you miss that, or are you not familiar with what non-white people have had to go through to obtain the same level of status and opportunity? Again, see white privilege. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "I suggested that your statement "most Ph.D. professors will make significant good faith efforts to help minorities in American universities" was problematic, as it implied that minorities aren't intelligent and cut it in academia without special help from their White masters."
What nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. It implies no such thing. It is increasingly obvious that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to engage in ideologically driven debate and accusations in which I have no interest in participating. Everyone is normally welcome on my user talk page, but you, sir, have crossed the line: Please do not return to my talk page until you learn to interact with other editors in a collegial, non-provocative, non-insulting manner. Thank you and good night. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

[Provocative statements by Viriditas have been struck through by Dirtlawyer1 in lieu of deleting them. Viriditas has been politely requested not to return until he learns to interact with other editors in a collegial, non-provocative, non-insulting manner. Such comments are not welcome here, nor do I wish to participate in such tit-for-tat silliness. --DL1]

[Deleted comment by User:Viriditas.]

Now, you've done it: you've actually made me delete your unwelcome comment, after politely asking you to stay off my user talk page. If you return again with more such comments, I will request administrator action for violating standard talk page courtesy after you had been politely requested to leave. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This Ph.D. professor tries to make significant good-faith effort to help minorities. This isn't because minorities are less intelligent--far from it. I spend over an hour with a Chinese student the other day who is smart enough but has significant language difficulties. I have, in the past, made significant efforts to help black students find decent graduate programs. But then, I have also made significant good-faith efforts to help white penisbearers find decent graduate programs. Making an effort (the suggestion is of course of making an effort one does not make for "majority" students) is in itself nothing special, and it should be noted that this professor made such efforts when students came to my office, voluntarily, to chat and ask about things and whatnot. If I go into my classroom and point at the black students and say "you guys, after class, in my office, I'm going to help you"--that would be not just untoward, but also humiliating. On the other hand, one simply needs to recognize that (some) minority students need the kind of help that others don't; if those others, for instance, come from middle-class backgrounds with a tradition of higher education, they don't need the kind of help that some of our minority students do--"help" meaning advice, mostly, on how to navigate graduate programs and those kinds of logistical things, not embellished letters or something like that. And "minority" students in the United States--well, we're not just talking about race, but also about class. It's hardly a simple issue.

    So this original comment by Dirtlawyer, I take it on face value and in good faith, and vouch from experience that it is accurate. I do not take it as a derogatory comment since the right-wingers have it wrong in many ways: Bill O'Reilly, the other day on Jon Stewart's show, had it wrong when he made claims about equal access to education and all that. That's prima facie wrong, and it fails to take into account that academic success depends on many, many factors, not just "inborn smarts" or so; cultural factors may be just as important. Texas isn't a very progressive state though Austin is a cool town, and Columbia might be much more welcoming to a black astrophysics student--but this is all guesswork. Anyway, I've taken up enough space here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your usual words of wisdom, Dr. Mies. Always nice to hear from you under any circumstances -- and on this occasion, you leave behind a statement with which I can only nod in agreement, and which comports completely with my own personal experience in academia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Haha, wisdom, I don't know, but I'll tell my poor students you said so. Experience, sure. Dirtlawyer, I think you and I are in some disagreement over what to put in and what to keep out of the article, and that's fine; I think, though, that you have some common sense and that's always good, and you and I can usually see eye to eye. Thanks.

    I have a lot of friends who didn't finish their Ph.D.s, for all kinds of reasons; not a single one didn't finish because of lack of smarts. Some get married and have kids, others move away 'cause their spouse gets a job (this is quite typical in "grad school marriages"), some get disappointed in their project, with their own professor, at their own school... They themselves may call that "flunking out", but that's usually spoken in a pretty wry tone, since it's a source of great personal frustration that I intensely sympathize with: to call that being "washed out", as another editor did, is a slap in the face and a knee in the groin. And in the end, in this case, it didn't determine the rest of his life, fortunately; I doubt if the "washed out" editor realizes how hard it is to be in a Ph.D. program, to finish one, to give on up, and then to pick it back up again. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who "flunked out" and then got it anyway... (I "flunked out" of a Master's Program and went back to school years later.)

    Also, I'm going to take this as a reminder to find that piece of paper and put it on my wall. I never thought about it much, but man am I happy that I finished that program.

    Can I leave a remark for Viriditas? When I entered the Master's Program there was one black student--one. He left before the year was over, and years later I realized that someone should have paid some attention to him, the only black student in a major program at a major US state university, with--at the time--no black faculty in the department. That was a terrible thing, and without saying anything about his smarts (I have no reason to believe I'm smarter than him) I think he would have benefited from a little good-faith effort. I'm a firm believer in positive discrimination, Dirtlawyer, but in this case something as legally uncontroversial as a friendly word from a friendly faculty member could have made a huge difference. Ah, again I'm over 500 words. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Again, you leave me precious little with which I can disagree. You're on a roll.
As for content disagreements, reasonable people can disagree reasonably, and reasonable people who disagree reasonably can often find ways to compromise that accommodate the reasonable concerns of both parties. In the present BLP dust-up, I have seen precious little reason, and even less desire for compromise. Very disappointing to this guy: the "Reasonable Man." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Percy Harvin

No, actually it's not official. Read the actual article on NFL.com. It even says "...according to a source informed of the situation." That's not official. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Flags

Reliable sources use flags to represent the nationalities of footballers, even though they are representing their nation, and that is why we use flags in football rosters. GiantSnowman 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(ironic edit conflict; I was coming here to say exactly the same thing!) Hi Dirtlawyer1. I saw your comments about domestic football competitions in the flags debate, and thought I'd give you a bit of background (I'm doing it here because unfortunately these debates turn incredibly nasty, and I have no desire to embroil myself in circular arguments with certain editors). We have always used flags on football club articles to detail the nationality of its players (see e.g. Ipswich Town F.C.#First team squad). This is because player nationality is an important aspect of club football, and is a frequent topic of debate (search on Google for "too many foreign players english football" and you'll see what I mean. In terms of the technical details, the vast majority of leagues also have limits on the number of foreign players (either in their total squad, their matchday squad, or the team on the field). Whether the player has actually played international football or not is largely irrelevant to these matters, but clubs with a high number of foreign players are often affected by events like the Africa Cup of Nations, which again is a frequently debated issue ([4][5][6] etc).
Because nationality is an important aspect of club football, it is normal practice for football-related websites to list players with their nationality, the most common way being to use flagicons (as we do too). The main websites for listing squads are Soccerbase, Soccerway, Transfermarkt and Football squads. All of them highlight nationality, and three of the four do so using flags.
As I said, I didn't want to get into this debate yet again at MOSICONs, but thought I'd give you a bit of background etc. Cheers, Number 57 16:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Guys, the last thing I want to do is pick a fight with WP:FOOTY, but the inclusion of flag icons on the Manchester United team roster is inconsistent with the way every other sports project uses them. A Manchester United player is not representing his home country/sporting nationality in any way; he many be English, he may be German, he may be Spanish, but he's a paid professional on a professional team that happens to play in an English league. There is no element of representing his sporting nationality, or playing in international competition. In that regard, my example is no different than an American football player the in the CFL, or a Canadian playing in the NFL. These are national, not international, leagues. WP:FOOTY's usage is different, and I simply am not going to comment on it in the RfC, and hope no one focuses on it. My goal is to get the anti-flag types to stop trying to remove flag icons from international athletes who are Olympians, or who compete internationally in Formula 1 racing, golf, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, track & field, etc., where the use of flag icons should be unquestioned. Association football and WP:FOOTY apparently have their own unique conventions that do not jibe with usage elsewhere. I just hope that it does not become the outlier that sinks the boat for everyone else. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you're familiar with how other sports projects use them: Rugby Union articles use them (Wasps RFC#Current squad), Rugby League articles use them (South Sydney Rabbitohs#Players 2), basketball articles use them (Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C.#Players), ice hockey articles use them (Belfast Giants#2014–15 roster), Speedway uses them (Ipswich Witches#2013 Team), handball uses them (HSV Hamburg). It looks like it's the case that American sports articles don't use them, but perhaps that is reflective of the fact that it's less usual to have foreign players, or less international competition at club level etc? Number 57 17:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup, those all appear to be consistent with WP:FOOTY's usage. The odd thing is that the players who are national team members get no flag icon in their infobox, but they do get one on their mixed-nationality team roster for the professional team of which they are members. It's a different way of doing things. As for American and Canadian sports, Major League Baseball (MLB) probably has the most internationally mixed collection of athletes, followed by the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Soccer (MLS), and National Basketball Association (NBA). The high player salaries at the top of MLB, NBA and NHL tend to attract the best player in those sports from outside the States. The National Football League (NFL) has a handful of Canadians and other non-Americans, while the Canadian Football League (CFL) is about a quarter Americans. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair point about the player spread - I confess I know very little about American sports other than the MLS. But the ignorance that both of us have shown just goes to illustrate the importance of people with knowledge of the subject area being the main contributors towards the application of policy in those areas. I would never intervene in a debate on how best American footballers should be represented, but I have spent many hours banging my head against the wall trying to explain the relevance of nationality to club (association) football to some editors who little or no knowledge of the sport, and who insist it's not. But it's nice to come across someone who doesn't just dismiss things out of hand. Cheers, Number 57 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Number 57, even if I disagreed with you vehemently, I cannot afford to alienate you, GiantSnowman, and the rest of the FOOTY editors because the sports projects cooperate across a wide range of MOS, AfD and notability issues. Very soon, I will be coming to y'all to ask for your support in addressing ambiguous elements of WP:NSPORTS and related guidelines regarding the notability/suitability of stand-alone articles for regular season sports matches, sports seasons for individual athletes, and sports rivalries, all of which have created cruft problems in the corners of several of the sports projects. For a lot of reasons, I try to be a good team player, but I also do my best to play by the Wikipedia-wide rules, too. MOS:ICON has been irritant to me for several years, and even more so after I spent time reading how a very narrow group drafted its current guidelines applicable to sports, teams and athletes. There was ZERO input from a single editor who worked on sports, military or ship articles -- they later backtracked to create exceptions for military history and ships. That being said, there are still a lot of examples of overuse of flags, and especially in sports articles, where you see big no-no's like using flags for tournament locations, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'd be interested to know where and what kind of cruft problems you're seeing. We used to get all kinds of nonsense in the football sphere (teams from five-a-side leagues, 16 year old players who just signed a contract with a big club (but then never play), etc), but I think certainly in the last five years we've been very successful in almost totally eliminating it. In part this has been down to going through a number of AfDs that set a good precedent for what is and what is not allowed, and then having some very large AfDs to eliminate the remaining outliers. It certainly helps being a big project in terms of participation. In one of the others I'm in, there are very few active members, and getting consensus on common formatting is a nightmare. Number 57 18:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I've seen at AfD, y'all have a pretty good grip on non-notable footballer articles. American college football and basketball, as well as several of the pro sports projects, have been plagued by a proliferation of marginally notable/non-notable articles about rivalries and regular season games. WP:CFB just deleted 20 articles about regular season games with another 15-20 on the way; there are probably double or triple that number of rivalry articles that should be deleted. I also came across an eccentricity that I believe is unique to WP:Tennis; they have sanctioned single-season articles for individual tennis players (!). There was a highly contentious AfD that led to the deletion of the 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season article, and now WP:Tennis is trying to sort it out internally. There are plenty of other cruft examples, including the grotesque proliferation of navboxes for minor sports awards and honors. One battle a time, as I always say. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, the single game article. To be fair we still have occasional problems with those... But good luck anyway - it's not all plain sailing - even though we have largely unanimous agreement on many things, there are still editors who go against the grain - there is one guy who effectively only logs on to !vote keep on AfDs for players that fail WP:NFOOTY. The issue is that as there is such unanimous agreement, few people bother to participate in AfDs, so that one vote can sometimes make a difference... Number 57 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI - it would be a good idea to try to attract attention to the Sports flag RFC from editors who are less involved in both the sports and style guideline areas. The last time a similar discussion was held around flag usage, discussion was often polarised as those present tended to be (a) sports editors wanting change, or (b) people involved in writing the current guideline (thus less given to change).
  • I tried to get participation from military editors last time, given the use of flags in that topic area, but it also might be useful to get less involved editors (for example, from the film or medical Wikiprojects) to get some idea of what opinion is like outside the central groups discussing this topic. A common criticism of the previous proposal was that sports editors only represented their own interests and were not representative of the wiki-wide editorship (which it was claimed that the current MOS was/is). It would be a good idea to put this concept to test. SFB 17:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SFB, the military history and ships folks, who are also among the most adamant users of flag icons, have no incentive to participate, because they already have adequate exceptions built into MOS:ICON. I have seen no interest among film or medical editors to pursue flag icons; unlike sports, there is virtually no element of representing a nationality, either officially or implicitly, in those areas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's kind of my point. This guideline stands on the basis that the silent majority support it, but I think the silent majority hasn't really had any input into it. I think this assumption needs to be challenged. And yes, it's an obvious difficulty to get uninvolved editors to actually donate their time to this! SFB 10:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catie Ball

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catie Ball 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) 18:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding The Federalist, et al

It might be best to leave them to it. You tried to give an uninvolved viewpoint, and were attacked as a partisan who didn't understand BLP. It's basically par for the course when anyone tries to challenge draconian, wrong-headed applications of BLP policy. I honestly think it's done (mostly) in good faith, as many people think simply declaring a passage (no matter how well-sourced or neutrally-worded) a "BLP violation" means that passage can never appear in that article again. It doesn't matter if they can't explain how a given passage violates BLP policy or not--it's enough that they've declared it "contentious" or whatever. For an even better example of this than the NDGT quote thing, see the HUGE debate that was had over including the well-referenced name of Chelsea Clinton's child. It was beyond surreal. With that said, though, I think you're going to be shouted down about this, as the people who normally provide the clearer heads at BLPN have not chosen to weigh in much on this issue. As such, you might do best to consider just letting the "BUT IT'S A BLP VIOLATION!!!1!!1!" crowd have their way, knowing that the "arguments" (such as they were) were completely without merit. LHMask me a question 03:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Sadly, LHM, these are some of the same editors who believe that it is unnecessary to have in-line footnotes for a list article composed of living persons, and that simply linking to another Wikipedia article is an acceptable way of sourcing a list of BLPs. Strange times in which we live. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You, sir, have far more patience than I. And I must say I do enjoy to read your well-reasoned comments. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Arzel. I have intentionally avoided political content discussions on Wikipedia for five and a half years, and in the space of the last 30 hours (and participation in a single political content discussion), I have been falsely accused of virtually everything short of beating my mother for raising good-faith questions regarding the misapplication of BLP policy and related guidelines to a run-of-the-mill content dispute. I am appalled if this is standard operating procedure in on-wiki political content discussions. My only response is to answer incivility with civility, policy complaints with policy-compliant solutions, and false accusations with reasoned defenses. And ignore all attempted provocations. Apparently, two or three involved editors do not like this approach. Not much else to say, I suppose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have existed on the periphery of such discussions in my last four years on the project. But I previously edited under different user names, which I detail on one of my user subpages, and I can say it's fairly par for the course. Far too often, people dig in their heels on political articles, and refuse to budge, accusing anyone with even minor disagreements of being vile partisans. LHMask me a question 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have, to date, tried to edit Wikipedia as if it were a privilege and as if I were tasked with upholding tradition, protocol and principle. I have, until recently, assumed that most other editors behave that way as well. This episode has taught me otherwise. There is an "ends justifies the means" mentality in life, and that mentality does not end just because someone obtains and uses a Wikipedia log on. I was involved in the Tyson issue from the beginning and invested a fair amount of effort in debating the points involved, and after a while, I realized I was arguing valid points using valid policy and guidelines only to have those points simply ignored. I was simply spitting into the wind. It was at that point where I washed my hands of the whole affair and refused to lend any further credibility to the whole disgraceful process by being involved in it. I don't think Wikipedia has the structures in place to deal with such issues properly... I don't know what to recommend or do about the situation, but it has left me disheartened. I wish you and those with your motives the best of luck... I wish I had the stomach to join you but I admit I do not. Marteau (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Marteau: Marteau, it is always darkest before the dawn. Before you nail the white flag to the mast, please register your opinions in this discussion regarding proposed compromise text: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Federalist: Proposed compromise text. No need to spend a lot of time arguing; just express your opinion. No one will behave like an a@#$%^e toward you, I promise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Marteau: Would you consider supporting the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking when this whole thing is done, we need to really re-think the BLP policy and propose some changes. Make it explicit weather or not opinion articles can be considered in weight for BLP articles (if not that's fine, but I'll be asking we remove other things from other pages if that's how WP wants to go). And if weight issues are covered by WP:BLP at all. (IMO WP:BLP is there to protect against potential liable, not against verified NPOV truthful statements that someone doesn't think are important enough to include). Again if WP wants to go that way as a project, that's fine but the policy page should be clear so that everyone knows what the policy is. --Obsidi (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It allows for the use of common sense in deciding when to use different types of sources. But far too often, people simply shout "BLP!!!!11!!!1!" as a way to keep material they dislike out of the articles of BLPs they do like. It's really becoming a sad state of affairs. LHMask me a question 05:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh I agree, the policy is there, but it is somewhat vague. More of a "be reasonable". Unfortunately expecting everyone to just be reasonable isn't likely to work well (we probably wouldn't need any other policies then that if it worked!). --Obsidi (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, I just wanted to weigh-in because I've been following this discussion at BLPN, and agree with many of the statements made here. I appreciate your patience, courtesy, and diligence in trying to find neutral ground. WP needs a lot more editors just like you. What I've come to learn in my relatively short but concentrated experiences on WP is that tendentious editors often don't realize they are tendentious. They are pushing their POV all the while accusing you of pushing yours. Ironic, isn't it? There is also the existence of a flagrant misunderstanding or misinterpretation of policy, primarily by editors I refer to as "skimmers", or speed readers. They skim over the words instead of reading them. Most, if not all, who have commented here have adequately described the problems we face as editors. I can certainly relate to Marteau, but I'm not going to let the disappointments get the better of me, and I hope Marteau will do the same. Unfortunately, tendentious editors are relentless, and consensus doesn't always work to resolve the problem when only a few editors are participating, and some of them don't fully understand policy, or they are participating only to support a specific POV. NPOV is an exercise in conscious reasoning, and requires the ability to see things from both sides. It's the only way to find common ground. NPOV also requires a substantial degree of common sense which in some editors appears more frequently to have been replaced by book knowledge, as with the character, Sheldon Cooper. Regardless, we still have to deal with loyalties to causes, religions, ideologies, and partisan beliefs. The trip hazards are numerous. Grasping the full scope of BLP policy requires synthesis because it not only covers what is clearly stated in the policy, but it also requires adherence to WP's three core content policies: NPOV, V, NOR. I have seen quite a few editors mistakenly try to separate the core policies and make them a separate issue. Being firm about the use of "high quality sources" is of the utmost importance, but at the same time, those sources must reflect a NPOV. Example: Conservatives consider Brietbart, FOX News, and Reuters as high quality sources while liberals consider the Huffington Post, NY Times, and Washington Post as high quality sources. Each shows some degree of bias, therefore according to policy, both fail NPOV. Yes? No? The call is subjective, and therein lies the problem. If the source is biased, how can anything cited from that source be considered NPOV? One solution is like what you proposed: neutralize the statement by incorporating an opposing view from another high quality source. Then comes the question, "Is the statement truly noteworthy?" If it is truly noteworthy, there will be high quality secondary AND third party sources from both perspectives. If the latter isn't the case, the statement doesn't belong in the article. There really isn't any ambiguity if editors will simply accept what is written as it is written, and leave their POV out of it. Ahhhh...a Wikipedian Utopia. ;-) Atsme☯Consult 18:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Precious little with which to disagree, Atsme. I appreciate your counsel. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catie Ball

The article Catie Ball 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:Catie Ball for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Vernon Hargreaves

Sources say III:[7][8][9]--Yankees10 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Yankees10: Well, okay. That works for me. Is his dad or grandfather someone significant? That might contribute to the need to differentiate with the suffix. If not, I'd bet the "III" will get dropped over time as he gets more ink in The Gainesville Sun, other Florida papers, and the national sports media. Put a buck on it?  : ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree the III will more than likely go away eventually, but removing it as of right now is too soon imo.--Yankees10 03:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Jack McDowall

Would you happen to know of any more sources for him? Neat to see the first great NC State player was from Gainesville. I also started Rainey Cawthon. Cake (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got nothing on McDowall, Cake. Probably went to Gainesville High; I believe that was the only high school in town before they opened Buchholz. The Gators could have used him in the mid-20s; they had some pretty good teams then. BTW, that's an odd spelling of McDowall -- normally spelled with an "e," not an "a".
I saw your Rainey Cawthon article; I'm somewhat concerned about satisfying GNG, and I've been checking for newspaper sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
" that's an odd spelling of McDowall" I noticed that too - sources are mixed in their spelling. I had started an article already with the "E" before realizing the article existed with the A. Cake (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hope I'm not being a bother. Just found this. 1903 was the Cumberland Bulldogs best year at least of which I know. The Bridges brothers were on that team. Then one finds this. Are there any Bridges as assistant coach or something of early Florida football? I know that's not the name of Florida's coach in 1906 as implied. Cake (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, Cake. The modern University of Florida was created by an act of the state legislature, the Buckman Act, in 1905. The Buckman Act mandated the merger of four pre-existing state entities to create a new entity called the "University of the State of Florida"; this is/was the modern university. The pre-1905 history of the university's four predecessor institutions is complicated:

"The four existing institutions that were merged to form the new University of the State of Florida in 1905 were the University of Florida at Lake City (formerly known as Florida Agricultural College until 1903), the East Florida Seminary in Gainesville, the St. Petersburg Normal and Industrial School in St. Petersburg, Florida, and the South Florida Military College in Bartow, Florida. After consolidation of the four schools into the new entity, only the new Gainesville campus would remain open after 1905. In 1909, the name of the new university was simplified to its present form, the 'University of Florida.'" (Text cut and pasted from footnote no. 38 of Andrew Sledd.)

It's been a couple of years since I last looked at this element of Florida's pre-history, but I'm pretty sure that Marvin Bridges was one of the two pre-merger coaches of Florida Agricultural College/University of Florida at Lake City; the other coach was James M. Farr, an English lit professor and later the vice president of the new university. To the best of my memory, I believe the other was Bridges, but I'm away from home tonight and do not have my copy of Tom McEwen's 1974 book, which is my best reference to the pre-Gators/pre-UF FAC teams of 1902, 1903 and 1904. Another of the predecessor institutions, the East Florida Seminary in Gainesville, also fielded pre-Gators/pre-UF teams for three or four seasons before 1905, but its sports records are even sketchier.

After the 1905 merger of the four schools, the colors changed, the nicknames changed, the location of the school(s) changed, and there were no carryover players from the pre-1905 teams of the predecessor institutions. The modern university traces its athletic traditions to the 1905 merger, and fielded its first football team in the fall of 1906 under coach Pee Wee Forsythe.

I did check several online references, and Alpha Eta is the University of Florida's chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha, and the chapter was founded in Lake City in 1904 -- prior to the 1905 Buckman Act merger, so that much of the story is consistent. BTW, this "pre-history" is the reason that UGA claims an extra win in the Florida-Georgia rivalry: a team from UGA beat the crap out of a pre-UF team from FAC/UFLC in 1904. Hope this clears up some of the history -- or at least doesn't confuse you further. I'll check my copy of McEwen regarding Marvin Bridges when I get home later today. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"is the reason that UGA claims an extra win in the Florida-Georgia rivalry...a team from UGA beat the crap out of a pre-UF team from FAC/UFLC in 1904. " That's right, I do remember that. Neat if the Bridges were involved with early UF; the only names one seems to find a bit repute for with Cumberland football given the likes of 222 to 0. Funny that Heisman was the voice campaigning for that 1903 Cumberland team which tied him as Southern champs. Cake (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me about this. I pulled my copy of McEwen's book out, and checked the pre-UF records of FAC/UFLC, and "M.O. Bridges" is listed as the last FAC/UFLC coach in 1904; the Blue and White (not Gators) compiled an 0–5 record against Alabama, API (Auburn), Georgia, Georgia Tech and Florida State College (FSU's pre-Buckman Act predecessor) and was outscored 224 to zip. Not hard to understand why Bridges is not remembered in Gainesville -- even the English professor-coach, James M. Farr, compiled a better 1–2–1 record in 1901 and 1902. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Marvin "Shoot the Moon" Bridges. Cake (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. It's embarrassing when a coach who is also an English professor has a better win-loss than you do. Of course, Bridges' team did face a four-team murderer's row of Southern football -- I have no idea what the hell the coach/scheduler was thinking! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Now I must see if this is him as well. I suspect it is.Cake (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, was him. Looks like he was an early pay for play player. Cake (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what the applicable eligibility rules were in 1904, but this is not the first coach I've encountered from the early 1900s who suited up and played with his team. Another example is Jack Forsythe, the first official coach of the post-1905 Gators. The NCAA was not formed until 1906, so it was a much different era regarding amateur sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not only the playing with the team. I have certainly seen that, but he was paid to play for Washington & Jefferson, and his status as a specialty student is the same at Cumberland. I'm sure there were others than him then too, but just interesting. Cake (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Amortias (T)(C) 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amortias: Why am I being given this warning? Explanation requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As there is an ongoing BLP issue with an article you have been editing recently editors who havent been wanred of the discretionary sanctions in place from the Arbitration committe have had this posted. This message does not pass any judgement or negative influence to your edits. Its the equivilent of a warning speed camera sign. Its letting you know theres need to be extra careful when editing articles where BLP has been invoked such as The Federalist (website). Amortias (T)(C) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Amortias: With all due respect, I can read: diff of Viriditas' request to warn me. I don't need a go-between to leave templated warnings on my talk page; you're being played. If you want to understand the situation better, I suggest you review the relevant block logs: 13 blocks in 7 years and 0 blocks in 5 years. There is a documented pattern of edit-warring and tendentious behavior involved here, but you're going to find precious little of it in my editing history. Such templated warnings are often a prelude to an ANI complaint by the party leaving the template, and I have little doubt of the intended purpose of the requested warning was.
As for the reason why Viriditas has been "banned" from my talk page, here is his quoted text, which is still posted above:
"I suggested that your statement 'most Ph.D. professors will make significant good faith efforts to help minorities in American universities' was problematic, as it implied that minorities aren't intelligent and cut it in academia without special help from their White masters."
That is offensive, and a not-very-subtle provocation intentionally phrased to avoid a more direct NPA sanction. It's also transparently obvious. No one who comes to my talk page and implies that I am racist, racially insensitive, or serving the purposes of someone's "White masters" is welcome here. And attempting to characterize those comments as some good-faith discussion of legitimate issues is subterfuge of the most transparent kind. I suggest you read the subsequent comments left by Dr. Mies after Viriditas' comments were struck or deleted. People who play those kind of provocative games are not welcome on this talk page, and nor should you permit yourself to be used to relay unneeded templated warnings.
I thank you for your good faith attempt at alleviating a situation, but this is a one-sided problem that can be easily resolved by one editor staying off the other's talk page. If he needs to interact with me, he can do so in article talk space. Thank you for your concern. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for ping

I want to leave this here with you as a formal request to be pinged to any RfCs regarding Dr. Tyson that you think might be of interest to me. I am embarking on a wikibreak of sorts, and have removed Dr. Tyson's BLP from my watchlist, as it's frustrating to watch the "discussion" going on there (scare quotes intentional). Good luck and best regards, LHMask me a question 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mo Collins

Mo Passed away this mornin......from a friend that grew up with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.166 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the head's up -- I have updated the article appropriately. It's a sad day for Florida Gators; Mo was one of the good guys. Please accept my condolences on the passing of your friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2014/October&oldid=1065786873"