User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/August

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


Stalled GA Reviews

Dirtlawyer1, your Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA1 review is now 133 days old—the oldest ongoing review by nearly two months—and despite assertions on July 6, July 17, and July 24 that you would "be back on the case" that day, were "on it", and were "working on comments now", you have not posted any new review material to the review page since May 8. This is most unfair to the nominator, and even more so when you consider it was first nominated nearly ten months ago.

We have an ongoing GA Cup contest at the moment, and reviewers have an incentive for taking on the oldest of the reviews. With the next round starting later this week, this particular nomination would be selected for review in very short order, if it were made available. The same is true of Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1, which has been under review for 72 days, has not been posted to since May 20, and would be in the top ten oldest unreviewed nominations if it were made available to other reviewers.

Wikipedia runs on volunteers, and we all have our own priorities. Yours seem to be for work in areas of Wikipedia other than GAN. You have made well over a thousand edits since I first asked three weeks ago whether you would continue the older review or give it over to other hands, and none of those edits have continued the review. Indeed, over 150 have been made since the July 24 query on the review page.

As it says on the Good Article instructions page in the Reviewing section (Step 2), Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. This commitment has not been met on either of these reviews. I am asking you to give them over now or make significant progress on at least the older review page in the next couple of days. If you do neither before Friday, I will put them both back into the reviewing pool so they available to other reviewers, including those participating in the GA Cup. —BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, a new reviewer opened Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA2 yesterday, so I have closed the discussion in GA1. Nothing further should be posted there. If you should wish to share any issues on the nomination that you have discovered, you are welcome to do so on the GA2 review page for the new reviewer to consider. I'm sorry things didn't work out with this one, but I'm looking forward to your continuation of Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas–Tennessee football rivalry

Are you going to AfD Arkansas–Tennessee football rivalry? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Jweiss11: It should be sent to AfD: it's not notable as a "rivalry"; another example of the proliferation of "rivalry" stubs that only exist so someone can claim a newly created article. I started double-checking the newspaper archives this weekend, to see what was out there in terms of coverage, but got distracted but other wikistuff. If you've got the time, feel free to nominate it, and I'll jump in. We really need a WP:CFB written standard that draws a line under what qualifies a CFB rivalry for a stand-alone article vs. treatment within the parent team articles. Of course, I'm pretty sure at least one WP:CFB participant will howl in opposition and do everything short of throwing himself under the bus to prevent the adoption of such a standard. I'm really tired of these meaningless "rivalries" and always having to play the Bad Guy at AfD, and it's tough to get and keep the attention of the WP:CFB old-timers who understand the accepted standard to be applied to these rivalry articles. Ongoing aggravation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Swimmers

Hey, i saw that already done on some articles today. I don't get why there is a need for spaces after "Medal" "competition" "specific link" in the medaltemplates parameter. But if that's what it is, it's ok and i won't bother to change it. Other than that, i'll leave the infobox as it is. 2) When links aren't needed because it is alrady in the box, why show which country and sport are medals won? I'm against it anyway... Kante4 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Q

Just out of curiosity, did you receive my email a couple of weeks ago? Alakzi (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yup. It's what prompted me to investigate the colors situation, and why I was watching when the ANI thread started. I tried to respond directly to the email, but it was bounced back from your tutanota account as "undeliverable" with a series of error messages. By the time I got the bounce-back error message, you were already back on-wiki. FYI, I have since had trouble sending and receiving messages through the Wikipedia email system; the only hint I received that the emails were not delivered to the recipients was I did not receive the copies to my email account that the system is supposed to generate. I raised the issue at VP, and have not received a substantive response. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I see, thank you. Yahoo troubles? xeno's idea sounds like a good one; let's hope the dev team follows it up. Alakzi (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I use an old Yahoo account for Wikipedia email, and apparently Yahoo and Wikimedia don't play together nicely, but that should not have prevented me from sending an email directly to your tutanota account. Oddly, I've used the same Yahoo account for the entire 6 years I've been on on-wiki, but have not experienced problems sending and receiving email until recently. Annoying. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alakzi: Hey. I need the coding for adjustable columns. I have a list of names, of relatively uniform length, and I would like to be able to spread them in two or three columns, auto-adjusted based on the monitor width of the reader. We have adjustable column-width coding for references (e.g., {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}), and I assume we have similar mark-up for other column situations, too. Can you help me out? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • You're probably looking for {{Div col}}. Alakzi (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
            • @Alakzi: Perfect: [1]. That's exactly what I was looking for -- adjustable columns to fill the space based on the viewer's monitor size. Now that you've shown me how to do it, there are several dozen places I will use that coding technique to cure similar inefficient uses of space for lists. Thank you, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Always happy to help. I wish these were used more often. Alakzi (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on collapsed vs. autocollapse?

Per this? Jrcla2 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Jrcla2: Personally, I think all large navboxes should be uniformly set to "collapsed" state. I argued for this when we were haggling over the format of the standardized navboxes 5 years ago. Even more so when the navbodes are mostly red links for season articles. At the time, it was a minor point and was conveniently ignored; there was no specific consensus on point. Because I hated the yawning gap of the open boxes at the bottom of the page, all of the Gators navboxes are coded {{{state<includeonly>|collapsed</includeonly>}}} -- which opens it on the template page, but closes it on all article transclusions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I see your point, and I'm not so hard on either way. I just think if an anonymous IP is going to take such a firm stance on an opinion-based matter, it needs to be across the board, and he is clearly only trying to fix the Louisville basketball navbox only. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There's also a way to code the template to collapse on individual transclusions, but I would have to find an example of the coding because I have not had occasion to use it for several years. As for your IP, the better question is why does an IP even know about navbox coding? As for the fix, it's a small coding change to set the state to "collapsed" for all transclusions. I would leave it to the consensus of the Louisville editors, however many of them there are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
        • You can use {{Navbox|state=collapsed}} to collapse transcluded navboxes. Alakzi (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks to my talk page stalkers. Remind me not to say anything mean on my talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • None of us really know what is best because there is probably no user surveys done on it. Some footer template are clearly too big. Some are marginally too big. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I don't need a user survey to guide my appraisal of graphic aesthetics problems. I have two eyes and significant experience in layout and design that serve that function. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
      • aesthetics are subjective. We need to get an idea of what the users want. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
        • "Aesthetics are subjective". Certainly, but the yawning navbox filled with red links at the bottom of the Louisville Cardinals basketball article (and many others) is about as subjectively unappealing as graphics get. If you disagree, you're free to start to talk page discussion on the article talk page or elsewhere. I was asked for my subjective opinion, and I have stated it as strongly as I know how. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I agree with you the large footer templates should be collapsed, and I especially agree that if they are populated with red links. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I feel like our discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFL player has gotten unnecessarily strained, and it's almost certainly due to my original poor choice of words, so I'd like to apologize for that. Every interaction I've had with you around the wiki has been positive, and I value your opinion and input. ~ RobTalk 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions. You are being contacted to help form a consensus based on your earlier participation at a related thread, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Proposed moves for some single-season stat pages. Thanks in advance. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fu Yuanhui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anji. 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) 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 17:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alternative admin recall proposal

Dirtlawyer1, you might also be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall. Alakzi (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, A, I'm aware of the discussion. I'm just choosing to focus on the more viable of the various proposals now circulating. In my estimation, the German Wikipedia recall procedure has a number of odd features that are highly unlikely to be accepted by a strong majority of English Wikipedia editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: BARC only has support among non-admins

I'm bringing a subset of my response here, as I think it not appropriate to the wider discussion.

If having discussion is considered to be campaigning against the proposal, then I am 100% glad for it. I am in violation of nothing. I'm sorry you don't like it.

There was another proposal (though I don't remember where) that showed administrators against the proposal while editors were in support of it. This started some interesting discussions. My intent was to start such discussion. There is a serious disparity in voting patterns among the respective sets. I find that interesting, and worth discussing.

My statement is true. If taking 100% of the votes and breaking them down into their respective rights categories is "cherry picking", then so be it. I think a 100% sample set isn't cherry picking, but we might have different definitions.

I find the attempt to ascribe malfeasance upon me rather upsetting, least of all from you who knows me well enough to assume good faith. I have no friends here, and expect not to be treated as a friend. I do expect to have common courtesy displayed towards me, and this isn't it. I note Kudpung infers people who oppose his BARC process are irrational and non-objective [2]. You will not find me attacking anyone over this, only discussing the proposal itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Hammersoft: I believe you're over-reacting to my comments, probably based on a partial misunderstanding of them, so it's better that you brought it here rather than responding in a more public venue. From our past conversations, you know that I'm not an overly sensitive personality, and I am willing to engage in robust give-and-take unless and until it becomes mean-spirited. My comments regarding "cherry-picking" are straightforward: you have two groups, arbitrators and bureaucrats, for which you have extremely limited samples (three and four, to be precise). I don't know what your academic background in statistics is, but most stats aren't treated with any credibility at all until the sample size exceeds 30 randomly selected examples (n > 30). Even for a relatively small defined group such as current bureaucrats (33), a sample size of n = 4 is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions about the proclivities of the defined group. Bottom line: based on the small sample size relative to the populations of current bureaucrats and current and former arbitrators, we can't even begin to draw any reasonable conclusions about 'crats and arbs and the perceived !voting disparities between them and non-administrator. Looked at another way, the addition of only two or three additional arbs or crats to the sample could completely change the perceived results -- those are not robust statistics. This is even more true because none of the discussion participants were randomly selected, as would be done with a statistically ideal sample, but were self-selected and therefore subject to their own set of statistical biases. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is 3 of 13 active members of ArbCom statistically relevant? Is 4 of the limited pool of active bureaucrats statistically relevant? I'm happy to leave that to the statisticians. Regardless, it isn't cherry picking. I didn't selectively pick which bureaucrats or arbitrators to highlight out of the pool. The only ones I picked were the ones represented in the pool. It's a 100% selection of those that voted. The term "cherry picking" has some very significant pejorative meanings to it. Were you instead to question based on statistics, that's one thing. But to accuse me of "cherry picking" is flat wrong. Overreaction? I don't think so. There is no need to comment on me in any respect. Don't want an 'overreaction', then don't comment on me. I am not campaigning anymore so than Kudpung is. But, I guess it's ok for him to "campaign", but not me? I also wasn't attempting to draw any conclusions about the bureaucrats or arbitrators. That's not the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hammer, it's Kudpung's proposal, not yours. Of course, he supports his own proposal and feels compelled to answer questions, comments and criticisms of his proposal. Presumably, no one understands it better than he does. But commenting 20+ times in an overtly negative fashion does seem like "campaigning," especially when some of the comments have a distinctly and personally hostile feel to it. Even here on my talk page, conversing with me -- someone with whom you have had a friendly and relatively productive relationship -- it's pretty clear you have your back up and ears pinned back. Not sure what that's all about. Is there some reason we can't talk about this as two friendly editors? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You know, I'm sorry, but your initial accusations were bad enough. They should be retracted, though nobody ever does that around here. But to then take issue with me for finding fault with it and squarely laying the blame on me? Sorry, no. I won't accept that. I will continue to post as I see fit, within our policies and guidelines. Kudpung put this proposal into Wikipedia space. At that point, it wasn't "his" proposal anymore, and everyone and anyone is free to comment on the proposal however they see fit, again so long as it is within policy and guideline. I think our ability to have a discussion about this has left the building. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hammer, are you okay? Seriously: I'm asking for your sake. Nothing I said here or there deserves the level of hostility you're exhibiting above. I have no idea where you're coming from or why you are unable to de-escalate and have a normal conversation with me. In the hope that you will return to a conversational level of discourse, I have struck the words "cherry-picked" to which you took such apparent offense. Beyond that, I am flummoxed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly fine. I can and will take issue with a person who comments on me rather than content. I will take more issue with a person who then finds fault with me for finding fault with them over the issue. And then, for even worse, to ask if *I'm* ok? This is what you did. I find no reason for me not to be affronted by the turn of events here. I'm not going to be ok with people violating basic principles here, no matter how such principles are globally ignored. I can just as easily ask if you are ok. You normally would not descend to violating such principles and even worse attempting to defend such actions. At this point, we're up to our eyeballs in meta discussion. The horse died. Thank you for modifying the post. I appreciate it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And now, as I hoped, an interesting discussion has evolved in the thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Refactoring dispute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 August 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Refactoring dispute, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

R

Appreciate the measured reply. I responded in kind, but it ended up longer than expected. You'll probably find it more conciliatory than you expect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfM opened

Requested opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Refactoring dispute. It can take up to an hour for it to appear on the /pending page. This will probably be more productive than further circular argument. on multiple talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Or you could simply act in common courtesy, recognize that your wholesale refactoring of an entire MOS talk page thread is objectionable, and revert your own problematic edits in light of the guidance of WP:TPO. I am undecided whether to participate in your mediation request, especially in light of your mischaracterization of my statements and objections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to mischaracterize them, though I understand them better now (I also expected you'd give your version, of course). Seems unnecessary to go such a route now, though I think at some point there does need to be a clearer "way" when it comes to refactoring. "Normally" is just too vague; we obviously have widely divergent views on what that means. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Failed commitment

Dirtlawyer1, you gave me a commitment that you would respond promptly to replies to your Good Article review of Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1. A significant reply was made on July 31; it is August 15, half a month later, and you have not followed through on that commitment despite being informed of the reply. This is very disappointing.

Since you only seem to respond to hard deadlines, I am giving you 48 hours from the timestamp on this post to make a full response to the nominator's reply. If you do not, I'll have to find someone else to finish the review. (If you know now that you are unable to finish the review, tell me, and I'll find that person right away.) I will regret having to take this action, but the review is 90 days old today, and will be a full three months old at that point; the persistent delays are most unfair to the nominator.

I do hope to see you posting to the review page by then. If something comes up at the last minute, a post to say when you will be able to post should be sufficient for a limited extension, so long as you give a new time when you will definitely finish your next contribution to the review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
It says that this barnstar is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. I hope that includes disingenuous behaviour that derails our RfCs Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox college football player

DL, what's the word on a CFBHOF field for Template:Infobox college football player? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you mean Florida doesn't only hire guys whose middle name is Boog? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Pilczuk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Popov. 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) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Iffy rivalry

Not sure if you're keeping a master list somewhere, but I'm going through some Illinois stuff and came across the Illinois–Missouri football rivalry. It merits a closer look to determine whether or not it qualifies as a true rivalry. State Farm did briefly create a trophy, but the teams played only twice before 1966, have not met since 2010, and have no plans to meet again. Cbl62 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

20xx Championships

Holy crap, I added to one of the AfDs you were in and now that I'm looking through the most recent proposed AfDs, I've realized how absurd these creations are. Props for commenting on all of those, and if you do make some sort of proposal or an essay, please let me know.

Keep trucking. Upjav (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Upjav: Yes, it is ridiculous when we have articles for sporting events that may take place 7 to 13 years in the future. We probably need to adopt a WP:NSPORTS or WP:EVENT guideline on point. That far in advance, these future events merit at most a paragraph in the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Template editor granted

I have granted template editor rights to your account. For information on this user right, see Wikipedia:Template editor. If you do not want this right, contact me and I will remove it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Salvidrim!: Thank you, sir. I will do my best to use this new right in keeping with the trust shown in granting it. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
good to know, congrats! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: Thanks. I do not have the master coding skills or experience of Alakzi or Rexx, but I will be happy to assist with maintenance, upkeep and other easy changes to your favorite templates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, you've got the "trust of the community", which is more than some of us can say. Alakzi (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alakzi: Thanks (I think). FYI, my last conversation with you about the status of your TE permission was the immediate impetus for my application. While you're waiting to get your permission back, I figured that I could of some assistance to you. I obviously don't have your skill set, but I do follow instructions pretty well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Jolly good; I'll be making the rounds with my requests. Rexx Tuesdays and Wednesdays; Andy Thursdays and Fridays; and my dear Dirtlawyer Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. Alakzi (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That works for me, A. Like I said -- keep a to-do list of pending TE tasks. I do suspect I will get the better end of the deal, since working closely with you should be an education for me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Alakzi, I hope that you will agree that my trust in you is worthier than the anonymous community ;) - my colour coding tells me that something looks strange in the above but I am not the TE, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Dirtlawyer. I have also enabled the pending changes reviewer right on your account. This will not affect your editing but will allow you to review pending edits should the need arise. If you do not want this ability let me know and I'll remove it. Regards, Swarm ♠ 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Thanks. I am curious, though, what prompted you to grant me this right . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a pretty basic ability that's meant to be given out fairly liberally. It was unusual that you had all of these other user rights and not the most basic one. Swarm ♠ 03:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Swarm, I didn't know I was missing out. Thanks again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit re legal things

I am watching a FA with no author left, and don't know what to think of this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Gerda, I just read through the relevant sections of the article as well as the edits since May 2015. Clearly, I am not an expert on this particular case, but the summary of the outcome of the IRS audit looks like a fair account. The subject was largely vindicated by the audit, only owing an additional net $7,000 on several million dollars of income; for that income class, $7,000 over four years of audited returns is a statistical rounding error. My advice: check the linked references and make sure they support the modified text. If so, I think it's okay. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I may on returning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

COLOR on Navbox

Feel free to put a new color proposal in the RfC and add numbering to proposed colors! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @EvergreenFir: Thanks. This should not be that hard; I think some folks are misunderstanding what is involved and letting personalities get in the way of what should be relatively straightforward adjustment of the percentage screens of the blue colors in present use as the default colors scheme. Some folks seem to be under the misimpression that this would require every navbox to use the same pale blue color scheme. Those with custom color schemes that are already AAA-compliant would not be affected in any way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability of a rivalry

Hey, I know you are a Gator so here is one for ya: Florida-South Carolina football rivalry. Not sure if this a notable rivalry... MartinMcFly2015 created the article yesterday. I don't know if you've dealt with them yet or not, but I noticed they do like to add two different "largest win margin/streak" in the infoboxes: one for each team. I've been going through and cleaning it up. I'll let you deal with this article! Corkythehornetfan 20:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/August&oldid=1087858159"