User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2012/November

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

John Moffet (swimmer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Jacobs

Jon Olsen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Josh Davis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading the guidelines

If you are having trouble reading the guidelines, I can provide assistance to you. Gregoryat (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Greg, I don't mean to be sassy, but you've still got a great deal to learn as a diplomat, Wikipedia editor and future lawyer. The best advice I can give to you is to re-read what Beeblebrox wrote on your talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A misclick? GiantSnowman 12:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was some sort of error, "misclick" or otherwise. I don't even know how I did that. Thanks for fixing it, GS. 12:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Greg Newell AfD

Just to clarify terminology, the GNG only provides a "presumption" of notability as well. The SNGs are currently on the same level as the GNG the way things are written, and there's no widespread consensus on how to apply them when a subject meets one but fails the other. Many editors treat passing an SNG as a reason not to consider the GNG (or as a prima facie indication that a subject might pass it), but that has never been fully accepted as consensus. Gigs (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW I notice you have a history with Gregoryat, who also commented on that AfD and is currently blocked for AfD abuse. I'll put a note next to his vote for the admin to see. Gigs (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Gigs, my total "history" with Gregoryat was my two comments at the AfD for the "Gregory Terhune" article (his apparent autobiography, now deleted for being non-notable under WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG), and the comment you saw above. Bit of an odd duck, to say the least.

As for the interpretation of the various sports SNGs vs. GNG, it's clearly a sore that has been allowed to fester too long. Recognizing that satisfying either a topic-specific SNG or GNG yields only a presumption, most sports editors treat the SNGs as some sort of absolute, both for inclusion and exclusion (wrongly, I believe, with some authority). To my way of thinking, and my own interpretation of what was actually intended when the sports SNGs were created, the SNGs are supposed to determine probable notability based on sport-specific criteria; even when satisfied, however, the notability of a particular topic should still be subject to challenge when no independent, reliable sources of substance exist. Most sports editors disagree though, and I have witnessed some remarkable mental gymnastics to justify some real Frankenstein compilations of trivial sources that have been accepted for establishing notability. In particular, the baseball guys treat their "one play, one inning, one game" interpretation of the baseball SNG as a bright-line test for notability, regardless of what sources can actually be found or the inherent significance of the particular player. As a result, we now have an amazing collection of baseball stubs that are simply one or two-sentence regurgitations of the stats available on various websites.

I believe that GNG should always be available to backstop an AfD discussion when the particular subject does not satisfy the particulars of the applicable SNG. The classic example is a Division I/FBS quarterback who played for a big-time college program, received scads of feature article coverage in regional and national newspapers, but did not receive first-team All-American honors or another national award. Even if he does not satisfy the WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON SNGs, notability should still be able to be established under the GNG guidelines. In fact, I think most of our non-NFL college football bios are probably qualified as notable under GNG, but not under the applicable SNGs. And, yes, I also believe that the proper interpretation of an SNG is that it is prima facie evidence that the subject should also satisfy the GNG guidelines. But, you're right, clearly, not everyone agrees. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like we are on the same page and have a lot of the same frustrations. I started an essay at WP:TWOPRONGS to try to help untangle it. I looked at the history and it looks like I overestimated your prior interactions with Gregoryat, I'll strike that bit of my comment. Gigs (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Now you can use AWB. Please download latest version from http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Some things you have to be careful with: I suggest that you unclick the "Auto-tag" box because AWB wants to add "wikify", a template that is now deprecated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You are also in charge of granting AWB permissions. LOL

I will start slowly and be very careful. Frankly, I am very leery of automated edits, and that's why after three years and 51,000 edits I have not previously requested AWB or other automated editor permissions. For present purposes, more than anything else, I just want to see what you're seeing with these invisible unicode characters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How to remove these characters:

• Open AWB
• Login
• Press Enabled in the "Find and replace" section of the Options tab
• Open the "Normal settings"
• Add \u200E|\uFEFF|\u200B in the find box and click on Regex box.
• Press done
• Load the list of files
• Press Start

-- Magioladitis (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the helpful starter instructions for the AWB rookie, Magioladitis. I will experiment with AWB and the pages with the UFHOF template this afternoon; now, I must perform some paid work to pay the office rent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If you experience problems, just copy-paste User:Magioladitis/sandbox to a .xml file and load it as settings to AWB. These are my settings to fix the problem and my list of 600 pages. If you have any more questions I'll be glad to help. I need to do some work too now. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact you don't really have to worry for this problem because I have a list with all the pages that have it and I am fixing it. I'll be done soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed everything but you can double check just in case I forgot something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Probable DRV

Jc37, would you be willing to discuss a potential TfD DRV with me? The facts are pretty simple: it was a two-template TfD merge, Template A (to be deleted after merge) with 300+ transclusions, and Template B (surviving template after merge) with almost 11,000 transclusions. The required TfD notice template was placed on Template A, but not on Template B. The Template B creator and primary contributors were not notified. The Wikiproject which is the exclusive user of both templates was not notified, either. Is this a strong candidate for DRV? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi DL.

Would you link to the templates in question? - jc37 04:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after doing some exploratory looking around, I think you're talking about User_talk:Plastikspork#TfD_for_NFL_coaches_infobox_and_proposed_merger.

I think before doing the DRV, you might want to give the Wikiproject discussion a chance to find consensus. -jc37 04:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am happy that this is being discussed at WP:NFL, which is where it should have been raised before any TfD was initiated. Regardless of the outcome at WP:NFL, my perception is that the TfD is fatally flawed because of the failure to provide proper notice on the surviving template after merge, and the TfD should be invalidated. Contrary to the expressed optimism of Frietjes (not a regular WP:NFL contributor), it may take some time to properly sort out whether a combined player-coach template makes sense from a visual presentation viewpoint, and then to sort out what parameters/fields to include. Contrary to the assertions made by Frietjes, close to half of the present parameters of the coach infobox are not presently included in the player infobox. The player infobox is a massive and complex template with a ridiculously large number of options already, and the limited number of coaching parameters that were previously dumped into it do not yield a particularly logical, compact or aesthetically pleasing result when utilized. Bottom line: these decisions should be made by the Wikiproject, and they do not need to be made under any sort of mandate of a procedurally flawed TFD mandate nor any perceived time crunch. Both templates work well enough until the Wikiproject makes a determination on its own. I have asked Plastikspork to invalidate the TfD because of the procedural errors, but in his sole response to date, he simply sidestepped the entire issue. I see no reason why the flawed TfD should survive, and I think the TfD procedures support my position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change. (Though note: A WikiProject does not own templates any more than any individual editor does.) So there is no reason that you all can't try to work out all the concerns you note. I have found when closing RfCs that it is MUCH easier to come to consensus when the complicated details are worked out in advance - which is why often these kinds of discussions take several "stages" of discussions.

If you feel that the original TfD (which I have not looked at as yet) has procedural errors, and wish to DRV based upon them, you're of course welcome to at your discretion. But I might caution you that such DRVs often fail because "Discussion ongoing at WikiProject". Which is part of why I suggest you may wish to see if you all can work things out at the WikiProject discussion.

I also might suggest dropping a neutral note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) about the WikiProject discussion. Experienced coders (among others) tend to watch that page. - jc37 05:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jc37, your response raises several valid points. Allow me to address them in turn.

No Wikiproject owns a template. True, but the Wikiproject should have been notified and its members should have had an opportunity to participate in the TfD. No notice was given to the Wikiproject, no notice was given to the template creator nor its primary contributors, and no notice was placed on the template. The result was four TfD participants, none of whom have done any substantial work with the coding or actual uses of the template, said, "gee, that sounds like a good idea." That was the depth of the discussion and the potential complications. That's a load of crap.

It is much easier to come to consensus when the details of an RfC are worked out in advance. Very true, and that is also my practical experience in dealing with similar issues with WP:NFL and WP:CFB editors. Right now, we have a coder (Frietjes) who is the principal proponent of the hurry-up merge, and has zero practical experience in using these templates in articles. We don't have a technical coding problem in this case; virtually all of the necessary coding already exists in one template or the other. However, we have aesthetic and editorial problems in deciding what information to include and in how to present it. The presentation of coaching history (teams, tenures, coaching positions) is particularly problematic for coaches who have extensive history, and most head coaches do. These are not coding problems; they are a series of editorial decisions regarding content, layout and design. These are proper decisions to be made by a consensus of Wikiproject editors, and don't have a gosh darn thing to do with TfD participants.

Project editors should not be asked to buy a pig in a poke. They are entitled to see mock-ups of the proposed new template(s), see how the various elements look when combined, and make informed decisions point by point to determine consensus. It remains to be seen whether all existing coach and player template parameters can simply be combined in a logical, compact and visually pleasing format. Personally, I seriously doubt it. In order to make the merged template work, certain elements are going to need to be removed (e.g. debut seasons, debut teams, for starters); otherwise, the damn infobox is going run 15 to 18 inches down the right side of every coach article, dwarfing the actual written content in many, if not most cases. What to include in a merged template must be thrashed out internally within the projects. Again, these are not technical decisions requiring substantive input from coders, but editorial decisions that require prioritizing which template parameters to keep and which to eliminate

Finally, both WP:NFL and WP:CFB have recently lost our major ringleaders to increased workloads or other non-Wikipedia activities in the real world, and project talk page participation has dropped precipitously as a result----even as dozens of regular editors remain active. (FYI, this matter is of concern to WP:CFB, too, because all college football player articles use the NFL player infobox after the players turn pro.) In the past, I have helped organize RfCs like the one pending. None were strictly time-limited, and because the RfCs were of concern to absolutely no one outside the CFB and NFL projects, we were free to place invitations to participate on every active project editor's talk page. Obviously, if such RfCs were of concern to anyone outside the projects, this would violate the spirit if not the letter of the anti-canvassing rules. To put it bluntly, in order to make this RfC work as it needs to, I need to put personal notices/invitations on 40+ user talk pages in order to get 15 to 20 editors to actively participate in it over a period of two or three weeks (perhaps longer). This becomes problematic with the TfD decision hanging over our heads, especially if the consensus at the WP:NFL talk page is ultimately to maintain separate templates for coaches and players.

I have given this a great deal of thought over significant time because I have contemplated how we could combine the two templates over the last year. The key to a successful RfC process is getting all of the guys to buy in, let them have their say on the options, let everyone thrash it out, and then we have a settled consensus. That doesn't work terribly well when everyone is informed we must do this because four guys at TfD decided we must. Everyone should have been entitled to notice and an opportunity to participate at TfD; if I had found the TfD at its outset, I would have requested that the TfD be shelved and the substantive discussion moved to the project talk page to be resolved by those most concerned. Given the failure of proper notice, what I want is to restore the situation to the status quo ante, so the regulars can have their fair say and make that determination. Given the procedural cock-ups in the TfD, that would be the fair thing to do. Unfortunately, the closing admin seems more interested in ducking the procedural issues than in dealing with them in a straightforward manner, and in that no one is well served. The simple and immediate solution would be to convince the closing admin to do the right thing and invalidate the TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your initial request to me was concerning procedural issue (this topic - sports/american footbal - isn't a part of the encyclopedia I tend to frequent, so I'm probably not the best person to ask to opine on the overarching issues). It looks like Plastikspork has essentially said that he would watch the Wikiproject discussion as well.

If you choose to do a DRV based upon the procedural issues you have noted, the choice would likely be between: relist or endorse.

So with that in mind, perhaps just politely ask plastikspork if he opposes a new tfd nom. If he is ok with that, then just nominate them for discussion yourself, and make sure that the appropriate neutral notices are placed as appropriate.

If he isn't ok with that, yes you could attempt a DRV, but you're likely to see a "wait for WikiProject discussion" result as I noted above.

Anyway, I hope this helps. - jc37 07:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

revert

Interesting that you should say "Please discuss at talk page; there are issues to be resolved besides eliminating three parameters you perceive to be redundant", when I have been discussing it on the talk page, and there were no objections. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Frietjes, WP:CFB and WP:NFL normally open RfCs at the project talk pages for any project-wide changes that will widely impact project articles, and then leave the discussions open for several weeks in order that anyone who has an informed opinion, concerns, and specialized knowledge may voice and explain them. At WP:CFB, we also usually notify all active project editors individually, and ask them to share their opinion. No one is intentionally left out. Fewer errors are made, and a real consensus is determined before committing the precious time and efforts of project editors to making thousands of manual edits.

Generally, when I make an inquiry at an article or template talk page, I leave the discussion open for somewhat longer than a day or two, especially if I perceive that the change might be controversial or have other complications. I also usually get input from editors who actually work on the article or actually use the template. I have explained at length the complications that combining these parameters will immediately entail. While I really do agree in principle that they should be combined, I would suggest that you not proceed unless you have the personal editing time over the next month or more to fix all of the immediate problems that eliminating two of these three fields will cause. The logical way to proceed is to get project consensus regarding the parameter combination, determine which will be surviving field, and make the necessary manual edits to the inputed data in advance of changing the template's parameters.

Florida football season articles

I was the one that changed the title from "Schedule and results" to "Schedule", and the dates from number to words, because that's how every other college football team's season articles are (or at least 9/10 of them). You undid that change; shouldn't Florida's season articles be consistent with every other college football team's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.86.202 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Schedule" implies a list of games and dates. "Results" implies final scores and data from the games after the games are actually played. There are no WP:CFB-defined standards for section headers for the CFB team-season articles. If you are changing section headers in other CFB team-season articles, you are simply doing so on the basis of you own personal preferences that are subject to change by any other editor.

Regarding the dates, using numerical dates reduces by about 30 to 45% the space and characters needed to display the date. In these season record tables, adding unnecessary characters, additional/optional data columns, etc., causes the data in the wider columns to line-wrap, screwing up the presentation of the data and the appearance of the tables on narrower computer monitors. (If you have a widescreen monitor, you can duplicate the effect by narrowing the width of your browser's display window with by clicking on the window links in the upper righthand corner or by manually dragging either the lefthand or righthand outer boundary of the browser window toward the interior.) These season record tables are formatted to avoid line-wraps whenever possible. I hope that explains it for you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Troy Dalbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Jacobs (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) 11:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Browns

See Jweiss' talk, looks like I may have solved this... – Connormah (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied again there. – Connormah (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And again. Sorry, this is a bit confusing, but I'm pretty sure I've got this... – Connormah (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sports seasons MOS

Yes, a good result all around! GiantSnowman 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida Gators football seasons

I added "at" to the Florida Gators football seasons from 2000 to 2008. All college football articles for every single other school has these "at"s included, as well as time, neutral, homecoming, gamename, and attendance. So why don't we make the Florida Gators football season articles just like every single other college football season articles? Who cares really if it messes up the layout.

Thanks for responding. The "away" game coding is an option, as in "not required." WP:Florida Gators chooses to emphasize readability over a useless/meaningless bit of coding. As for most other CFB tables being coded this way, well, yes, if we have editors who attempt to apply a non-mandatory option as if it were mandatory, then that becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As an aside, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts with the four tilde coding. It takes some of the mystery out of talk page communications. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

But what about homecoming, gamename, and attendance (for the articles covering all seasons until 1999)? Why will you always delete these things whenever someone adds them into the article? Ccbbws1999 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the "see also" sections of the season and decade-season articles. All of the "rivalry-game" article links are there, in a much more space-efficient way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but what about adding attendance figures to the Florida Gators football seasons before 2000? How come I see a few users add them and you immediately delete their edits? Ccbbws1999 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Attendance numbers, like game time, weather conditions, etc., are non-essential data. Date, opponent, and score are the essential data; really, everything else is optional and needs to be prioritized on a space-available basis. The biggest problem with all of these added data points (as well as the other optional items like "at" and "vs.") is that you wind up with a season record table that is an unreadable Rube Goldberg contraption. Tables are meant to present information at a glance, and sometimes less is more. Also, as the individual game summaries are filled out, there is a separate infobox for each game that includes all of the secondary data, including time, weather, attendance, box score, scoring summary, etc. And, of course, all of the truly memorable highlights should be covered in the text. Most readers are smart; we don't need to present the same information multiple times, in multiple tables and infoboxes. Once should be sufficient. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Then if you feel that this is the way cfb articles should be, talk to the admins of the cfb projects and see what they say about the tables. If they were to say something along the lines of keeping the cfb schedule entry the same. I would see no reason why the "unessential information" need to be removed immediately. Other wise, your point is valid.Ccbbws1999 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand how WP:CFB (and Wikipedia generally) operates. While there are administrators who are active WP:CFB editors, admins have no more authority to set project policy than any other editor. At the end of the day, admins can enforce policy, but they can't make it. Policy is determined by the amorphous concept of "consensus," which often amounts to the inertia of the status quo in the absence of strong arguments and a clear majority to change it. The topic of simplifying the CFB season records table options has been raised twice in my nearly four years on Wikipedia. Both times the debate was inconclusive. So, we are where we are. It is always easier to get agreement on one point, than it is to do a package deal of several related changes upon which a clear majority agrees. More often than not, the best you can do is to nudge things in the right direction over time, with an occasional breakthrough.

That having been said, there is plenty that can be done to improve Wikipedia articles. Based on the wide range of CFB articles you seem to be editing, I'm sure you can see that the vast majority of them need real substantive work, especially in the areas of improved and expanded text and sourced footnotes. What Wikipedia desperately needs are more good writers who understand what it means to write a balanced, neutral point of view article that cover the major points of the subject, but does not include related, but meaningless trivia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello Dirtlawyer. Since you're on the topic of unreadable season schedule tables, I thought you may be able to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Game highs in schedule tables. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo alumni

Thanks for removing the mugshot of Scott Peterson from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Cal_Poly_at_San_Luis_Obispo_alumni I was about to remove it when you removed it. Best, --Calpolylolli (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolyn Green, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judith Roberts (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) 12:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tarwater GA

Hey - I'm getting a bit concerned that Thaddeus, who nominated the Tarwater article for GA, is away and might not respond to the issues there. I'll leave it for another week or so, I think, but it would be a shame to have to fail it because of such minor issues. Let me know if you're aware of anyone who might be able to address the points raised in his stead, assuming this is permissible. I've never dealt with anything like this in the past. --Batard0 (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Batard, I would be happy to pick the ball up and push it across the goal line if needed. The article has more than enough substantive content, it's in decent shape stylistically, and it already has all of the mandatory elements. What the article really needs is an editor. If needed, I will jump in. I think I could make the needed changes in the space of 24 hours, less on a weekend. Let's see what Thaddeus is up to, and ping me back if it starts to linger. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey - sorry I didn't see your response until just now, when I was going to come and say I was planning on failing the article for lack of responses. Anyway, since you seem willing to pick it up, let's do it and get this passed. I very much don't want to have to fail the article, and getting it over the line won't take too much effort, I think. I'll give you a couple more days at least, given it's the weekend. --Batard0 (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Fyi, I'm planning to fail the article later today. It has been sitting around for a few days more now without responses. I'll be happy to pick it up and pass it once the issues outlined are addressed. --Batard0 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Batard, thanks for the head's up. I have already implemented all of the easy changes recommended by your GA review. I would be grateful if you would give me another 24 hours to check on some of the substantive issues raised in the GA review comments. There remain four or five issues to be addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While I was fact-checking Tarwater's Big Ten championships, including several questions raised by you regarding facts in the lead (were his B10 championships individual, relay or team?), I found this article on the University of Michigan's website: [1]. Several of the passages in the Wikipedia article appear to be either close paraphrases or verbatim quotes from the MGoBlue.com article. These appear to be fixable problems, but I wanted you to be aware of the issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

So you know, you did surpass WP:3RR at Florida Gators football (3 reverts of Skn95, and one of Ufbcschamps, within 24 hourse). Don't sweat it this time (even if you did revert yourself to cancel the violation I'd just have re-revert since the material is poor), but please do be more careful in the future. These things can usually be avoided by discussing on the talk page and getting more input if the other party won't play ball.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I sure did. I forgot about the previous revert around midnight last night. Different day part, different user, but that doesn't excuse it. Thank you for the warning.

FYI, no need to place a talkback template here. Your talk page is already on my watch list. It's one of the ways I keep track of what's going on around here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

DRV

I just saw your post at DRV here. Do you still need help with DRV? If so, please post on my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Uzma, thank you for your generous offer of assistance in preparing a DRV. While the TfD nominator in this instance failed to provide the required notice on all affected templates, and the closing admin likewise failed to confirm that proper notice had been given and then simply ignored my request to invalidate the flawed closing, I am nevertheless trying to resolve the failed "merge" closing by working with User:Frietjes to address those issues which were simply ignored during the TfD. Frietjes is preparing a mock-up of the merged template, which we will present to the affected WikiProject for further discussion and final resolution. If the consensus of the affected project is respected, whatever that might be, I will have no complaint. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For pitching in and wrapping up the Davis Tarwater GA review when the original nominator went missing. Batard0 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Batard. All accolades graciously accepted, but I must acknowledge that the principal author and nominator did 99% of the work. If we had one, the "Tweaker's Barnstar" might be more appropriate for me.

All kidding aside, the principal author and nominator is an administrator who was previously very active. He seems to have gone missing a couple of months ago. Any idea what happened to him? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bt8257

Just a reminder, when you get a chance please weigh in at the SPI here. If you have some diffs or other evidence connecting the new accounts to Bt8257, that would be most helpful. At any rate, it's clear that most, if not all, of the accounts are connected to each other, if not to Bt.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)