Jump to content

User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/February

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


WikiOriginal-9

DL, I just noticed that User:WikiOriginal-9 has been blocked indefinitely since January 17. Perhaps you'd like to say a word or two here? Jweiss11 (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox swimmer

Hello. I responded to your question on my talk page. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Auburn-Tulane Rivalry

DL you know Auburn Tulane renewed the rivalry in 2006 Tulane leads the series 17-14-6 User:AuburnDee — Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • A: Yes, I did, because I immediately checked the series history on the College Football Data Warehouse website. AD, before creating any more CFB rivalry articles, I urge you to review WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG, as well as the last 30 or 40 AfDs for articles on CFB rivalries and regular season game articles. If you need a list I can provide links. I am afraid you are creating more and more articles for rivalries of doubtful notability, and I hate to see enthusiastic new editors wasting time on things that are likely to be deleted when reviewed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Auburn Florida will met in the SEC Championship in 2015

I hope Auburn Tigers will win the West and Florida will win the east User:AuburnDee - 2 February 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Flagicons

My general view on flagicons is actually a subsection of a greater annoyance for me - the idea that everything needs to fit a precise standard. Much of the disdain for flagicons comes from people operating in political articles where they view such flags as being 'politically charged'. They came up with the standard and have tried to push it onto everyone. Sports, of course, is an entirely different realm, and the use of flags is widely used and supported to denote the nationality of the competitor. Based on this, my view is pretty simple. Wherever it is appropriate to list the nationality of a player or team, it is appropriate to use a flagicon. That includes in infoboxes, such as at Mark Giordano, where the flag was questioned (but not pressed) in my recent GAN. And I personally do not feel it necessary to place arbitrary limits on this; i.e.: it doesn't have to be an article or section about a national team. So icons like those at List of Calgary Flames players when noting nationality are fine to me. Hope that helps! Resolute 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Resolute: "a subsection of a greater annoyance for me - the idea that everything needs to fit a precise standard. . . . They came up with the standard and have tried to push it onto everyone." You must have loved the Great MOS Dash Debate and the Battle Over Omitting Commas After E.g. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
And diacritics, and infobox wars and images with OMGBOOBIES, and mindless deletion of BLPs and... Resolute 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Resolute: You're a much more open-minded guy than me, but I am in favor of OMGBOOBIES! That said, I'm still wondering why we are using Romanian, Spanish and Vietnamese diacritics in an English-language encyclopedia, but that was not my fight. All kidding aside, so much of this entails some Utopian vision of how the world should be, and not as it is; righting great wrongs, but spending precious little time writing great prose. But life moves on.
You do have a more expansive/relaxed view of how flag icons should be used than I do. I would not permit the use of flag icons in your roster example above: the players' sporting nationality isn't relevant in the context of an NHL team roster. These guys are pros, on a pro team of athletes with mixed nationalities, and there is no element of representing their country, however defined, in international competition. For me, that element of "representation" is what separates appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of flag icons for individuals. Some editors want them gone completely, and others want to use flag icons for the dig sites of dinosaur bones -- Wikipedia is an interesting place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It may be a matter of perspective. The nationality of players is often a fairly significant topic in hockey. Things like Highest scoring American/Finn/Czech are tracked (not as official records), number of players from various countries selected at each draft, etc. So even within sports, there is likely no great argument for consistency. Much like with WP:NSPORTS, each sport may have different criteria. Resolute 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Resolute: These sorts of issues usually are a matter of perspective. On one instance, we have a sizable minority of editors who are against flag icons, any time, any where, for any purpose (perhaps allowing for articles about flags themselves and their countries). On the other hand, we have folks who think it is perfectly acceptable to use flag icons for sports tournament sites, manufacturing sites for trains, and dinosaur bone dig sites (yeah, I'm really not making that last one up). Most of us fall somewhere in between, but I do believe there is legitimate use for Olympic athletes and other sportsmen in international competition, including in their infoboxes to represent their sporting nationality. I also think that's entirely appropriate for military personnel and units, too, but I question the utility of using military flag icons; apart from the Royal Navy's White Ensign, who the flip recognizes the U.S. Marine Corps flag, or the British Army flag, or heaven forbid, the Brazilian Air Force flag? Flag icons work best, in my opinion, when their use is limited; having county, provincial/state and national flags in the same infobox for a city is distracting. The city flag may be proper for the subject, but the county and provincial/state flags add nothing, and the national flag adds only a little. The use of national flags for sports and other event locations often creates a dog's breakfast graphically, especially when it's in addition to flags being used to represent the nationalities of tournament participants, etc. As I have said before, I favor appropriate, but limited use of flag icons; unfortunately, that's a subjective determination made in the eye of the beholder, and one that a lot of folks are willing to argue both extremes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mary Wayte

Hello! Your submission of Mary Wayte at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Giants2008 (Talk) 18:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Template:Infobox Arena Football player (?)

It's been awhile. They expanded the NFL one into basically what I had created for the AFL one, but theirs must've worked better, I dunno. I'm not as hardcore involved as I was previously. Crash Underride 12:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Crash Underride: Yeah, I understood that you were in a largely inactive phase these days. The reason I was asking was because of this TfD mess that involved Template:Infobox Arena Football player, User talk:WikiOriginal-9#TfD: screwed-up merge of Template:Infobox Arena Football player, etc, which I discovered by accident. Notwithstanding the fact that 95%+ of the Arena Football players were already using Infobox NFL player in February/March 2014, six editors who had no clue about the history of Infobox Arena Football player (including its deprecation and replacement with Infobox NFL player) !voted to merge it with the older template for Canadian football players at TfD. I was trying to sort out the history before I re-redirected the Arena player infobox to the NFL player infobox, instead of the one for CFL players. Anyway, it's all resolved now -- no harm, no foul. FYI, your work is missed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Once I get my new PC built, I'll be back editing more. Right now, my laptop is hateful. lol And regarding the infoboxes, I don't see why they can't merge the CFL one with the NFL one and just use one for all. Personally, the CFL one is butt ugly, plus it doesn't have the slim look that the NFL one does. I figure just merge them and rename it to Gridiron football. I know there's one with that name but it's essentially the same as the CFL one...if I'm remembering correctly. Crash Underride 12:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Crash Underride: Template:Infobox gridiron football person is the CFL player/coach infobox. When the current Template:Infobox NFL player was created in 2007, the WP:CFL editors declined to use the new NFL infobox and decided to keep the "old" gridiron one, which was actually relatively new at the time. Over the last seven years, all of the other NFL, NFL player/coach, NFL retired, AFL, AFL retired, and Arena infoboxes have been merged into the 2007 NFL infobox. That obviously involved a lot of work, and there is still a lot of clean-up work to be done on the infoboxes of older articles from those previous merges. Look forward to you having that new laptop built -- don't be a stranger. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WNBA infobox

Curious what improvements you would want propagated from WNBA infobox to basketball bio infobox? The beauty is that all infoboxes would benefit from any enhancements now :-)—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Bagumba: Infobox WNBA player was a somewhat better looking design. Infobox basketball biography looks too much like its Infobox sportsperson progenitor. Not much difference in functionality and everyone at WP:Basketball seems to be reasonably happy with it. I've got two pending football infoboxes to deal with. Once those are done, I can go back to the wiki-obscurity I so richly deserve. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: Several style and design points regarding Infobox basketball biography:
1. the colored hair line around the medalist module is jarringly inconsistent with the rest of the template graphics, and the brighter/bolder the color, the uglier it is;
2. stylistic inconsistency between putting the team year-span tenures first, and the years for championships and honors following in parentheticals; the parentheticals are more space-efficient, especially for multi-year honors, and put the emphasis on the championship or honor (not the year);
3. inconsistent internal spacing;
4. inconsistent internal justification -- sometimes left-justifed, sometimes centered;
5. "listed height"/"listed weight" captions are too long -- height/weight should be sufficient (be warned: Rik likes this);
6. "Career highlights and awards" is ambiguous; "Championships and honors" or "Championships and awards" would be better; "highlights" is an invitation for stats and records cruft;
  • Shared problems of both infoboxes:
7. relatively ineffective use of color -- simple color stripes with white text reversed are simple, unrefined and boring;
8. presence of the medalist module appears to stretch the width of the infobox -- both are too wide; fund the longest NBA/WNBA team name and add the space required for an 8-digit tenure parenthetical, and that should be your maximum width (with a small margin for error);
9. "Pro career"/"WNBA career" parameters are redundant to career history and unnecessary -- waste of a line of text;
10. external links are unnecessary and violate WP:EL and INFOBOX -- no stats, no justification for link; waste of line of text.
Those are my quick observations. Back to you, Bags. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
No major objections if you ever pursued any of them. A few notes:
Don't feel obligated to respond.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Quick follow-up comments:
2. tenure parentheticals: including the specific league and/or country is unnecessary and a big space-waster. League and country information can be better handled in the article text; infoboxes are not supposed to duplicate the text in bullet-point form. This is yet another example of how infoboxes attract poorly thought-out cruft over time. Some users tried to include league/country in the NFL infobox for NFL Europe teams, etc., but that eventually died out.
5. "Listed" measurements: I understand why this was done, but as a practical matter, it makes little difference to the smart alecks, nor would "Official listed NBA profile height." This could be handled more effectively with more specific template parameter instructions and a hidden text message referencing the NBA player profile height.
6. "Highlights" vs. "Championships and honors": the new header would be more descriptive, but you're right, the crufters will continue to do what crufters do.
9. career tenure: redundant, and it needs to be removed from the NFL infobox.
10. external link for league profile, etc.: My thinking evolved quickly in this one -- better placed in the external links section, rather than inclusion in the new Infobox college football player. If we can remove stats from the NFL infobox, it should be removed there, too.
That's all I got. Clearly, we agree on most points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are inclined, comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Countries_and_infoboxes to ax the country parenthetical. Utlimately, people probably need to just start boldly removing it if they want it to happen. For myself, I reason that my efforts are better spent adding content, but occasionally sucker myself into aesthetic and MoS pet peeve discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, you did already comment.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You had previously cleaned up some nav boxes that related to NCAA athletic conferences but did't directly relate to athletics. I found several more that you may want to look at:

--rogerd (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rogerd: Yeah, Roger, we've been through this before for the SEC schools and topics that are tangentially related to college sports conferences like school newspapers, student radio stations, etc. I would suggest that we send them all to TfD for deletion, conference by conference. If memory serves, I believe we previously dealt with similar navboxes for the SEC, Big 12, and maybe the Big East (although that's now moot because of the break-up of the larger conference. I suggest we find and review those previous TfD deletion discussions, and then put our heads together again to figure out the best way to proceed. Thanks for the head's up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No need to find the previous TfD discussion. I now see that you conveniently linked it for me above. Let me ponder this a bit, and I'll ping you back. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain my reason for posting these templates to your talk page. If you look at the previous discussing, I opposed deleting at least some of the SEC templates. I feel that by TfD'ing these templates, perhaps a wider discussion will occur as to the usefulness of these templates. Maybe not. But if the standard is that these templates aren't to be kept, then we need to apply it to all conferences. --rogerd (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rogerd: Under the circumstances, I would be a very bad talk page host if I did not give you the opportunity to explain and argue your case. So, which of these conference-based navboxes do you think are appropriate? I'm not in any hurry to deal with this, but I certainly agree that all conferences should be treated equally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 asked for my general opinion on this topic. I'm inclined to agree that for many topics the host institutions' athletic conference is not germane. However, I caution against a blanket assumption that this is always the case as some of the conferences have historic roots that extend quite deep (at least in a U.S. historical context). Similarly, some conferences make for relatively good peer and comparison groups which the members explicitly acknowledge with numerous collaborations and significant cooperation, including formal and semiformal relationships between similar units such as those listed above in some of these templates. Among the well known conferences, the Ivy League and the Big Ten (especially in the context of the CIC) are good examples of this.

However, I think the burden of proof lays on those who assert that these relationships are extraordinary and are a good, useful way to organize encyclopedia articles. Such proof would likely be in the form of explicit organizations e.g., the Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @ElKevbo: Thank you for your carefully considered assessment. Care to weigh in on any of the specific navboxes topics linked above? Also, pardon my ignorance, but what is the "CIC" to which you refer above? Finally, how do we reconcile the WP:NAVBOX core requirement that all navboxes should be supported by a stand-alone article or list on the same topic as the navbox? It would seem that most of these topics would fail that requirement. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
No, I can't comment on any of the specific topics above. Sorry but I'm not familiar enough with any of those specific areas to offer anything but speculation.
The Committee on Institutional Cooperation is essentially an academic organization that (nearly) mirrors the membership of the Big Ten. It nearly mirrors the Big Ten membership because the University of Chicago is also a member despite having left the Big Ten in 1946. To the best of my knowledge, it's a solid group with significant, meaningful collaboration although I think that much of the collaboration occurs organically because the Big Ten institutions are very comparable and many are geographically close (which is why I don't think that Rutgers and Maryland - and Penn State - belong in the conference). I know that some other conferences have parallel organizations (e.g., SEC Academic Collaboration) but I don't know anything about them so I can't judge if they're legitimate, productive groups or window dressing. ElKevbo (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Kevin. I will ping WP:Universities when all or some of these navboxes are submitted to TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rogerd: Well, we've had the benefit of Kevin's wisdom, which certainly provides some things to think about. We also need to consider the five WP:NAVBOX criteria for evaluating whether a particular subject may be appropriate for a navbox:

"1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
"2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
"3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
"4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
"5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."
IMHO, most of these navboxes fail criteria nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 -- and these criteria, including the absence of stand-alone articles for all but 3 or 4 of the Ivy League topics, strongly suggest that most if not all of these are not appropriate navbox topics. What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. I think it is interesting to see, for instance, which Big 10 schools have an engineering school, but there are a lot of facts like that that won't and shouldn't find on wikipedia. Besides, it wouldn't take that much looking to figure it out. The one template that got me involved originally was the SEC presidents/chancellors box that I created by cloning same box for the Big 10. I thought there was some value to it, but it certainly doesn't meet the NAVBOX criteria above. Now that I think of it, do ones that list the basketball or football coaches of a given conference meet that criteria? --rogerd (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rogerd: Good question. To my knowledge, none of the navboxes for coaches by conference have stand-alone lists or articles, but they may have lists built into the main conference articles, which might be deemed to partially satisfy WP:NAVBOX. There are certainly a lot of those types of "X coaches of Y conference" navboxes, and submitting them for review under WP:NAVBOX would be appropriate. It would certainly be an eye-opener for several sports projects and the editors who grind these things out. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nicole Haislett

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Wayte

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

the Baltics 1940 to 1991

Howdy Dirtlawyer1. The existance of that topic dispute, is just another example of Wikipedia's unavoidable failings. If enough editors demand that 'blue' is 'orange'? then 'blue' is 'orange or atleast there's going to be a continuing disagreement over whether 'blue' is 'blue' :) GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Kidding aside, there should be plenty of room for compromise; for example, "Tallin, Estonia, USSR," "Tallin, Estonian SSR, USSR," etc. I do agree with the Klopster to the extent one should not write "Tallin, Soviet Union," or the like.
There needs to be an acknowledgment, however, that Estonia was a de facto part of the USSR from 1940 to 1991. That was reality; we don't get to rewrite the history because we don't like what happened. We can say all sorts of nasty things about the Russians/Soviets, and most of them will be true, but that doesn't change the reality of who really controlled Estonia for 50+ years. The theory of the continuity of 1918–40 government through the present was a legal fiction invented by the western governments that opposed the occupation and annexation of the Baltic States in order to further the cause of the eventual restoration of their independence. Clearly, the ESSR government (under the thumb of the central USSR government in Moscow, of course) ran things for 50 years. Denying that the Baltics were part of the Soviet Union for five decades is just plain silly, and, frankly, denies the full magnitude of credit and honor due a lot of a Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians who sacrificed themselves in opposing the Soviet occupation in a nearly hopeless cause. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Myself, Djsasso (and others) have offered those compromises & were rejected. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yup. There really is no compromise available when it comes to dealing with editors dedicated to masking Estonia (et al's) Soviet history. They simply will not accept anything but "Talinn, Estonia". Resolute 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Bizarre. I understand their impulse to purge the Russian/Soviet influence, but purging reality/history is so bizarrely Soviet/Stalinist in its nature you would think that they would recognize that they are behaving like the former regime they detest so much. Do the Lithuanian and Latvian projects act like this, too? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, concerning supression of the truth, there's a hypocracy about the whole matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a nationalist or other names that I have been called in this conflict. I have quite leftist views and I also have some papers from universities with words free arts written on. What I stand for is that this kind of fighting and political issues should be kept away from BLP.

What we have here is an occupied territory, we don't have a clear line for this situation. There are some people that think that infoboxes should be kept as simple as possible and some (history freaks) who think that they need to be factually accurate to the last comma. I prefer the first option. The article Estonia is about everything on the subject of Estonia. It does not deny the fact that Estonia was de facto known as Estonian SSR between 1944 and 1990.

Before (some of) You get frustrated let me give You facts! There is no clear line on occupied territories. Let's take France nazi occupation 1940 - 1944

  • Claudine Auger, Born 26 April 1941 Paris, France (common)
  • Hervé Villechaize, Born 23 April 1943 Paris, Occupied France (rare)
  • Jean-Claude Killy, Born 30 August 1943 Saint-Cloud, Hauts-de-Seine, Military Administration in France (Militärverwaltung in Frankreich) (really rare)
  • And there isn't any saying Born 30 August 1943 Paris, Großdeutsches Reich

So conclusion how was Baltic occupation different from France occupation? France can be called France even during the occupation. etc. Point is there is no clear line what to use if not the problem avoiding (hiding) Place, Estonia.

  • Place, Estonian SSR
  • Place, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union
  • Place, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union (now Estonia)
  • Place, Estonia, (then Soviet Union)
  • Place, Soviet Union, (now Estonia)
  • Place, Occupied Estonia

and so on

And now about the shady areas: Estonian SSR was actually renamed Republic of Estonia more than a year before it became independent!

  • 16 November 1988 Estonian Sovereignty Declaration the Estonian SSR Supreme Council declared supremacy of the Estonian laws over the laws of the Soviet Union, ESSR Supreme Council made proposal for the USSR Supreme council to work out a union treaty (in the end it remained unsigned) Now we enter the soapy water. After that date Estonian laws were supreme on Estonian territory... so was Estonia now part of a federal entity or union? If so then... were people born after that date born, Place, Estonian SSR whithout added USSR, as persons born after 2004 aren't born Place, Estonia, European Union ???
  • On May 8, 1990, Supreme Council of the Republic of Estonia (renamed the previous day) changed Estonian SSR name to Republic of Estonia, But Estonia still was a member of Soviet Union... so people born after that date were born officially: Place, Republic of Estonia, Soviet Union !!!
  • 23:03 EEST 20 August 1991 Estonia declared itself independent. --Klõps (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
"The theory of the continuity of 1918–40 government through the present was a legal fiction invented by the western governments..." Dirtlawyer1

Aren't all the states and laws legal fictions? The continuity is based on the fact that the annextion of Baltic states was illegal. Lets say you have a house, one day someone moves in and says that it is his house. Now one day when he is drunk You drag him out of the house and move back in. Now...

  • A. You were the owner of the house all the time
  • B. You were the owner of the house. Then when He kicked You out he became the legal owner and When You kicked him out You became the new owner.--Klõps (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You may not be arguing from a nationalistic and revisionist history changing perspective, Klõps, and if I mark you unfairly above I apologize. However, please do understand that we have dealt with that very same nationalistic editing from several people over the last couple years, so perspective tends to be skewed. For the occupied France question, Vichy France was categorically unrecognized by the Allied powers during the war. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were, at the very least, de facto recognized as constituent SSRs of the Soviet Union by the Western world even as it applied the "legal fiction" that Dirtlawyer mentions. They may have been unwilling SSRs, but the history books say what they say. Even for something as trivial as hockey players, the books I have predominantly list places like "Talinn, Soviet Union" for the place of birth of people from that time frame. Resolute 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Allies gave Vichy France full diplomatic recognition initially... until late 1942. Foreign relations of Vichy France Anyway it does not change the fact that France was totally under the control of Nazi Germany. So born in Paris, German Reich for these people? As for Baltic states there were three de facto non-recognitioning states US, Ireland and vatican. Most others recognised de facto and 4 recognised de jure.
  • Actually most of the sports organisations and sites go by what's written in persons document or just follow this practice. I cite the article Place of birth: As a general rule with respect to passports, the place of birth is determined to be country that currently has sovereignty over the actual place of birth regardless of when the birth actually occurred. This is law in US and directive in EU. But it's law and not quite encyclopedic approach.
My apologies for Dirtlawyer1 for wasting his space!--Klõps (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute, claiming that some editors have been "arguing from a nationalistic and revisionist history changing perspective" is just a cheap ad hominem, you don't know what my politics are.

Your assertion that "Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were, at the very least, de facto recognized as constituent SSRs of the Soviet Union by the Western world" is a at best a mangling of language and at worst a distortion of the sources actually say . How do you "de facto recognise" something? What sources in fact say is these states recognised that the USSR had de facto control over the Baltic states, (for example "We already recognise that Soviet Government are in de facto control of Baltic States and occupied parts of Poland and Romania"[1]). Any occupying state has de facto control over territory, obviously. Recognition of de-facto control falls far short of recognition of sovereignty, which is what de jure recognition means.

@Dirtlawyer1, your claim "The theory of the continuity of 1918–40 government through the present was a legal fiction invented by the western governments that opposed the occupation and annexation of the Baltic States in order to further the cause of the eventual restoration of their independence" is fringe viewpoint because of the claim it was "invented by the western governments" is not found in any RS. On the other hand the so called "Fictitious continuity thesis" was promoted a handful of authors during the 1990's but has since fallen by the wayside. Dietrich A. Loeber offers a nicely concise critique of that thesis so I will repeat it here (from Baltic yearbook of international law: 2001). He first describes this thesis:

"The lapse of time makes it impractical or even impossible to continue State relations as they were discontinued 51 years ago. This applies in particular to the practice in relation to international treaties. Continuity, it follows, is more theory than reality. It amounts to a 'fiction'. The restored republics are deemed to continue the pre-war States, although in fact they do not."

Loeber then follows with his critique:

"The legal existence of a state has to be distinguished from the exercise of its rights. The claim to continuity refers to the existence of a State, leaving aside the question of when and how that State exercise its rights.
It is obvious that the situation in 1991 is not the same as in 1940. The Baltic States have to adapt to changed circumstances. The need is felt primarily in such areas as renewing diplomatic relations, in adjusting treaty relations and in settling property questions.
At issue in the continuity claim, consequently, is not whether or not it is possible to 'erase 50 years of legal life'. The question is rather whether or not the Baltic States have suffered 'extinction' as a result of foreign domination. If they have lost their status as subjects of international law, a 'fiction' can be used for upholding continuity. If, however, the three republics have survived, any fiction is redundant and even misleading. There is no room for a compromise or a third way.
The protection of the independence of States is one of the basic functions of international law. Therefore, international law is reluctant to admit lightly the extinction of a State. In the case of illegal annexations international law requires that the extinction of the State has been 'definite and final'. Finality means that the last hope has vanished and that a regaining of independence is contrary to all expectations.
In the Baltic case the point of finality was never reached. The population had not acquiesced with the situation and diplomatic representations continued to function in a number of States. Up to 1991 'nothing even approximately final has taken place which would totally destroy any reasonable chance' of a restoration of the Baltic States, as wrote Krystyna Marek in 1968. As the course of history has shown, the chance of restitutio in integrum was never destroyed and has lead to a re-establishment of independence.
Trying to substantiate the 'Fictitious Continuity' thesis, the authors point to the need of the Baltic States to rely on treaties concluded by the USSR. But such adjustments was the exception and merely a temporary measure, leaving the principle of continuity intact. The situation has been handled by the Baltic states in a consistent manner, without recourse to a 'fiction."

I think this goes to the heart of the matter. While there was certainly debate regarding the continuity of the Baltic States during the 1990s, this debate has been settled and mainstream consensus is that the Baltic states today are the same and continuous with pre-war Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You do mention that we don't know your politics so can't say you (or others) are a nationalist and that you are quite left leaning. However, you do realize in the way we are using the term nationalist you can be either left or right leaning. The definition of nationalist is "a person devoted to nationalism." and the definition of nationalism from the same source "excessive patriotism". You can be excessive in patriotism no matter what end of the political spectrum you are from. For example the Nazi party was on the far right and could certainly be considered to have had excessive patriotism whereas the Soviet Communist party is on the far left and were most definitely big on nationalism. All one needs to know if someone is a nationalist is to see how far they are pushing their ideas about their country. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
How about you confine yourself to addressing what reliable source say rather than continue with these baseless ad hominem arguments. --Nug (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I find it strange (though not surprised, as this is Wikipedia) that Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic & Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are being surpressed as birth/death places in BLPs & Bios. But, I've witnessed this kinda occurance before, in other topics. Wait until a group of editors start pushing that East Germany & West Germany be excluded at birth/death places. Then another group, wanting to exclude Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Ain't nothing can surprise me, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a reflection of the world as it is based upon published reliable sources, not what you imagine or wish it to be. Perhaps if you take the time to read some books you may not be so "surprised" because you would come to understand why some states are considered continuous and others not. --Nug (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
What'll be next, I wonder? I don't blame you Nug (or your supporters), it all depends on the number of editors who are in agreement with each other. PS: Atleast you & the others, have agreed to allow SSRs on the hockey bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Go read some books on the topic. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Revised history? no thanks. Have fun. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
So now Loeber is a revisionist historian? Please stop disrupting Estonia related articles with your uninformed POV pushing and inciting others to do the same, you have already been indef banned once by Arbcom. --Nug (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

tomorrow

Regardless of the state of the ANI thread at the time, I'd like to get back to you tomorrow. I have some thoughts I'd like to express, but it's been a very long and exhausting day for me here. The ability to persuade is a powerful tool; and with great power comes great responsibility. (even when it's used subconsciously) Kind Regards. — Ched :  ?  07:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Ched. It really is a bad time for me to pick a fight because I am going to be out of pocket for long stretches tomorrow morning, but the timing of this ANI dust-up is not of my choosing. I'm actually up late tonight (3:00 a.m. EST) working on materials for a client, which I have to present in the morning. I would, of course, be interested to hear anything you have to say. You may or may not be aware (from your reading of other talk page threads) that I consciously decided to stay of out of the ArbCom sanctions review largely because of comments by you, Nyttend and HJMitchell. Yes, I do have a number of reservations about the comments, conduct and editing of the editor in question, but my biggest issues are tangentially related to the original case, and it really was not that hard to avoid the "he said, she said" back-and-forth. Seems I'm still going to catch some of the fallout anyway; so be it, if it's for the right reasons. In all events, I sincerely appreciate you stopping by. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
(having trouble sleeping).. OK, not my whole thinking here, but one point. Granted the "crocodile tears" thing was snarky, but when you come back with "did you understand it?" and " the above witness for the defense is in apparent need of the assistance of competent counsel." ... Really dirtlawyer? tit for tat. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. It was a cheap shot and you know that. If you want to stand in front of the court and debate, that's fine. But if you want to go behind the courthouse and talk it out - then don't play games about it. You can't have it both ways. You have a huge advantage with your training and education in persuasion. Use that ability to bring two sides together. RexxS was blunt, and I understand that it was offensive to you. I don't see it as rising to a personal attack, but opinions vary. I ask you to think about what we're doing here. Do we want to debate a "he said she said" thing, or do we want to build a vault of knowledge? (and best of luck today) — Ched :  ?  12:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ched, one of two things is wrong with Montanabw's characterization of the TfD talk page: either he is intentionally misconstruing the TfD talk page discussion, or he did not take the time to read and understand it. How else can you construe the ANI filing as "forum-shopping?" The subject matter is not the same. "Crocodile tears?" Snarky rolls off me like water off a duck, but the discussion deserves an accurate recitation of the facts. "Competent counsel" was an attempt to play on your previous comment, and engage in a little bit of humor. In light of Montana's obvious inaccuracies, I thought it was rather mild. Duly noted that no attempt at pointed humor is likely to be well received under these circumstances. But flip it around: Was it a "cheap shot" by Montana to misconstrue the TfD talk page discussion? I suppose that depends on whether he did it out of misunderstanding or did it intentionally. . . .
As for Rexx, he was not "blunt"; "blunt" assumes a rude, but truthful statement of facts. Instead, Rexx violated several of our basic rules for editor interaction, starting with making various false accusations (contrary to AGF and NPA), and intentionally disrupting an otherwise productive discussion thread (DISRUPTIVE). The discussion was not about Rexx, but he decided to make it about himself, and his first comment in the thread incorporated a false accusation (=PA). I did not start this silliness, and if Rexx has carte blanche to engage in personal attacks, false accusations and disruptive editing anytime he encounters me, Wikipedia has a problem. Other discussion participants have a problem. I have a problem. You have a problem. Rexx has a problem. It's simply going to escalate until someone gets blocked or worse -- that's not what I want, but I have no ability to constructively engage with someone whose every communication with me comes in the form of another attack.
I have been pushing like the dickens to correct what I perceive as multiple problems with TfD generally, and fair notice to parties and procedural fairness in particular. I would hope that you could understand why that is important to me as a lawyer, as someone who used to work in government, and someone who believes that everyone is entitled to have their say (but not necessarily their way) after fair notice. Yes, I have some persuasive ability, but I clearly do not have the ability to persuade Rexx to do anything -- or even communicate with him without him accusing me of various forms of bad faith and misconduct. In fairness to me, are you also counseling him to engage in persuasion rather than personalized tit-for-tat?
In nearly six years on-wiki, I think I've been a party to an ANI filing four or five times. I'm not exactly what you might call a drama queen. My bringing the problem to ANI is a recognition that there is precious little I believe I can do to ameliorate Rexx's problematic conduct. The ANI filing is not an aggressive move, but a defensive one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I think it's best that I recuse from this situation. — Ched :  ?  19:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ched: Understood. If you would still like to offer counsel, advice, mediation, etc., in a non-administrator capacity, I would be grateful for that. If you are unable to do that, I understand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just sayin

Reverting generic death params because of a more-or-less private discussion on your user subpage is hard to justify. I am taking every opportunity to think otherwise, but it has the appearance of your trying to own the process if you are single-handedly reverting others changes, while not opening your discussion to the general WikiProject and/or template talk pages.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bags, every active WikiProject member was invited to participate on their user talk page. If you think we should move the parameter discussion to template talk, I'm good with that. My bottom line: you cannot ask for editors' opinions and then go ahead and do what you want anyway. These mini-RfC have worked very well in the past, and have led to stable, long-term consensuses that were determined by near-unanimous !votes. In fact, I will move the Phase I parameters discussion myself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 31 hours for edit warring on Template:Infobox college football player. You may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥ 03:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for WP:EDITWAR. Specifically, I reverted three edits to Template:Infobox college football player. Although I provided an explanatory edit summary in each instance ([15], [16], [17]), as well as a courteous talk page explanation in each instance ([18], [19], [20]), I nevertheless reverted three edits of the same article in the space of two hours, and this constitutes edit-warring per WP:EDITWAR. I ask that the reviewing administrator consider my good-faith attempts to explain my reverts (impermissible though they were), my previously clean block log of nearly six years since my April 2009 registration, and my long history of productive contributions to the encyclopedia. I understand the guideline that I have violated, I and will not engage in such behavior again, now or in the future. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Your blocking admin appears to have gone to bed for the night and I am about too as well. Your history here and your unblock request demonstrates a commitment to change is given which is exactly what our unblocking policy asks for. I trust you will not make me look bad for unblocking you. Chillum 06:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dreadstar: I believe Dirtlawyer1 is being sincere here, how do you feel about an unblock on the basis of understanding the problem and agreeing not to continue? Chillum 05:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note from another admin -- I have had the pleasure of working with DL1 a few times over the years, and had I not had that history, I would have reviewed this block myself. I concur with Chillum's assessment, and will note that DL1's sincerity and integrity are irreproachable, and it is clear to me that an unblock will be a help to the encyclopedia rather than a hindrance ... DL1 has made it clear he will not continue to edit war. Dreadstar, I concur with Chillum's recommendation, and would ask you to consider lifting the block. Thanks. Go Phightins! 05:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

Dear Dirt Lawyer,

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. I haven't yet put in a fixed proposal, because I first want to see what level of relaxation would receive wide support. --Slashme (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Infobox college football player. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. RexxS (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you seem not to understand that you can't just copy and paste a debate from one page to another as if it took place there. Each of the participants in that debate signed their contributions on the original page and made their contributions there under a CC-BY-SA licence. You cannot re-use their contributions under your name without proper attribution. We would normally provide a link to such a debate if it is relevant, and if you are having problems you should consult the simple diff guides. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: Please consider yourself likewise involved in the same edit-war of which you have notified me above. Your actions can be easily interpreted to be another attempt to insert yourself into template-related editing disputes started by Andy/Pigsonthewing. Requesting editors to withhold changes to the template pending the outcome of an ongoing discussion would be considered a common courtesy by most editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I hold myself to a strict 1RR and I resent your implication that I am edit-warring when I have clearly stated the reason for my edit on the talk page - that the addition of the parameter improves the functionality of the template. Common courtesy would be to avoid reverting other editors' productive edits to a page without addressing the reason given for the edit, which you have failed to do. No editor is going to be bound by the results of a straw-poll taken by a WikiProject; and preventing improvements to the encyclopedia with that as your sole reason is disruptive editing. Please revert yourself before I have to request administrative action to stop you edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:3RR, Rexx. I stand by my previous comments regarding common courtesy and waiting for the outcome of an ongoing discussion. Your 1RR revert, quick on the heels of Andy/Pigsonthewing's revert, gives the appearance of picking a POINTY argument for no other reason than to support Andy/Pigsonthewing -- a pattern that you have now clearly established in the past week. No one is preventing improvements to the encyclopedia, RexxS, and you know this. There is an on-going discussion regarding the parameters of this template. You and all other concerned editors are welcome to participate in that discussion, and, in fact, have been invited to do so. Please feel free to participate in that discussion constructively. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's you that needs to see WP:3RR: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Your removal of Xyz's edit, then Andy's, then mine in the space of 90 minutes is clear edit-warring, particularly as you have not discussed your removals on the talk page of that template. If you have a good reason why Template:Infobox college football player should not have the date and place of death parameters, then feel free to discuss those reasons on the talk page of the template. --RexxS (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are still edit warring to show other editors contributions as if they were your own. I asked you a question on that talk page and you removed it: Why did you instigate a discussion of the template parameters in your own user-space without notifying the editors who watchlist the template? --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: Proper attribution is easily accomplished per WP:PATT, so that's not a reason to edit war on this (not to mention I'm not familiar with any consensus for transclusions needing attribution). There is also nothing inherently wrong with having a discussion limited to a few participants to build a strawman proposal. However, Dirtlawyer1, I think there is a legitimate concern of now using that full sandbox discussion as a starting point for a general discussion. There would be no issue with tailoring any new proposal based on sandbox feedback received, but discussion should start anew, and old participants should reaffirm their support while new points from new participants (if any) are entertained.—Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @RexxS: You have three times removed my attempt to copy and then transclude the ongoing discussion of proposed changes to this template from my user talk page, where the attribution for all talk page participants is included in the talk page history. The final attempt included the following:
"This ongoing discussion is transcluded from User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to this discussion.
"The foregoing discussion regarding this template was started in a user sandbox (see here), and transcluded to this talk page on February 20, 2015, in order to give all concerned editors the opportunity to participate.
"Please feel free to comment in the subsections below reserved for General Comments and Parameter-Specific Comments. Thanks."
As you know, talk page transclusion is commonly employed on Wikipedia for many purposes, including Good Article reviews. Please explain why the common practice of talk page transclusion violates WP:COPYVIO and/or WP:ATTRIB, and provide citations to specific portions of either or both of those policies that support your position -- I see nothing in either policy that would prevent this common practice. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm asking both of you to drop the attribution/transclusion debate. Dirtlawyer1: What would be your objection to starting the discussion anew, while strengthening a new proposal based on feedback you received. Otherwise, I am confused why this was an invitation-only discussion that didn't just start somewhere besides the user namespace.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba:@RexxS: What I do next regarding the ongoing discussion of the template parameters remains to be determined. That having been said, Rexx has reverted my attempts to copy and transclude that existing user talk page discussion to the template talk page, and has asserted that such attempts are a violation of WP:COPYVIO and/or WP:ATTRIB. As noted above, transclusion of one talk page discussion to another is a relatively common practice on Wikipedia and is employed, for example, for Good Article reviews and AfD discussions. I have requested the advice of other knowledgeable editors at the talk pages of the two policies cited by RexxS, and I respectfully request that you raise any good-faith concerns or questions that either of you may have regarding my attempts to copy and transclude the ongoing user talk page to the template talk page (including those violations alleged by Rexx above) on those policy talk pages. For your convenience, please see WP:COPYVIO#Talk page transclusion: is it a COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem? and WP:ATTRIB#Talk page transclusion: is it a COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem? Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1: I would propose getting formal feedback at Template talk:Infobox college football player with a new discussion. The last major edit to your sandbox talk page was on January 26[2], so I think we can move forward with a formal proposal that incorporates the input you received. As we are all volunteers here, I don't think you need to feel burdened to champion this on your own, so I am willing to help facilitate. Previous editors to your sandbox discussion can formalize their positions, and any other editors interested can provide input as well. I've taken a first rough stab on verbage to present at User:Bagumba/sandbox2, which is ~95% of what you already had. The new parameters that didnt have much support were removed. Old parameters that were mentioned for removal still remain. As you (rightfully) opposed discussion of implementation before, I do find naming of specific parameters and its "order" to also be implementation related, and would propose emphasis on those traits removed for now. Let me know your thoughts.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of flag icons

I would like to understand your edit about improper use of flag icon for sports event location. I'm trying learn proper usage of these kinds of things. RaysRates (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tim McKee

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tim McKee 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 Eurodyne -- Eurodyne (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/February&oldid=1089757706"