User talk:Dirtlawyer1

Greetings, all!

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Melnyk

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Tewapack's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category ordering

Your statement accompanying your Andy North partial revert of my edit is simply not true. From Wikipedia:Categorization:

The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first.

(emphasis added) and from Wikipedia:Categorization of people:

There is currently no consensus about the order in which these categories should be placed at the bottom of an article.

Pleasae keep this in mind when editing articles. Tewapack (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Page Dunlap

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Page Dunlap. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Florida Gators women's golf

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Roster links

I wasn't able to find the discussion, but I do remember a couple of years ago there was one and a user went around and removed all of the links. It would probably be best to bring it up to WP:baseball again to see what people say now. I personally don't have anything against them being there. Regarding my name, the 10 is just a family number that we all use. How about yours?--Yankees10 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Red links

I am ambivalent either way, but curious about this edit where you removed red links from the coach navbox: [1]. The only thing I have seen commenting on it is WP:REDLINKS, which makes an argument for red links to notable subjects because it is supposed to encourage creation of the articles. Strikehold (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Strikehold, the redlinks looked like hell in several of these navboxes when half or more have no articles. At the time, I was more concerned with expanding the navbox information to include first names and years of service so we could do away with the bottom-of-the-page succession boxes for coaches, but if anyone wants to restore the redlinks and start actually creating the articles, I certainly have no objection. I'll get you a list of the dozen or so coaches navboxes that I've reworked; as I recall, Tulane had one of the highest percentages of redlinks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessary, I saw that and was just wondering. I can certainly see both sides of the issue on whether to keep them in navboxes. I do like the idea about doing away with the succession boxes though. Anyway, I think I started three or four of the Tulane coach articles. If I recall it was difficult finding sources for some of these still left. Think I'm going to see if I can do a few more. Strikehold (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think we absolutely should keep the complete list of all coaches and their dates of service for each program's navbox, but I am ambivalent whether we keep the redlinks for all coaches pending creation of articles for them. Like you said, some of these early guys are pretty damn obscure. You're lucky if you can find a complete name, dates of service and a win-loss record. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I meant "whether to keep the red links", not whether to keep the coaches. Strikehold (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

William G. Kline

Dirtlawyer1, I found William G. Kline's records at Nebraska Wesleyan. See [[2]], [3], [4]. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JW. Kline is one of those "lost" Gators coaches who I would really like to understand what happened to him after he left Nebraska in the mid-1920s. I found several coaching books that he authored in the 1930s and 1940s, and I also found a New York Times article where he was called as a trial witness in the late '40s. After that, he dropped off the grid. Pee Wee Forsythe and C.J. McCoy both disappeared from the public record after their time as the Gators coach. George Pyle was the West Virginia AD in the late 1910s, and I found his 1940s obituary. Al Buser turned up later as the Hamline AD. From Gen. Van Fleet forward, the lives and coaching careers of the Gators coaches are pretty well chronicled in contemporary newspaper articles and the various books about the history of the Florida football program. The first four or five guys get short shrift because the early UF UAA records are so sketchy and program didn't really rate a lot of newspaper coverage outside of Florida, which was still a very small state from 1906 through the early '20s. Kind sad, because guys like Forsythe, Pyle and Kline were apparently quite the interesting characters. Forsythe was a stud player for John Heisman at Clemson, and Kline was a UF law school professor while he was the football coach (and apparently attended Michigan and Nebraska for his law school education).

Next time I'm in Gainesville, I plan to spend some time in the rare books section of the UF library looking at old yearbooks and school newspapers to see what additional information I can glean regarding these early Gators coaches and the first three or four University of Florida presidents. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Sports-Reference.com site for college basketball lists Kline as W.G. Klein for his Florida stint; see: [5]. They probably picked that up from somewhere, so it might be worth keeping that alternate name/misspelling in mind when searching for stuff on him. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dashes

Thanks for the detailed reply to my post regarding the resurfacing of the spaced en dash controversy. I wish you luck, and won't object again on that page. I see you're a very active editor, primarily in article space, which is good to see -- I haven't run into you before but then we don't seem to edit a lot of the same pages. Anyway, good luck with it.

Judging from this, it looks like this is your first time getting involved with what could be a large number of Wikipedians with strong opinions about an aesthetic issue. I hope you don't mind if I offer a couple of comments based on my own experience in similar discussions -- I am sure you don't need professional advice, but still I hope I can give you a couple of insights. (I really hope this doesn't come across as patronizing in any way; I just hope that I have some useful information I can pass on to you.)

One point, perhaps the most important, is that it is remarkably hard to do what you suggested you would like to do: to pursue the issue with "an attorney's zeal and sense of organization". This is because without a prior consensus that someone be nominated as the organizer of a discussion there is not a great deal one person can do to ensure that a discussion follows a logical progression. It's a consequence of the lack of hierarchy here, and it can be frustrating. In addition, many editors won't want to participate in the tedious work of constructing the debate; they will simply show up at the end and support or oppose the points of view expressed. So my advice here is not to get your hopes up too high with regard to what a willingness to organize the debate can achieve. There's no doubt it can help, but there are limits.

My other suggestion is about tone, and this is more personal to my style than it is a suggestion about Wikipedia. I am not a lawyer myself, but by chance attended the closing arguments of a corporate law trial recently (an antitrust case). If I may be excused for characterizing your comments, I'd say you sounded like you were talking to a jury, not to your fellow editors, at a couple of points:. For example, when you said "Rarely have I seen so much sophistry, rhetoric and bad statistics adamantly employed in the support of so trivial a point", my immediate reaction was that you were a warrior for your point of view rather than truly interested in consensus. You've posted less adamantly since then and I no longer think that. However, I think it is true to say that the accuracy of an argument is more potent in these discussions that the rhetoric. Rhetoric has its place here, of course; but one has to take care with it.

As I said, I wish you luck, and will watch the talk page to see what happens. Perhaps we will run into each other in article space at some point too. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. TCO (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)