User talk:Thecrystalcicero

Hi there, You seem to be starting a number of articles about NZ supreme Court cases, but without including any references for them. Please read WP:Notable, WP:RS and WP:CITE. In a nutshell, linking to the Court's own public documentation of the case is useful but not sufficient to establish notability. It is best if you can reference third-party discussion about the cases (e.g. legal journals). As you obviously have reference material available, it is much easier for you to provide references than for other editors to have to go and search things out. As they stand, the articles are vulnerable to being nominated for deletion. Cheers, dramatic (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ANZ Cup Standings
Hey, just corrected it to remove the eliminated designation from Otago. If they beat Wellington with a bonus point, they will finish at 22. If Northland also beats Auckland and neither scores a bonus point, then all 3 will be at 22. Tasman, should they win with fewer than 4 tries, could make it four teams tied for the last spot. So Otago retains faint hope, needing a 5 point win over Wellington, Northland to beat Auckland in a bonus-less game and Tasman to get fewer than 5 points. At least two of those requirements are realistic.Alanmjohnson (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So what happens if Otago finishes level Northland and Auckland, and has a margin this weekend that is 16 points better than Northland's, thus making them tied on points difference as well? Does Otago win the tie-breaker based on beating Northland in Week 3, or for having fewer defeats (4-1-5 is better than 4-6 in my book, even if Northland would have had more bonus points)?  And then what to do with Tasman, should they also finish with 22 and win by two more than Otago does?  That would require a winning margin of at least 26 points, which is pretty tough to achieve without any bonus points.


 * I guess it's a long way of asking what the second-level tie breaker is. Any idea?Alanmjohnson (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that. It probably will be a moot point, but it's interesting how things can be decided.  I generally favor head-to-head results, as I think it's the most fair, but it can be problematic when multiple teams are tied in a competition where not all of the tied teams have necessarily played each other.  In RWC 1999, the first tie-breaker was actually points scored, which I think is asinine (as was much of that tournament in general) as it would have favored a 50-49 victory over a 49-0 victory.


 * What do you think of the way that competition points from the first round of the Heartland are carried into the 2nd. I think that for teams in the Meads Cup, their first round results against Lochore Cup teams shouldn't count (and vice versa), though their first round results against other Meads Cup teams should.  That would give each team in the Meads and Lochore Cup the same opponents, and no one would get the advantage of being drawn in the same pool of East Coast instead of South Cant.Alanmjohnson (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's all over now. Speaking of tie-breakers...while I still believe that head-to-head should take priority, I'd like bonus points (or lack thereof) to play a role in cases where teams haven't met (like Otago, Auckland, Northland). Leaving aside that Northland beat Auckland (let's pretend for a moment that they didn't play each other) it seems very wrong that a 4-6 team should be ranked higher than a 5-5 team just because they met other fairly arbitrary criteria such as number of tries scored or not losing by a given number of points. It sort of devalues actually winning a match, which is a real shame.

I've never heard Wanganui called the "Ringies" before, nor Mid Cant the Mighties or West Coast the Smuties. What do those names mean?Alanmjohnson (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rundle Cup
Please give references or sources for your article.

--  Chzz  ►  09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

done Thecrystalcicero (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Callum Blair


A tag has been placed on Callum Blair requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Schwede 66  00:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)