User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/Archive 1

GA Netball in the Cook Islands
I have placed the article on hold for you to address matters. Racepacket (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Olympic sports
May be you ain't aware of it but this category comprises only past and present Olympic sports (Baseball was also the part of Olympics). So i've reverted your edit, thanks. undefinedBill william compton  Talk   12:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Netball
Yesterday, in an effort to focus and bring to a conclusion the GA review of Netball, I went through the talk page and the review page and made a worklist of the points that were raised that were not obviously addressed and also gave my copyediting and sourcing concerns. Please take a look at the section entitled Talk:Netball/GA1 and let us work through them. Again, although I use American English on the talk page, I do not object to other forms of spelling being used in the article. I look forward to working with you on completing this.

On an unrelated point, I fixed the template for closing your GA reassessment on There's More Than One of Everything. I only mention it so that you will know the correct template to use next time. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball GAN
Hey Laura. Sorry to hear about the GAN withdrawal (which I only noticed AFTER I started addressing some of the more recent concerns :P ). I think everyone participating could see that things were getting weirdly drawn out. I wasn't optimistic about it to start with, though I was hoping it would go through nonetheless. But yeah, the article should go through a more thorough editing process before re-nomination – the whole GA process is normally a long one anyways (let alone FA). And you're right: we've done a damn good job improving the article thus far.

The History section discussion shouldn't take too much longer to finalise; I'm thinking of a compromise wording that essentially leaves most of the early details to the History of netball article. And don't worry about ill will: collaborative editing means that overall no-one gets exactly what they want. After four years it doesn't phase me in the least. Chocolate helps. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's a shame. I was optmistic that the only sections left to really sort out after I had a look were the countries and the olympic section. But still probably best to close it, as it did look like a war field with two stubbon reviewers jumping up and down taking it to the nth degree. As I said yesterday I'll have a look at the country section and then I'll probably set back a bit from it. KnowIG (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm....This is interesting 1. Don't see what the problem was. KnowIG (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am still optimistic that the aricle is close to GA. There are other editors involved, so I do not believe it is appropriate for a nomintor to unilaterally "fail" an article - only the reviewer may do that. Why don't you just step aside and let the process come to a conclusion? I have reverted your edit because in the past we have determined that only the reviewer may fail the article. Thank you. Racepacket (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, before I saw your withdrawal, I did take the time to leave you a detailed response to your "close paraphrase" question. (I did not use the word "plagiarize".) Perhaps you will find it beneficial to read the response. I understand your withdrawal and I hope that the article will go smoother from here. Best wishes on your academic career. Racepacket (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not fail the article. I withdrew the request.  There is a difference.  And close paraphrase is an accusation of plagiarism.  You can play a semantics game, but what you did was accuse me of plagiarism whether the word was used not.  Have you apologised for making the unfounded accusation?  I might have missed it and would love to see where it was.   --LauraHale (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know, no single editor "owns" an article. Let's see what the rest of the editors want. There are two dozen small changes to be made and we are done. I have never accused you of plagiarism.  If we find and remove close paraphrasing, the text many have been inserted by one of a dozen possible editors.  This is accusation is internal to you and not coming from me. We are in agreement as to what the Wikipedia guidelines are, the question is how to apply it to the article. I am certainly not imposing any duty on you to finish the review, but let's not stand in the way if others want to finish it. Racepacket (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are two dozen small changes, then please make these changes ASAP. It should not take more than an hour.  They are small changes.  Then pass it.  If you're not going to make these changes and I'm not going to make them, then you certainly are imposing on me.  You're insisting I go through a good article process that I am no longer equipped to deal with.  We agree that you are not following Wikipedia guidelines when it comes to the Good ARticle nomination process.  You aren't following it. You've tried to systematically enforce your point of view on the article.


 * Now, back to the plagiarism allegation, where is the retraction or the proof that I have plagiarised? --LauraHale (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GA
I saw your netball article and I wanted to review it as I thought it was a brilliant article. Unfortunatly someone jumped in and reviewed it and are being arsey about it. I'm relativly new to this but I wouldn't be that funny about it. Personally it was a bit rude considering the backlog. I'm sure you wouldn't have minded waiting. I'm going to order him to pass it or fail it. If it's failed just resubmit and I'll jump in and review it. Keep the faith. Me and another editor have told him to pass it. By the looks i.e. with red links complete non issue and his brought it up. And fails it for being too long. But don't worry stay cool we'll get it passed for you. KnowIG (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just used a peer review tool. Once we've passed this send it for a copy edit, I'll give you the link for it. And removed The from a section heading as it was not needed. KnowIG (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Laura. Sorry for being MIA over the last few days (in a nutshell, work). Amazing to see all the feedback on the article from over the weekend. In a few hours I'll be able to tackle some of the remaining issues on the GA review page, including a few content ones. I'll also have quite a lot of time tomorrow to finalise any further concerns. Hope this all goes well :). Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the AENA info. It's pretty similar to this pdf, which I used as a reference a few years ago, but at least yours was published by the AENA itself. My bad about the college, I'll change it now. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Scratch that: if Dr Toles arrived at the college while it was at Hampstead, then the rules would have changed before the college moved (also in 1895). Which means my rewording was probably beneficial (if only slightly). Sigh ... I'll get there. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing was confusing for me too. It was one of the reasons I asked Hawkeye7 to try to fix the wording because I was just stumped. I put that source next to him and another one (the Gilbert netball book) and asked him to try to make that coherent. It might be worth it to say try to rewrite the whole section on the history of netball section to get the big picture and then try to summarise it down from there? --LauraHale (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have left a number of bullets at the bottom of the Netball review which need to be addressed. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see them. My goal is to work my way through them or get help with that tomorrow Australia time.  I wanted to get the Netball in the Cook Islands work done first today. --LauraHale (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

University of Canberra
Hi Laura. Thanks for working on this rather neglected UC article. The improvement in reference look great - I need to learn how to reference like that. However, I thought some of the removed content was a bit overzealous - - are you hoping to bring some of that back e.g., the section on rankings I think is important and will grow to be more important.? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk 10:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here to make the same comment. The list of notable alumni and ex-students - completely gone now.  Better, in my view, to put citation needed tags against the offending names rather than cut them out entirely.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good article review help: Netball in the Cook Islands
Hi LauraHale, I've only just got the note you left me for help in reviewing the netball article - I've been offline. I see another user has provided quite an extensive review since - which looks like it is far more thorough than I could have done. I mainly just edit and expand articles rather than reviewing stuff. If you still think you need my help, you can leave me a note on my talk page. Nice work too on your articles. Happy editing! teinesaVaii (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Netball in the Cook Islands
The article Netball in the Cook Islands you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Canadian  Paul  17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball GA Review
Hi LauraHale, i've done my primary review of the article, there i've recommended some major changes in it; as you're the nominator and top contributor of the article, i'd like you to consider that mentioned points. undefinedBill william compton Talk  19:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you going to walk through the six points mentioned at Good article criteria? Your advice was that the major competitions, domestic and international, be put into two separate groups... but the major competitions at the moment only includes international competitions so I'm confused as to what you mean there. Beyond that, the world wide popularity bit could be trimmed... it just seemed important to be because it shows different levels of international competitiveness and different histories for each country in terms of who brought them into the game, how the game is organized and how well they performed.  Could this be solved by tweaking the introduction paragraph to the section to highlight that as the reason the section is there?  Beyond those issues, the rest should be fixable. --LauraHale (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LauraHale try to discuss on the review page only. The six points of GAC are just the brief summary of the GA review. The point of my primary review is to give broad overview of the article's major needs to meet GA status. By domestic competitions, i mean leagues and national level championships like Netball Superleague, Netball Super League, ANZ Championship, etc; it will be better if there would be two dedicated sub-sections for domestic competitions and international competitions separately. There is no need for mentioning status of Netball in each and every country in detail, there are separate articles for that. undefinedBill william compton  Talk  20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems should all be fixed now. :) --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Netball in Lesotho


A tag has been placed on Netball in Lesotho 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zunraa (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Netball in Niue


The article Netball in Niue has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not a notable subject, no substantial coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball (again)
Hi Laura,

Sorry, I know I promised in #wikimedia-au to have a look, but someone seems to have beaten me to the punch. If any concerns are brought up I'll be happy to lend a hand to fix them up so we can get this to GA! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

Netball in the Cook Islands
Hi, I've been reading the article, I added class and level of importance. I think that the article is comprehensive in the topic but you need to fix some issues. I can't review the article but I will help at pointing out some of the things I think you need to correct. Additionally, if i can help you with something else, just let me know. I'm not doing the review just because I have issues at recognizing minor copy-edits and if I review it I might end doing more bad than good. Although here go my suggestions: I can note that also in the same section you got to merge some paragraphs, making with those small ones two or three.
 * Expand the lead to at least two paragraphs, remember that the lead is a summary of the article itself, so I suggest you to read each paragraph and summarize it.
 * Watch how you write, remember that you have to write it in a encyclopedic language. For instance in the Grass Roots section: "It plays an important part of the fabric of life for many girls. For their social activities, rather than go to bars, they play netball and go to church.[10][11] Netball games are most often played by girls on Saturdays" you could re-write it to --> "Netball is an important social activity that plays an important role on the social life of Cook Island women, that constitute most of the teams that play on Saturdays".
 * By now that should be some work to do, I will try to help you editing the article among the review and before you got a reviewer and while you're nominated. With some work, the article will be good enough.--Gduwen (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I will provide you more assistance in case that you need it later, just let me know when you're over with the fixes you need to do and we'll see what else is left to do.--Gduwen (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, LauraHale, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 11:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Nice work
On the cell phone screencast summary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Our set of issues was different than other people had so I wanted more depth. --LauraHale (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Screencast
LauraHale, it was a pleasure meeting and working with you this past weekend. Perhaps we will work together again in the future--until then, best wishes! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey
You are remembered, or whatev. The wiki goes on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

MessageDeliveryBot Request
Hello! You recently made a request to have MessageDeliveryBot send out a message about RecentChangesCamp. I have not yet approved your request because the list of users you would like to send it to is extremely large (over 3000) so it could be considered spam. Is there any reason why the message is being sent to all those people? Did they participate in the past, or are they subscribed to some kind of list? To me, it just looks like a random list of 3000 people, but please correct me if I am wrong. - EdoDodo  talk 08:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick reply: The list is a list of editors based in Australia, so it can be inferred that they would be interested in attending such an event. You'll need for Laura for the full details. Netalarm talk 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought of something. Laura, do you want to attract non-Wikipedia editors too? By that I mean, Wikipedia readers? You could request a site notice that would be limited geographically to Australia. Netalarm talk 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A site notice would probably be a better idea. Sending a message to thousands of editors would be considered spam and is probably not the best way forward. - EdoDodo  talk 13:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Netball
Hi Laura. The page you created, Requested pictures/Netball, will not result in pictures for the article (no one will find your request) and I listed it for deletion. Please look over Requested pictures for instructions on how to request photos. Bascially, there are two methods for requesting an image:


 * 1) Add the reqphoto template to the talk page of the article that needs an image, and/or
 * 2) Add an option imageneeded=yes or needs-photo=yes to a project template on the talk page of the article that needs an image (Note the syntax will vary with project template and does not always exist.

Note: Either or both methods together can be used for a request; however, using the reqphoto template is the preferred method, as that is better monitored and managed. I do like your boldness. Keep it up. : ) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)