User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive157

Images
?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   07:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

 * On the Mirpur a city in Azad Kashmir page by users in the reference of POk. (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)
 * If the is allowed on that page ;then it will allow other users to edit in Iok in every Jammu and Kashmir page.(Indian Occupied Kashmir),even though one user tried (following wiki policy)to revert the edit the edit was reverted back to vandalism by another user.
 * Thus it will start an edit war.
 * I do not want to get invovled can please sort it out and please eg give warning to the users.
 * Also revert edits,Thanks manMughalnz (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2010 (UTCMughalnz (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * this article Mirpur, Azad Kashmir was hit by nangparbat. would be a good idea to semi protect it indefinitely Wikireader41 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the vedic saffron pov from the article you can protect it now monkey 86.158.238.222 (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Morning, Nangparbat.... Ahh my favourite Wikipedian  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Locked  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bodyline
I noticed that you mentioned the bodyline article the other day. I happened to read it while working on the Wally Hammond article. I think it could be of a higher quality for a FA. To me, it lacks detail, for example on its origins before 1930 (e.g. Jack Scott, Larwood (briefly) in 1928-29, possibly McDonald for Lancashire in late 1920s); on opinions on the 1934 series; on the MCC tours to India or West Indies shortly after, or on changes to the lbw law which were linked to bodyline. Other facts could be better cited. It also seems a bit jumpy, with short and disjointed paragraphs. I've made some very slight changes, and have a few other things that I could add about what I've mentioned here, but don't want to touch a FA too much! Also, I don't want to draw too much attention to any probs with a cricket FA by jumping up and down too loudly. I could do with another opinion! Have you any suggestions?--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's tons of comprehensivness issues; there isn't any problem with making the article twice as long as it was so complex. I have expanded it in the past but don't have Bodyline Autopsy, which you seem to have. Expand away. Most FAs are not comprehensive as hardly anyone knows of any given topic and the author is usually an amateur who isn't aware of a lot of stuff, or the author knows that the nobody else knows the topic so they push POV or sent in an undercooked and cheap star-voucher. I thought the main parts where I put in the info were exhaustively cited, specifically the 1932-33, although the later half of the article isn't sourced so great and is skimpy. I never did a formal copyedit of it either, as I was still working on it. Also the article sort of just peters out after the Third Test. And if you have a book on the Summer of Four Captains that would be great as well, because controversies such as captaincy power struggles, the details often don't come out until years later, so the almanack match report wouldn't have all the details.  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket )  01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a 2005 FA, so the criteria back then was not as strict. It's actually very good for a 2005 FA, but yes, it could be improved. Just my quick two cents worth.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a December 2006 repromoted FA and research standards on FAs in those days were quite poor. Some guys just downloaded 2-3 web-bios of some national leaders, all-time great poets, paraphrased them and mixed them together and passed FA sometimes, and random websites being paraphrased were common. The article is not detailed enough when you consider it turned into geopolitical rumblings much bigger than Monkeygate. The re-FA version also didn't include all these controversies about the Australians wanting to sack Woodfull for not retaliating or that perhaps had a nervous breakdown or that the Poms called him "yellow" or the Fingleton/Bradman dispute over the leak, or the evolution of the series etc etc.  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket )  01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about calling attention to it; it's already at the top of Featured articles/Cleanup listing, and likely needs a FAR anyway. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, it's already had one FAR since I joined Wikipedia. There must be an awful lot of FAs that haven't. It would seem daft to re-FAR an article when so many have been neglected. --Dweller (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It was labelled with four different problems as there were four unaccounted sentences that I tagged while I was working on it, and as I tagged them at different times, it triggered four different types of unsourced cats. But four unaccounted sentences is less than most articles, which have sometimes 30-50% + unsourcedparts whether they have been labelled or not. As for the comprehensiveness things, it's up to the topic-folks to do it themselves as the outsider wouldn't know, and if it is obvious enough to the outsider then it should score less than 5/10 for content. Lots of my Vietnamese history FAs I thought were comprehensive then afterwards I found out a lot more from some books and expanded them (as well as some cricket FAs I thought I made comprehensive), so I wouldn't be surprised if many other FAs were, especially those that only use websites. As for the age of FAR, it re-passed FAC in Dec 2006, and many late-06 and early-2007 articles have been bumped off expecially the ones that only did the bare minimum to pass. As for cricket FARs I've been editing through them anyway without bothering to wait. Bodyline is twice as large now as it was when it was re-FAed, and I've expanded Bill O'Reilly and Adam Gilchrist as well as my own original FACs when I came across more information. I'm not just here to do the minimum to get a FA (and to get ethnic WikiProjects to stack for me) and then sit here until I get dragged kicking and screaming to FAR.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The comprehensiveness issue is a tricky one, because how comprehensive does an article need to be to be comprehensive? Dozens of books and periodicals have covered Bodyline from myriads of angles. What's appropriate for an encyclopedia? --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For this article, it doesn't need to cover the Tests of 32-33 in too much detail, as it is about Bodyline rather than the Test series itself. However, it should include details of how it started, when and how it was used, what people thought of it and the aftermath (before and after law changes). Every biography of players from that series seems to include a chapter on Bodyline but often just repeats what it says everywhere else or concentrates on their opinion. (It mentions in the article that the English team considered Australians cowards, but as far as I know only Larwood and Jardine came out and said so outright; everyone else seemed a bit embarrassed and defensive!). As long as the article doesn't get silly and quote what Jardine had for breakfast on the rest day of the third Test or what colour socks Woodfull was wearing, I think it is possible to make it comprehensive and managable. However, it might get a lot longer in doing so.--Sarastro1 (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the 2006 re-promoted FA certainly wasn't comprehensive as it omitted some very obvious things: Bradman getting "ill" before the First Test and Jardine claiming he had a nervous breakdown because he was coward, McCabe's happy-hooking innings that was regarded as one of the best of all time, the details of Bradman's comeback, the famous duck, false dawn in the Second Test, the Third Test near-riot needed more details, the rebuilding of ties in 1934 and how the MCC promised to stop Bodyline but then Woodfull threatened to quit. There was no info that the Aus Board contemplated sacking Woodfull because he wouldn't retaliate or that some of the Aus players and media advocated retaliation. Also, Sarastro mentioned other things that weren't notcied. Thirdly, other things that were still missing, was that Fingleton and Bradman thereafter always fought each other and blamed each other for leaking the dressing room exchange, a very famous riff-raff, angry English fans comparing the revolutionary Lindwall-Miller attack to Bodyline, the odd club team in Australia tried Bodyline, or that Hammond and Pataudi said that they would quit if Australia retaliated and therefore Woodfull could have forced their hand in about five minutes. The class division also isn't explained, or how Fender and Jardine allegedly had a visceral hatred of Australians. Was it Fender who predicted that Bradman would be useless in 1930 and then got angry when he made 974? Allegedly Woodfull and Ponsford retired early in some quarters because of it. I don't propose to add comprehensive match details but more context of how Bodyline featured in the certain Test or if it was irrelevant. As England only used Bodyline some of the time and Verity and Allen not at all, then maybe it was used only 25% in total, or even less. I should probably and a table of Australian Test averages of Bodyline and non-bodyline Tests.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_statistics and a list above it says that the mean and median prose size is around 22-25 kb. This article is currently in that range and the 2006 re-promote was quite a way below that. We're hardly full at the moment  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Sarastro, wrt Hammond, O'Reilly regarded him as his greatest Test foe (excluding Hassett in Aus domestic) and apparently Hammond decided to just block him, so that may be mentioned as a key head-to-head in the article, and the Tiger FA needs that information as well if you have it.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wally Hammond
Hello again! Have a few ideas for Bodyline but can't find much yet about Hammond and Tiger except bits in Wisden about Hammond blocking. Will add whatever I get. I'll probably work on Bodyline for a bit now, and possibly Douglas Jardine at the same time. Have just finished updating the Hammond article as far as I can. It seems very long, but I'm going to leave it for a while now. I'm going to put it up for peer review or maybe FAR (GA takes too long!), but I would appreciate it if you could cast an eye over it as you did with the Rhodes article. Thanks.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I only know the Ashes stuff. Apparently in 1938 there were a lot of batathons because Hammond and Bradman hated each other and were more interested in not losing to the others. In 1946-47 apparently Lindwall and Miller's raw pace adn bumpers scared him, check their articles, I hven't revisisted that series in a while. Also I think the Ikin catch needs to be elaborated on because Bradman was in bad form up until that point and then started middling everything after the catch. Maybe that got to Hammond as on that tour they apparently didn't talk at all and refused to see each other. You could just reuse the stuff already int eh other articles I guess. The victory Tests don't seem to have been covered in any detail at all. Sure they weren't full Tests but many historians, in Australia at least regard them highly and treat them in a depth greater than other Fc but somewhat less than Tests. I thought that it was deemed that Hammond's death came early because of some injury or illness from before that sapped him, but I'm not sure. Also you should talk to, he has reviewed at least one Cricket FAC from every nominator in the last 12 months, and opposed all of them to begin with, and he knows a lot about cricket and good writing although he doesn't write about cricket here.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  03:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the cites, there are variable ref formats eg 24-5 and 24-25, using p25, pp. 25 etc. I'm not sure about "ESPNCricinfo"but it is consistent. I wouldn't normally use "Wisden – England v South Africa 1913-" as Wisden is the name of the whole product, not the match report, so I would chop off the word. As for "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 1930 – online archive" I would chuck the "online archive" as it is a reproduction of the book and implicit anyway, and put the year separate as in Sam Loxton as people don't normally call things "Journal of Modern History December 2004" or whatever  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  03:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They ask for cites for all quotes as well, this would appy to Rhodes and another other GA+ article  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have much about the Victory Tests. They aren't mentioned much except as brief scores in either of his biographies which I have, and only the Dominions match gets much comment. Will add more about the Ikin catch. Also, no real direct mention of the car crash causing his death.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed some of the cites but might have missed more. I've tried to use p. for one page, pp. for more than one, or at least that was the intention. Changed publisher, took out "online archive" and made year separate. Left Wisden in titles for now for the simple reason that it is the title of the web page and I have no access to the vast majority of the paper copies of Wisden. (I did the cites like this as I got the format from a cricket FA but I forget which) Will take Wisden out of titles later if it is a problem.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews
Hi again. Firstly, put Wally Hammond up for peer review in the end, thanks for your help. Also, re. 2nd Test of 1948, can't find a reference to Yardley's golden arm but I know it exists so I'll keep trying to find it. Finally, there is a section in the Bodyline article about the English players believing Bradman to be a coward in 1930. It is referenced but I'm not sure how accurate it is. I've put a comment on the talk page but I wondered if you knew where the ref came from or how reliable it was.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the Haigh and Frith p 70 says that Bradman hopped, at least at The Oval, and cites a private letter that Gubby sent home to his dad in 32/33 when he called Bradman a "little coward". the article does not say that they explicitly called him a coward in public, but it does list jardine and Allen's private opinion. We could change it to two, I guess. Added teh stats for Yardley at least although anything that isn't raw data will need more.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Free use
Could you check this website to see wether we can copy and past text from there into wikipeida. 207.233.70.79 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should talk to  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket )  01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dashes
Do we say: "50-run partnership" or "50 run partnership?" I thought we used the former.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   21:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Definite hyphen. I think I won't be able to get a change of opinion on Loxton  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  02:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you add bits? I'll add the refs and go through Loxton... don't know enough about his political career to oppose over that.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * you mean Loxton? I already have added it and replied. Loxton was a backbencher for 24 years and wasn't involved in any fights and just voted with the rest of them. Pakistan and Australia aren't bothering to train today before the match. Pity. Pakistan need practice and I'm surprised the teams didn't book flights earlier and are only coming into Adelaide at "late afternoon". The sun doesn't set until 8pm in any case.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bugger, so no photos? Pak are trying hard to loose U-19 WC SF against WI. Looks like hawk-eye had a malfunction on a set-point in the Roddick match. Looked well out off Roddick's racquet - and called out - but Hawk-eye said it was hitting half the line, giving him the set. I think Roddick only challenged because had 'em to spare. Raises the question if this could happen in crucial stages of cricket matches? Aaroncrick  ( talk )   03:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the cricket hawkeye measures what is already there and predicts. With the tennis, the raw data is already there, so are they discarding some of it? Why don't they just use a detector like at the Hopman Cup a while ago? I'll email SACA again to see if any of them changed their mind  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In tennis Hawkeye is wrong by an average of 3mm, which doesn't make sense because like you said the data is already there. SA crashed against Victoria in the final! Silly how they only have a days break when going to another city.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * SA don't have the balls to do anything useful. I got the photos of Nannes on Friday though. Is Saker the bowling coach. There was a rotund guy there with a Saker-like beard.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, wasn't anything special for Tassie as a bowler though.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How do we add ALT text to a cricket infobox? The one you added to Harbhajan doesn't work.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, doesn't seem to be enabled? Sehwag threw away another 100. It's all for Gambhir to lose  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no option to add the alternate text for the main infobox image in the Infobox cricketer biography. Bit backwards over at WP:CRIC. Sehwag must have got bored.  Aaroncrick   ( talk )   04:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR help needed
. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'll leave it there for a while in case anyone has anything else. As for the intimidation part, yes, being a nominally important person can scare other people off and if one were to post mediocre stuff, the odd person would be deterred from biting, yes  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor seems to be quite new, so I'm trying to explain why he/she shouldn't be intimidated; this is not an idea we want to lend credence to. As for the FAR, sure, I don't mind seeing it left open for a few days, although I still don't think it should have been started in the first place. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I told him that Nishkid isn't a warlord  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  04:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You were always the king of plain speaking ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Laundry time
likely puppet of, could you check please? You'd blocked previously as a puppet of Wikindia who I've blocked for a week now. Same disruptive page moves, factual inaccuracies etc etc. Between these three accounts and their IPs they screw up all Madhya Pradesh articles, create unnecessary categories etc. cheers. – Spaceman  Spiff  08:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely him. I wonder if I'll get investigated for abuse of CU like with Naadipriya after my latest dissident/politically incorrect comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration. Marvellous display of full tosses by Bangladesh. Gambhir and viru must be kickign themselves, although I found it funny that some forum dwellers think Gambhir is playing against high-quality bowling while Bradman did not, on a flat pitch not an uncovered one I suppose. Aynway thanks for dealing with Bimal Soni. I just added unformatted urls to most of them, as caught by the bot above, although the Ken Wood (coach) one wasnt picke dup by the bot.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 09:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just saw it, I normally avoid these boards until it starts affecting my work, the BLP thing is getting to be a nightmare. Based on the stuff I've sourced so far at WP:IND/UBLP not one classifies as libel, although two were patent rubbish in terms of praise and all that, and the no that were incorrectly marked as unsourced or BLP is amazing! What abuse? I mean, do people really take complaints of banned editors claiming they aren't banned seriously? Wonder if Dravid will be able to get back on the field tomorrow, and one more for SRT, maybe Vijay will impress. Unless I'm adding CA links, I normally add bare urls and then jsut run WP:Reflinks. Reflinks normally has a difficult time with CA and Indian express, so those I do templates on my own. cheers. – Spaceman  Spiff  09:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hey Bln!

On Talk:Bollywood, I reverted one user who has added an extremely uncivil message (Diff). He wrote something like "willful, ignorant mobs" which I found as being in violation of WP:NPA. I was reverted by another user (Anupam, whose POV is supported by this guy's comment), and now I thought it would be better to consult you. Have I done something wrong? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's a good idea to remove comments by an opponent, unless it is rank vandalism, or libel etc. I would just ignore that king of thing. Also have you heard about people wanting to delete BLPs with no source. A lot of actors would be affected by that, see the chat at WT:INB  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mughalnz
this editor is going around pushing a wahhabi POV and removing cited info on al-qaeda activities in Kashmir from the Kashmir Conflict and Al-Qaeda articles. can you please keep an eye Wikireader41 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Takalik Abaj FA nom
Hi YellowMonkey. Thanks for your comments re. the FA nom for Takalik Abaj. I believe all your concerns have been dealt with and would appreciate it if you could take another look and respond on the nom page. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

SM U-118
Hi. I noticed that my article made it to the main page. How come I never got a message from the DYK bot about it and how come the talk page of the article is still missing the tag that states that the article was a DYK?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I added them just after the template went on-air because the TFA was short, have to send them out manually  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)