User talk:Bill william compton/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Good article review help?

As you're a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sport, I was wondering if you might help with the good article review for netball? :) --LauraHale (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort for nominating this article for GA. I'll start my work by tomorrow and it will take maximum seven days for me to review it completely. Bill william comptonTalk 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Very, very grateful. :D Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I fixed all the things you adressed and where I haven't fixed them, other contributors have. :) I don't suppose you could check again? :) --LauraHale (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
LauraHale, don't loose your patience and remember GA review is not a work of child, it really needs lots of time and concentration. I've evaluated the status of the work done on the article, check the review page and try to resolve recommendations made by me. If that get completes than i'd step into my secondary phase of the review which i think won't be a big deal after that much of changes. Bill william comptonTalk 14:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I don't think we can fix the concerns you raised on the netball article good article nomination. The sources do not exist for the information you keep suggesting. And for me and other reviews, the organization you're suggesting doesn't work given the context of this being a game mostly played by women, administered by women, with female spectatorship where the games where the sport is most often played in smaller commonwealth countries.

This impacts on all sorts of things that just make it impossible to follow some of your suggestions. As we can't easily address those concerns in a timely manner and the review has been open for almost a week, can you please either pass the article (I know it is unlikely) or fail the article so that we have some resolution either way? --LauraHale (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply:I'll finish the review of the article as soon as possible; most probably within one day, i was pretty much busy since last two days. Bill william comptonTalk 05:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat my request: Please fail the netball article. You said it didn't pass because it was biased... but you provided no examples of weasel words or biased citations to support this. We've explained the issue that we cannot cite the information you suggested we provide to make a section more complete. You haven't come back with any examples to spell this out. You haven't pointed out specific examples of this. You haven't justified why the tables need to go. You didn't respond in a timely manner to the question regarding if you wanted a prose format for those tables, nor why that was preferable. You didn't explain why this went beyond the scope of the article. Please check Talk:Immaculate Conception Catholic Church (Celina, Ohio)/GA1, Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy Library/GA1, Talk:St Mary's Church, Astbury/GA1, Talk:Ryan Ellis/GA1, Talk:C. W. A. Scott/GA1 and Talk:Louis Clément Ngwat-Mahop/GA1 to see how this is done. If you can't provide detailed information for where things are wrong beyond, get this information which you say you can't get, it is biased and the scope is broad... then fail it. We can't fix bias unless you point to specific examples of it. We can't fix the popularity thing because you don't cite specific examples in the text that show where it is too broad. We can't may seem to want because the sources don't exist. We can't fix the issues of the tables in the competition section because you didn't reply on page as to whether or not you wanted the information in prose format and didn't clearly articulate why these sections were problems to begin with.

If you aren't going to fail the article today, please respond on the talk page for the GA to go into more depth on these specific issues. --LauraHale (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: If you needed further explanations of my review than you should ask, there was no need of so much sarcasm. I told you this procedure will take 6 or 7 days, than what's the hurry??, may be you're just limited to Netball, but i'm not; i'm from WP Sport not WP Netball, because of that i see things with different perspective. By giving these examples of other reviews you've proved limitations of your thinking; you've presented here articles about Biographies, Churches and Library (not even a single article about any sport); in spite of giving such examples of no-use you should see these - Association Football, Baseball, Bottle pool, Carom billiards, etc these all are sports' related articles (not about churches); and tell me where you see unnecessary details of sport in different countries or extensive tabular details of tournaments/championships. Before nominating any article you should check whether or not this article is able to get pass the GA review and after seeing your history of nominating articles it becomes very clear that you even don't bother to notice it. You said "i didn't respond in time", but the thing is you weren't able to understand the recommendations i made, and its not my fault that you're so unexperienced in dealing with such issues. I might fail this article on very first day, but i saw potential in it; so i thought if i'd be able to direct you and other users (related to it) than it would definitely become a GA.

I don't know why are you living in a myth that GA means a long and essay like article. I asked you to remove that bulky sections about Netball in different countries and tabular data of International competitions because there're already other articles present for each and every section, so what was the need to include them here also, e.g. if there is an article Netball in South Africa than why you made a whole massive section for it, you could simply add a hyperlink for it, but you didn't, you just copied the whole article and made a full essay type section here; and don't think this is some kind of my personal criteria, check this section "Baseball around the world" (keep in mind its a part of Featured Article, for which one criteria is a Comprehensive details of the subject) and compare it with your section of Netball around the world, actually here the situation is to compare it with Netball in South Africa (or any other such sub-section) and please don't make excuse that Netball is different than baseball and important part of netball isn't spectatorship, but it is participation and this is popular in small nations, that's why you can't remove the chunks of sections dedicated to them.

I called it slightly biased towards the popularity of the game because the whole article is about - how much it's popular in Commonwealth Nations, how it became a popular women's sport just by introducing to different countries, etc but you never mentioned why this sport is still not a part of Olympics, why it took 20 years for IOA to even recognize this sport while many other non-contemporary sports were already being in the list, why this is not as recognizable as basketball, even if both are so much similar, why this game is limited to women only and many other such questions. I think this is sufficient for anybody to question the neutrality of this article. I hope now you'll understand why i'm not passing this article and in spite of questioning my skills of reviewing article you should think about how to resolve these problems. But still you're so stubborn that you won't care any of it, than simply just tell me to fail this article and i bet you in this condition it will never be able to pass the review for GA by any reviewer. Bill william comptonTalk 07:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I copy and pasted your response here to the GA article. I also responded there. I still have no idea what you want. I have included a section of the article for you to rework to make acceptable to Good Article Standards. If you don't feel like editing it, then please comment back on the GA talk page for netball specifically detailing, USING EXAMPLES FROM THE TEXT explaining what you needs to be REMOVED, added to, etc.

Reply: If you really want this than i'll definitely do it; right now i'm busy for short while so just wait for few hours. Bill william comptonTalk 08:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have been asked to look at this review. I assume good faith, but will start by reminding you of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Be gracious and understanding, and avoid intensifiers in commentary. Not all editors are willing to take on difficult projects. This is especially true because you seem to be a newcomer yourself. I looked through the articles you have created but could not see your featured articles or good articles. And apparently have a poor grasp of English. I ask you to strike uncivil remarks and personal attacks.

Assuming WP:NOCLUE, I remind you that unnecessary details is insufficient reason to fail a GAN. Nor is the article on Netball long enough to require it to be broken into subarticles. And your arguments for WP:NPOV are unconvincing. On the face of it, it appears that the article should be passed. It is your call of course. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Flawed questions of user

If the questions are flawed, maybe you should take it as a sign that you are not being clear and that my questions are a sign of trying to get clarity that you implied on your talk page I hadn't sought. I'm not trying to be difficult. This isn't personal. I want to improve this article. I want to get it to good article status. I'm trying desperately hard to work with you to do that. I added sections. I took away sections. I solicited feedback. I explained why I could not do what you asked. I repeatedly asked for concrete examples of where the text did not meet with your approval towards getting good article status. (I'll not you still have not provided examples in the text of the article of where the article is biased.) All I want to do is either work with you to get the article to good status, or to find some one else to work with. This isn't personal. I just do not understand the points you are trying to communicate to me. It would really help our communication if you could quote the article, directly referencing the text when trying to communicate with me. If we can't communicate effectively, could you find another person to offer a second opinion who can help us resolve our communication gap? (Copy and pasted to Talk:Netball/GA1.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no bias, stop being funny with it and pass it. Or I will seek that you are not allowd to review articles again. Complete pain. KnowIG (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
LauraHale, i apologize for my rudeness, but i didn't mean to demoralize you. I really appreciate your work on this article, which is really a best candidate for GA status, but i've only a small concern related to size of its few sections. I just want you to summarize those sections which already have article for them, like Netball in South Africa, Netball in the Cook Islands, Netball in Australia, etc; in simple language what you've to do is just make them small (by including only most important details). I called it slightly biased (not a fully biased) because this article doesn't mention few relevant points, like:-
  • why Netball is not popular as Basketball - this is a very important point because generally it is considered as Netball and Basketball are very much similar to each other (which in fact is true).
  • If Netball has such a relevance as a women's sport than why it is not a part of Olympics - this is also an important point, as many sporting events were declined to include as the part of Olympics because of many issues; like for the Cricket, reason was the time it takes for a single match.
      • In short, article doesn't include these points, which may be ain't important for you, but they are really significant as any general person would like to know them.

NOTE: Now, just answer these questions which i've made, and i assure you if you'll make a genuine reason for not following these points than i'll definitely pass this article just after your reply.

Now, i won't overload on you, i'm doing it myself. If you think i've trimmed any relevant point than please feel free to correct it.
KnowIG, go ahead and seek anyone if you think i'm just playing around and making fun from it, because i'm not violating any rule or norm of Wikipedia; i'm trying to present my genuine points, if you've problem with them than you're welcome to make your point. Bill william comptonTalk 11:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Yet again your saying I am not going to pass it cause I think its too long. What a load of bollocks she doesn't have to dop anything and I suggest you wiseup. TO your questions she has already stated why it is not in the Olympics or are you just blind and retarded and not read the article. FIrst question has already been addressed as well. So stop pissing around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever you are, first at least try to sign before leaving the page; second, there is no need of these points i'm doing it by myself now.Bill william comptonTalk 11:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


Mentioning the constituent colleges of GGSIU doesn't seem right to me when you have already included the parent university. Besides, I am not so sure about the notability of the constituent colleges. I think they should be removed from this template. What do you say? PratikMallya Talk! 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i added these constituent colleges on the template because of following reasons:-
  1. Education group of template should contain all those educational bodies and institutions which made great contributions in the development of education structure of Delhi. It doesn't matter whether you've included parent body of these institutions, if they satisfy the criteria of notability than we've to add them also.
  2. University School of Chemical Technology is there because it is the only institute after IIT Delhi which is specialized in Chemical Technology in Delhi-NCR. So its uniqueness make it full candidate.
  3. University School of Biotechnology is there because it is 6th best public biotechnology institute in whole India.
  4. University School of Information Technology is there because it was the first computer science oriented institution in Delhi-NCR.
  5. University School of Management Studies is there because it is the second best management school after FMS (DU).
  6. Similarly, colleges/faculty of Delhi University are also there like -St. Stephen's College, Lady Shri Ram College for Women, Shri Ram College of Commerce, Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Faculty of Management Science; they all satisfy one or more criteria of notability.
  • I wanna to ask you for reassessment of GGSIPU for B-Class. I'm the member of WP University and could do it by myself, but i don't wanna to do it because i'm the major contributor of this article and it won't feel good to me assess article developed by me. So, please follow this link and review this article against these criteria. Bill william comptonTalk 11:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the message. Actually as i am new to wikipedia so i was just checking out some pages and found this one. It wasn't my intention to remove the content you are talking about, was just a mistake. And Thanks for the information !! KS700 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

your welcome....hey, i'm a little bit confuse whether you're Pratik.mallya or KS700, i mean has pratik.mallya has changed his username to KS700 ??Bill william comptonTalk 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Not wanting to undo your undo without a bit of discussion, I just want to ask why you undid my edit to the Devanagari page - surely my change is a little more accurate? It's not too pedantic, given it's in the intro of an important article. Harsimaja (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: It's very nice of you that you brought it to discussion first. I roll-backed your edit because most of the north Indic scripts (like - Tibetan script, Gurmukhi, Bengali script, Devanagari and many more) are generally recognized by that horizontal lines; there are only very few exceptions of it like Oriya, Gujarati, etc; but i've considered your point and made suitable change on the article.Bill william comptonTalk 19:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My other point was that it can't be 'recognisable' by an attribute shared by so many other scripts - precisely because you wouldn't be able to recognise which one it is just from that. I think it's better just to mention it's a feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsimaja (talkcontribs) 06:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Move files


the tab appears right of the history tab. I am using the monobook skin. Perhaps your stylesheets or java scripts are doing something to it. So as a trial you could disable your scripts; log off and log on. and see if the tab appears. It will be interesting to work it out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And once you find the tab, please make sure that you update the pages that point to or use the image, particularly important for fair use images. The redirect can be deleted if it is a new image, for an old image that is more controversial, as it may have been used off Wikipedia, so for high use article images, keep the redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, its really helpful; could you please answer the user below to this section.Bill william comptonTalk 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop badgering anons

My internet provider changes my IP a lot, as do many internet providers. There are many of us out here who make a conscious decision NOT to have an account, who believe that anonymity on the internet is important, and who believe that Wikipedia's emphasis on identifying users and its admin structure is hopelessly corrupting. It creates power struggles, wikilawyering, and gives inappropriate deference to users and even admins who don't deserve it, while valuing arbitrary measures of a user's worth which may or may not have anything to do with whether that user's opinion on a given encyclopedic topic is useful or worth anything.

Either you need to find out who people REALLY are by actually identifying whether they have credentials or any reason to make a significant contribution, or you need to stop badgering people to register for accounts. I've seen too many discussions degenerate, too many abuses of power within the Wikipedia system, etc. to ever want to be involved as more than an anonymous user.

Not only that -- by how the heck do you know that this IP isn't shared, or it wasn't just reassigned (which it apparently recently was)? I know dozens of people who feel as I do, yet we still get moved enough at some point to post an anonymous comment on a talk page (or make a small edit along with a comment on the talk page) -- because Wikipedia, though flawed, has unfortunately become a standard reference. And even with citations and a talk page comment, I (and others I know) have been reverted because we are anonymous. How about working to encourage people to actually pay attention to the positive contributions of the occasional anon?

We don't need people badgering us to join you... probably the vast majority of users who want to be known can figure out to register on their own. Some of us, though, don't want to join your stupid power-trip club, so, please, leave us alone. And please, tell your prominent Wikipedian friends and admins.

On behalf of anonymous users who actually make positive contributions (though we may seem to be dwarfed by the vandals), (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply:Hi, i apologize if i did anything wrong by welcoming you or any other anonymous user, but i'm actually lost why are you so depressed about this. I'm from Welcoming committee and this is my duty to welcome new users and help them get started in various ways; this is even not an issue, Welcome message doesn't force you to make account, it's just suggestion. I think you're in some kind of very bad impression about Wikipedia, we (other Wikipedians) encourage new users to make healthy contributions.
This is even not a case that we specifically delete edits of ips, but the problem is majority of vandalism comes from these users; so we get alert for this but first we check the reliability, constructiveness and relevancy, if the edit satisfies these points than no one will ever remove your edit whether he/she is administrator or any other wikipedian. Don't get frustrate, Wikipedia is like community of volunteers, where people help other; if someone did something wrong with you by removing your valid edits than i again apologize on the behalf of whole Wikipedia community.Bill william comptonTalk 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
To 71, just about everyone here anonymous or registered is a person. So they all deserve to be treated as people and not just lumped in some class. If you get any old messages you can ignore it. But you can also register as a name like A71.192.161.233, which still looks very like an IP number, but yet can have watch lists etc. And most are not here for a power-trip, but because they enjoy doing what they do. Also most edits by anonymous contributors are not vandalism. It is just those who look for vandalism who will see it that way! Please continue constructive contribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I know for a fact that anonymous editors often make valuable contributions to articles and that they often catch things that other people tend to miss, the welcome message is simply to encourage you to get more involved and to inform people who may not be aware that it is possible to get more involved should they so wish. Also, the welcome message is also meant to showcase and inform a user that their contributions are noticed and valued not to badger them to create an account. And, finally, the whole "abuse of power" thing really is not that common, there is the occasional case where sometimes things tend to get out of hand, and using your own analogy, people tend to only notice the bad and ignore the good, I've been on Wikipedia for over 3 years now and I've never had a problem. The community here really is great, and we have a large amount of anonymous editors who chose to edit that way and if you so chose that is fine and I applaud you for your dedication, but if you do ever decide to register an account, feel free to drop by my talk page and say hello :). Best, Mifter (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Friend Hitler movie

Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of the producer of the film. The movie has not been released or showcased anywhere. We only showcased a 8 min promo in Berlin which was very well received. Any controversy you might have heard of or read of is being created by the media to promote their readership. Our movie is based on promoting the message of world peace. It does not glorify Hitler or has any hate against anyone. He is not shown as being a supporter for Indian freedom. The movie showcases two different ideologies and brings out the message of world peace.

I would request you to consider the recent edits we made or delete this page as the information which is being provided is not completely true.


Gaurav (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: The article you're taking about is completely neutral. It doesn't claim that movie is glorifying Hitler, but we've to consider global view, for this i added views of both media as well as the movie makers. Perhaps you didn't read it carefully, but article is balanced. We can't ignore the comments of such a prominent newspaper (The Guardian). Plot is the extraction of articles published in different newspapers, magazines and websites, so you can't challenge its reliability. Don't worry, as soon as movie will release, article will be updated accordingly till than don't delete anything from the article. Bill william comptonTalk 12:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Reply: Dear Bill , thanks for your response. The following claims made in the article are completely untrue and have no basis:

1) The films' subject spread the worldwide controversy, and it was screened at 61st Berlin International Film Festival where it received positive response.[3][4]

The film's subject has created no controversy worldwide. Above all it was NOT screened at Berlin Film Festival. I was personally present at the festival and only a promo was showcased which was very well received.

2) The film depicts the Hitlers' "love for India" and how the Nazi leader indirectly contributed to independence in the subcontinent.

The film does not depict this at all. The film talks about Azad hind fauj, but never shows any such thing of HItler's love for India.

3) I do not challenge or doubt The Guardian, but as you yourself pointed out that The plot is extractions from Media, if you read The guardian's article carefully, you will find that this article is also based on other articles from Indian Media. The Director Rakesh Ranjan Kumar, did not claim or say the things which are mentioned in that article or other media. We have fought this with several Indian newspapers and got there apologies later. As Wikipedia is a neutral medium, I would request you to remove this page till the movie is released. We strongly believe that such a wikipedia page is not good for the film and will hurt us in a big way.

Thanking you in anticipation.

-Gaurav 13:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Reply: Gaurav, if you think that the material of article is not genuine, than you're most welcome to make it correct but only if you provide any third party reliable source. Tell me how could i accept your claim about the film unless you give me some valid proof for that; you're saying film wasn't screened at Berlin Film Festival, but the scriptwriter of the film (Nalin Singh) himself said that it was screened there (check this), you're saying film doesn't talk about the Hitler's love for India, but the article of The Guardian mentions completely different story (check here). I again tell you, if you wanna to make changes on the article than you've to provide reliable third party source, unless there won't be any change on it. Thank You Bill william comptonTalk 14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Reply: Dear Bill, Thanks for your prompt response. Mr. Nalin and us are working together to bring out this film and he is referring to the 8 min promo which was showcased. You can watch it here: . The language in the article you pointed out is confusing and I have requested Mr. Nalin to get it rectified with the journalist who interviewed him. If you read the same article , it mentions about the story in The Guardian and how it was influenced by wrong sources. In any case, I have seen other articles who clarify these things about the movie, I will send you the links by monday. I hope if you watch the first look promo, it would clarify some of the things.


Gaurav122.162.78.138 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)-- (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'll appreciate if you provide some reliable sources/links and will make necessary amendments to the article accordingly. Bill william comptonTalk 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference dofaat-2008a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Davis-5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006}
  4. ^ Phillips 2011
  5. ^ ANZ Championship 2010
  6. ^ Netball Australia 2007
  7. ^ ANZ Championship 2010a
  8. ^ Brawley 1997, p. 119
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h Lal & Fortune 2000, p. 458
  10. ^ a b c d e f g MacKinnon 2009, p. 51
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Symons-122 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Sperlich 1997, p. 488
  13. ^ International Federation of Netball Associations 2010e
  14. ^ Taylor 1998, p. 6
  15. ^ a b Van Bottenburg 2001, p. 214
  16. ^ a b DaCosta & Miragaya 2002, p. 66
  17. ^ DaCosta & Miragaya 2002, p. 37
  18. ^ a b c d e Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007
  19. ^ Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2008
  20. ^ a b Perth Gazette 1934
  21. ^ a b c International Federation of Netball Associations 2008
  22. ^ Australian Women's Weekly 1977
  23. ^ a b Australian Women's Weekly 1979
  24. ^ Atherly 2006, p. 352
  25. ^ Atherly 2006, p. 356
  26. ^ a b Davis & Davis 2006, p. 4
  27. ^ a b c d e f International Federation of Netball Associations 2011a
  28. ^ World Youth Netball Championships - Cook Island 2009 2009
  29. ^ a b c d e f Samoa Observer 2011
  30. ^ Cite error: The named reference Thompson-258 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Van Bottenburg 2001, p. 169
  32. ^ Van Bottenburg 2001, p. 170
  33. ^ Thompson 2002, p. 257
  34. ^ a b Netball Singapore 2011b
  35. ^ a b Cook Islands Netball Assocation 2009
  36. ^ a b c d e f g h Crocombe 1990, p. 13
  37. ^ a b Crocombe 1992, p. 160
  38. ^ a b Crocombe 1990, p. 54
  39. ^ Alexeyeff 2009, p. 145
  40. ^ Alexeyeff 2009, p. 85
  41. ^ a b c d Sissions 1999, p. 128
  42. ^ Pacific Islands Political Studies Association 1994, p. 280
  43. ^ Crocombe 2007, p. 427
  44. ^ Reilly & Wren 2003, p. 80
  45. ^ Cite error: The named reference School-Sport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  46. ^ Jonassen & Tikivanotau 2008, p. 148
  47. ^ a b Starnes & Luckham 2009, p. 42
  48. ^ Lal & Fortune 2000, p. 462