Jump to content

User talk:Bill william compton: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 111: Line 111:


::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. [[User:Bill william compton|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#009900"><sup></sup>Bill william compton</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bill william compton|<font color="#000000">Talk</font>]]</sup> 11:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Bill william compton|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#009900"><sup></sup>Bill william compton</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bill william compton|<font color="#000000">Talk</font>]]</sup> 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.

Revision as of 11:44, 13 March 2011

TALK PAGE

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Very, very grateful. :D Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Reviewer granted

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) [reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Cook Island, Netball in Australia, etc; in simple language what you've to do is just make them small (just by including 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.

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)[reply]
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.
  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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b c d 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