User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr

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:

• 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

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Netball

Hi Laura. I promise I'll respond to the message you left on my talk page yesterday, but for the moment can you please stop adding level 1 headers to the Netball article. WP:LAYOUT, which is part of the MOS, is quite clear in indicating that they should not be used in the article body. Start from level 2 and work downwards through the header levels from there please. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the prompt reply. If you're trying to cut down on TOC space, the TOC currently shows only Lvl 2 and Lvl 3 headings. But I've condensed a couple of heading names, which hopefully might help. Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 11:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Netball in Lesotho

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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 {{hang on}} 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 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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:

• 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".

I can note that also in the same section you got to merge some paragraphs, making with those small ones two or three.

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)

DYK nomination of Netball in South Africa

Hello! Your submission of Netball in South Africa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 7 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. Bill william compton^Talk 19:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to walk through the six points mentioned at Wikipedia: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.Bill william compton^Talk 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 14:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Netball in the Cook Islands

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 10 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)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 05:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Netball

Hi Laura. The page you created, Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Appreciation for excellent work on netball articles

Even when you are backed up against a wall, teammates are available to receive a pass, so you can get back into the game.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In particular, I am very impressed by your work on Netball (and related articles): the improvement from this to this is extraordinary. This is an article on a core topic, and editors willing and able to improve such articles are rare: extensive understanding of the topic is needed as well as understanding the importance of reliable sources. You have shown both in your work Netball, and whatever the outcome of the GAN review, your improvements have made Wikipedia a better resource for readers across the globe. If you feel a warm glow about your contributions to this article, it is not mere pride, but thoroughly deserved. If you feel disappointed that your efforts have not been fully recognized, please take my comments as substitute for a barnstar: brilliant work! Such contributions are an inspiration to other editors, who can take the ball and run with it. Geometry guy 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. :) --LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. In response to your request for further opinions, I would concur with the reviewer assessment that the "Netball around the world" section is unbalanced, and could be improved with greater use of summary style. For the Cook Islands, you already have Netball in the Cook Islands, yet it is not cited as a main article in the corresponding section. The discussion of Jamaica and South Africa may also benefit from the summary style treatment. Geometry guy 04:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I badly put in a second reviewer thing, even though it wasn't the reviewer asking for it because I don't think he and I are communicating. The netball country sections had been chopped down to a paragraph by country for the major netballing countries in each region. When this was done, it was still viewed as unbalanced and I just have no idea what exactly he wants for the section and how to make it smaller and more balanced. His suggestions of providing statistics by continent don't really work as those statistics don't exist, styles of play haven't really changed all that much over time, etc. I put the sections by country back as I kind of reached the point where I felt it would be easier to put it back and then figure out how to deal with it then to continue to make it smaller with out any clear guidance like: "Remove this section." "Make this section into one paragraph." "Summarize this section." Most of the GA reviews I've seen have been really specific on what the reviewer wants fixed. I'm just... extremely frustrated because I have no idea what the heck he wants in a way that I can make those changes or ask others to make those changes. The situation isn't helped by the fact that the other articles related to this aren't particularly developed and most lack sources. :( --LauraHale (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you had so much problem in interpreting these issues, than you could simply ask me for assistance and i'd pleased to do it by myself. How specifically i'd tell you that these sections are bulky in size, unbalanced and stuffed with unnecessary details, what you had to do just replaced the whole section with one or two paragraph sized summary, as there are already articles for each sub-section, similarly for the section major competitions, if there are articles for each competition/tournament than why you redundantly added tabular data about the results of these competitions. I really don't know why you're unable to understand these simple recommendations i made. Bill william compton^Talk 08:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not part of the GAC. Stop making stuff up. KnowIG (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Communication via a text-based medium is difficult, and misunderstandings easily arise, especially where editors have different cultures, backgrounds, and experience. Sometimes "show don't tell" helps: I think it was a good idea that Bill william compton showed what he meant by shortening some of the "Netball around the world" sections. Geometry guy 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful he has finally did that. It would have been much more useful if he had done that at the onset, when on Talk:Netball/GA1‎ the confusion for how to shorten became obvious. Live and learn as I think this is Bill william compton's first GA and that he's never written or substantially contributed to a Good Article before. (Not helped by the fact that this is also my first experience doing this.) Between his contributions and KnowIG's contributions, the article has gotten a lot better. --LauraHale (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers, especially inexperienced ones, are often reluctant to make changes to an article, because it seems like a "conflict of interest" between reviewing and editing roles; however that COI is illusory as (1) there is a common goal of improving the encyclopedia, and (2) this is a wiki, so all edits can be fixed. It is unfortunate that such a core topic was taken on by an inexperienced reviewer, but that is the nature of the GA process, which aims to get it right in the end, rather than always the first time! Anyway, there are now plenty of reviewers commenting, which I hope will lead to a happy outcome. If the article has gotten better in the meanwhile, that is already good news. Geometry guy 22:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 08:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 11:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 - [1] - 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)

DYK for Netball in South Africa

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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.Bill 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#Worklist_as_of_March_20 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)