User talk:Aaroncrick/Archive 4

GA review of York Park

Hi, Aaaron. I'm reviewing the article, and have posted my first batch of comments at Talk:York Park/GA3. I'll see you there. --Philcha (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look. Lots of Aussie FARs and no help: Cane toad and Lake Burley Griffin YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant thx! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No I'm very soft actually YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked in a local or city library for a book about Launceston history, they might have more history on notable landmarks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Have looked in the city, there's not much going in there. Half the library is kids's books. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where I live (England) the libraries are replacing non-fiction with popular fiction - I think it's all to do with concerns about literacy rates.

Have you tried asking the librarians? Esp the older ones - in the UK they usually have multi-terabyte databases in their heads, and often enjoy a break from the "house-keeping" that dominates their jobs. Is there a local history society?

BTW I liked your "this is Tasmania" at the review page. --Philcha (talk)

No, good point though. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't visited Tassie - what am I missing? --Philcha (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the "Tassie Jokes" the same as the UK's Irish jokes and USA's Polack jokes, with just a change of nationality? How many Tasmanians does it take to change a light bulb? --Philcha (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there are Uni campus in Launceston; in Adelaide you can find histories on every council, and they usually have info on even small things like building libraries and primary schools. But anyway if it was just a paddock for 100 years maybe not YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tasmanian Stadiums says, "By 1882 it was a plain recreational park named York Park in honour of the Duke of York who was in Australia for the Federation celebrations in 1901" - so either the site's confused or the Duke was making appointments 20 years ahead. And the site doesn't identify who runs it. I don't see any way to make a case for using it.

Librarians and the local newspapers are probably your best bet. --Philcha (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I googled for "york park" tasmania aurora and soon found:

• The stadium's site names organisations you could ask.
• ALF page gives just 1 snippet.

Following that Google search might help. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well my Uni library has about 60 books on Tas history, but most of them don't have an index... Only 3 or 4 did and they didn't mention stadiums, but some of the older books don't have a filled up index (probably in the old days the computer didn't automatically generate the index from the search and the author couldn't be bothered to exhaustively do it). But if you go to the UT library there should be a history book on every single local council and pick the relevant one....YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Launceston is its own council of only 65,000 people. The council library should have a historical collection. Ask them about it. Every council here keeps the core history stuff even though it turfs every other book out after 15 years. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I've misunderstood, but your last message to me looks as if you want me to fail the article as it stands at present and you'll add sources as you find them and then re-nominate when that's done? Have I got it right? If not, can you please let me know what you have in mind? Philcha (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Phew, just as well I asked! --Philcha (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The GA criteria make no concessions on WP:V (they can't, as WP:V is a policy). At present the article contains unsupported statements. So I'd have no option. The big question is whether the holes would show if you removed the unsupported statements. --Philcha (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide GAN

Mea culpa! I'm extremely apologetic - I didn't notice your edit.
"Have you ever thought of nominating Adelaide for GA Status?" - Short answer: "No."
Longer (and more useful) answer.

• It seems like a good idea.
• I know nothing about "nominating articles for anything".
• I notice that Adelaide was once a GA, but was "delisted". This makes me wary.
• However, looking at the above, I notice Talk:Adelaide#GAN

OK, if YellowMonkey and Yeti Hunter are prepared to be involved, I could be talked into helping.
I expect there are lots of other editors who would reply similarly.
If you can enlist a leader, I'll follow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha fair enough :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! Thanks for your positive reponse, but I afraid I don't understand it. (How embarrasing!)

What's happening? Have you found a leader? Etc...

Awaiting a useful reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Tasmania

This is a fork from Tasmania, right? If so,

• I think you should acknowledge that when creating the article, to comply with GFDL.
• You should remove the content from Tasmania! The same content can't be in two places.

Looking at the Tasmania article, that section doesn't seem too long, so I'm not sure there is a benefit to this. I'll wait for your comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first dot point, but I don't get the point of the second. For example I created and article on the Climate of Launceston, Tasmania but that shouldn't mean deleting the climate section of the Launceston, Tasmania article. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

When you fork stuff you are supposed to put in the edit summary that it came from whatever article, so that people know that it is from another source and might be the result of groupwork and evolution, otherwise they think it is 100% your work. I'm not sure why the second part is not supposed to be allowed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, you should not have two copies of the same content in two different places. Because then you would have editors working on different copies, and duplicating the work and not working together on the same copy. As I said above, the only advantage is to reduce the size of the main article; so if you're not removing the content from the main article, then what's the point? Honestly this is common sense. It is common to put a link to the forked content, such as

Main article: Economy of Tasmania

My main issue with your actions is that they are deceptive and bordering on plagarism. This seems like an attempt to pass others' work off as your own. I'm willing to assume that you didn't mean any harm, but I hope you can see the concerns here and avoid this in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was in no way shape or form intending to pass others' work off as my own, even though it may of looked that way, fixed now, also I think it's a bit far saying it's bordering on plagarism but anyway. And I'd like to hope you think I was assuming good faith. All the best, Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if my message came across too strongly. I just wanted to be sure that you appreciated the concerns. Plagarism does describe it pretty well actually - the first line in the linked guideline says "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit." Anyhow, I like the changes you have made to your userpage and I think we can leave it there? Best wishes and happy editing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

York Park and Cricket

Replied about York Park and Cricket YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Rohit opening? Maybe not a bad move considering he likes to rotate the strike. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current at 2009 County Championship

Hey, I've removed the above template from that article again. Please read the guidelines at Template:Current, a current event template is suppose to be used to warn our readers of rapid editing and/or massive change. It's not supposed to be used on articles that are merely current, since there's usually no reason to do that. --Conti|✉ 19:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and I agree with you. You learn something every day ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sydney

One time was a minor physical assault in George Street, the other was a stolen camera in Broadway. Orderinchaos 12:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah Melbourne is great, never had a problem there. People are unexpectedly friendly for a city of its size and the public transport system, apart from the slowness of the trains, is really good. The CBD is well lit and you can walk just about anywhere freely, even at 1am. Perth - not a high crime place at all (my suburb is one of the lowest even in a Perth context, I can go out walking any time of the day or night and be completely safe) but I've noticed in recent years people about have become quite unfriendly and have no idea whatsoever where they are walking or going, and Murphy's Law tends to dictate it'll be between you and where you want to go :) Orderinchaos 15:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Netherlands

Hi Aaroncrick, welcome to WikiProject Netherlands for Netherlands-related content on Wikipedia!

• Follow the general discussion on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Netherlands (watch it)
• Create, improve, and assess articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Netherlands#What you can do
• Associate articles related to the Netherlands by adding {{WikiProject Netherlands|class=}} to their talk pages

If you have any questions related to the project, feel free to ask them. Rubenescio (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

York Park GA review

How are you getting on with this article? I've been waiting for you to shout, as my next pass through will be the final one either way. But it is time we wrapped this up. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope your search succeeds. However I expect to be unavailable for a few days from 20 June onwards, so we should wrap up the review before then. --Philcha (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So long as "your" book has no editorial or financial input from you - otherwise it's WP:SPS and possibly WP:COI. Don't you just love Teh Roolz :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I admire your determination in writing to Robert Groenewegen! Unfortunately his letter is not a published source, so can't be cited. The trouble is most people outside WP are unaware of WP:V, so you have to explain it, e.g. "To stop contributors from making things up or passing on urban myths, Wikipedia requires statements to be supported by references to published sources, usually articles or books, or the web sites of organisations that are known to be careful about getting the facts right." Perhaps you should try someone who isn't quite so close to it and doesn't have all the info in his / her head. How about the Examiner? You cite several of its articles, which is a small contribution to getting it more widely known, so they might be happy to help. --Philcha (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving house on Friday 26 June, and may be off WP from 23 June to 3 July. We can try to finish the review before 23 June, continue after 3 July, or you can ask for someone else to take over the review - I shan't be offended. --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, leave me message when you're ready for me to resume. --Philcha (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to mention naming rights explicitly - the name change and sponsorship (w/o "naming rights") are both sourced, and readers will draw the conclusion. --Philcha (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Checked though main text again, flagged issues that need attention.

Also checked images, they're OK.

Remaining checks (lead, externa links, wikilinks) need to wait until main text all OK. --Philcha (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, fix soon Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. Let me know when you're ready. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The issues are unresolved:

• Statements not covered by citations. Read WP:V thoroughly.
• Some dubious English, including yet another "It's". I stronlgy suggest you get a friend who's good at written English to look it over onece you've dealt with the referencing issues.
• When you've done all that, check the lead:
  • It must summarise the most important points of the main text.
  • It must not contain any points not in the main text.

I'm formally placing this on hold - meaning you have 7 days. --Philcha (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

What is this about? WP:DTTR. -- samj _in^out 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't look at your userpage and because of your talkpage, I was under the assumption you were a newbie. Anyway saying "please Read The Fucking Manual (RTFM)" because I selected the wrong tag is not assuming good faith. Have a nice day ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD

See my talk page YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What do you want me to see?? sorry Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean AFC? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Brad Sugars

Not a problem, I have extensive experience in AfDs and a lot of arguments pop up again and again (the reason for the page listing them all). I thought it would be helpful for you to know the list as I can see this AfD getting a lot of attention and other editors would have pointed it out eventually. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shucks

I am sure there are some who feel good riddance what a relief :) - oh well its not to say that I wont drop in now and then - but there could be some very big gaps in time between edits drinks SatuSuro 05:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

York Park

On track? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The crowd figure for Billy Graham event is quoted on page 1 of The Examiner issue - 18 March 1959. Read it at local library which has practically full set of paper on micro-film.

RossRSmith (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Melbourne Airport. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I know you are well aware of WP:3RR, and allow me to apologize for this crude template in advance. :) No matter how consensual the text is, don't continually revert back claiming consensus, especially if the other party is unresponsive. This can give the impression there is an edit war occuring. Leave a note about consensus on the IP's talk page, leave the edits made for a few days if needed, and only revert after consensus has been demonstrated. Sorry again for the template, I know this probably seems a bit condescending but it is in the interest of treating both sides equally. :| \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh so sorry completely slipped my mind. Just doing a bit of patrolling and saw vandalism on the page and have been reverting it. Didn't seem to notice it was the same IP each time. Yeah I know your just doing your job! ;) Sorry again, didn't even think about about what I was doing. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure no problem. Just keep your eyes out next time. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we aren't supposed to template people unless they don't know anything or are driveby spammers etc. Yeah I left Philip a manual comment as he's here to stay YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Teh FAR is legit, yes. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome - trying v hard to create pages that Wikipedia colleagues will be happy with regards Neil

Anments (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work on SS Chauncy Maples! Great to see it well referenced. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: 50 Cent

Hmm, looks like it's been fixed actually! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

re User:MasterShake1000

No worries, thanks for thanking me! ;) Cirt (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

True, true. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:John1abbes

Defamatory edits about living people only get one warning in my book and the edit to Joe Hockey was certainly that. If they continue and their edit history is mainly vandalism, then an indefinite block is the next step. No point pussy-footing around trolls. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jackson#Wording: "Movie" versus "film"

Took it to there. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not really fussed. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. No problem, and thanks for keeping an open mind for discussion about that. I, of course, also appreciate your changing your initial stance to agreeing with me.

I have to remember how fast that Michael Jackson talk page moves, though. I mean, whoa. Though edits to that article move fast as well. I just got back on Wikipedia this moment, and a new thread of sections is there; it is understandable, however, considering how many sections were there already when I made the above section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's going off at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if there will be a lot of jargon added over the next couple of weeks. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll check

They should be working. I'll check it up now. Aditya ^α _ß 09:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done (by the original author). Aditya ^α _ß 09:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Woodfull

We don't know where the photo was taken. If it was UK, then it would still be copyright unless the photographer was an old man who died soon after in 1939. Also Abidreh is back can you keep an eye on him please YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've run out of reverts on Behbudi. So has he, incidentally, he's done 4 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Joel Selwood

Hey there,

Just thought I'd pitch in with a thanks for contributing to the Selwood article. Hopefully we can get it to a FA standard soon enough! Cheers, Boomtish (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately WP:AFL seems way backward compared to AUS articles in CRIC despite it supposed to be more popular. Maybe an off-wiki recruitment campaign is needed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawkins looks lucky to be a GA, and in general, there isn't any equivalent of Cricinfo or Swiminfo; a lot of those websites look questionable as RS. Also, yes, the use of "superstar" is used far too often in non-international sports. There are at least 50 players in the AFL who get such language used on them, especially the top 25 or so who get all-Australian. Imagine Krejza or Hauritz being labelled superstars lol. Only Ponting is among current Australian cricketers! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And Ponting's form is giving me the shits... Hawkins is lucky to be in a side as good as Geelong. The only reason is that Geelong have a week forward link compared to their mids/defenders. Anyone with can review a GA. Some with very little edits review an art which they are a fan of and practically pass it without giving a good review like Philcha. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it might be useful to look over previous reviews of the article before making edits. There are alot of edits being made over previous corrections to the article from the article's past 2 FAC reviews. Boomtish (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that perhaps we should refrain from adding in information such as the Round 17 rematch to the article at this point in time. I understand the slight significance of it seeing Selwood achieve a career-high in disposals, but for stability-sake perhaps we should leave additions to the 2009 till at least the end of the regular season. For all we know, Selwood could achieve a new career-high next week, thereby making the Round 17 statement unnecessary. Boomtish (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Stability is about edit wars and things changing constantly. For a footballer it only changes once a week in routine types of ways and nothing non-normal has happened like a drugs/sex/racism scandal, defection/contract breaking, serious car crash etc that would change anything here. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

York Park still rumbling.... YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate, thanks for the helpful editing along the way, really appreciated. Third time's the charm! Hopefully this is just the beginning of many more AFL articles. Good luck with any future articles Boomtish (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wall of Launceston

Well may way of calling a levee but I'm just wondering if you have any photographs of it? I've got some photos of Wagga's (yet to be uploaded). Just would be good to have some Aussie levee's on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No rush. Just thought I'll ask to see if you had any photos. :) Bidgee (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wagga's levee was built during the 1960's and I think it came over budget (From what I've read as it was before my time!) but this only protected Wagga Wagga itself and not the suburb (village back then) north of the Bidgee, North Wagga and the outer village of Gumly Gumly (in the Kyeamba Shire back then as it amalgamation with the City of Wagga Wagga and Mitchell Shire in 1981 which formed the Wagga Wagga City Council). The 1974 flood (10.74 m) showed some weakness within the levee (further work was done after the floods) but after the protests from North Wagga (back then the Council wanted to move the then village) which the residences put up a sign that "We shall not be moved" (Original sign has been removed or was damaged) a levee was built but on a smaller scale then other levee on the otherside of the river in 1991. Wagga is almost a twin of Launceston (although Launceston was founded about 40 years before Wagga and Launceston has double the population). Sorry to bore you with my mumbling! Bidgee (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Roland Perry

Sure thing, if a Wikipedia user looks up Playboy writer to use as a source to prove how good a certain cricket writer is, then the user is probably the subject himself who kept news/mag cuttings of praise of himself in a folder. Who else would look up playboy and porn magazines to find out information about cricket history? And if the original motive was an interest in pornography, I doubt it would suddenly motivate them to look up and write a 100k cricket history article. Personally I also wonder what inside knowledge they would need to know the subject's university results. Who else would use and search for an ancient playboy magazine as a source. The user must know that a certain playboy magazine praised Perry, so it is probably Perry himself who kept a cutting of Playboy praising him. What kind of a cricket researcher would look up playboy for info? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A little bird has informed the monkey that this editor's computer is in Melbourne YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the userpage YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Appalling gifting of wickets YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pity the ABC

They left all the gooduns in Aus: Roebuck, Lawson and Kerry and instead we have Maxwell and Gillespie. Pity the lack of scholarly commentators, yes Skull is scholarly despite his style. Boycott's entertaining. We just need Bishen Bedi to complete the ideal sardonic and politically incorrect acerbic troupe. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kerry is a jet. Boycott and Chappell were on at one stage, lol! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Brian popped onto Selwood YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on to Selwood as soon as possible (I'm trying to help solve the backlog problem at peer review, so time is scarce). I did some work on an Australian rugby league article a few months back Adelaide Rams but I've not tried Rules before. I'll do my best. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied about decayed FAs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Launnie

Oh, I knew that, I was just reverting a bot because it screwed up a couple of things :) I knew you'd get around to it at some point. Orderinchaos 10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea how weird it got when 3/4 of the Queensland LGAs ceased to exist overnight on 15 March 2008 and the new ones didn't even have web pages yet. Or WA's own Department of Lands and Surveys / Department of Lands / Department of Land Information / Western Australian Land Information Authority / Landgate which changed name 4 times in 2 years and moved all its pages accordingly. The other annoying one is the Australian Electoral Commission who put their pages for the most recent election in one spot then move them overnight to another one and you literally have to guess the location as it's not linked initially from the front page. The joys of Wikimaintenance :P Orderinchaos 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah all the News Ltd papers do the same thing. If that ever happens, let me or someone with Factiva access know so we can get the actual paper cite so the ref can be maintained (although the link gets removed). If you have student access to a university computer system you may even have Factiva access yourself in the library's databases section. Orderinchaos 11:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Selwood

I've copyedited down to the end of the "2009" section. I'm leaving a few notes on the PR page, for you to consider. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a final readthrough, fixing a few no-break spaces on the way. I've also used "convert" templates in the lead for your height and weight measurements, to ensure accuracy. As to whether the article is ready for FAC, well, there is only one sure way of finding out! My own view is that the Personal Life section might still be considered somewhat trivial. However, I don't think there is anything in the article that couldn't be fixed during its FAC exposure. It's up to you if you feel ready for it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Mashrafe Mortaza

Hi, I noticed your edits to the above article, most of all the final edit summary! I'm the one responsible for most of the article's content and it's maintenance so any pointers or help would be gratefully accepted, especially as it's the only article about a Bangladesh player that's of even a half-decent standard. I freely admit that when it comes to writing cricket articles I struggle with the amount of jargon – I find it much harder to avoid jargon than in any other type of article. Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit away :-) Not many people are interested because Bangladesh are such minnows. Just look at articles on West Indies players and to a lesser extent New Zealand players to see how lack of success drains editors. Especially when compared to developed Australian and South African articles. If Bangladesh managed to cause an upset in Tests against someone like Australia I'm sure the Bangladesh player articles would receive a lot more attention from both WP:CRIC's regulars and new editors; I think that helped drive up the quality of a lot of South African articles. Not going to happen though, realistically. The article is at least pretty stable as Bangladesh haven't had much cricket recently. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I like an underdog so I occasionally follow the Bangladesh national side, but I don't know who to support in this match! They have a lot of talent but none of the discipline to use it. Ashraful is the best example; his innovative shots in the inaugural T20 World Cup were captivating but he has consistently failed to produce runs when his team desperately need him too. Hasan may not be the most talented player, but he is disciplined and has got a lot of success from it. They're still an incredibly young side (I think the average age is about 22) and could mature if given the chance, but I fear that they may be exiled from Test cricket before that happens.

I like Mortaza, he's a whole hearted player and a real scrapper. He's the best pace bowler Bangladesh has, and I think he is a good bowler but can't handle the pressure (his performance in one match in the IPL showed that). So I'm not sure he's the best choice as captain. A victory against the West Indies would be hollow, but at a defeat would be catastrophic If anything I think a draw is most likely, and it would seem appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Don't work too hard though, "good enough" really is good enough and I don't see the point of trying to make an article about a current player a Featured Article. My point of view is that current players need their articles updating, and after a productive season the article should have changed so much that it can no longer be considered the article that was cleared to be FA. FAs on people such as Bradman and to some extent Gilchrist and Trescothick I can understand, but someone like Pietersen has a long career ahead of him and the article will undergo a lot of changes. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Skull and Shakib

I'm pretty sure Skull implied that Shakib chucked YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Happy Happy Bastille Day to you as well. Aaroncrick (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Another one... No limit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got ten up lol. Ah, replied and done for selwood. Also, Perry is blocked, but for how long? I think I need a few more agreers on the talk page. When is YP going to finish? Philcha would be better off at FAC/FAR. Not much point making a minority of GAs better than most FAs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on ur talk. No problem with that :) At least something is happening with Vancouver. York Park is referenced better than City of Manchester Stadium though. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

York Park again

Updated Talk:York Park/GA3. I'm afraid I've just noticed a structure issue, but I think that's a fairly simple rearrangement. You've done a great job of getting good refs for this, and I think after a couple more checks (which need to wait until the content is stable) and making sure the lead summarises the content this will be a GA. --Philcha (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re FAC / FAR see Talk:Jim Baxter/GA1. I disagree with large chunks of MOS, and FAC interprets WP:RS too literally. WP:RS' assumption that certain management overheads confer reliability is generally false. It works OK in academic subjects, but only by coincidence. In computer games the big name mags have systemic weaknesses (tight deadlines; pressure from advertisers) that make them erratic sources, and the best blogs are more reliable, but you have to know the subject in order to identify them. Likewise in chess history a lot of the big names (mostly ex-players whose books sell well by chess standards) are seriously unreliable and most work by genuine chess historians is published via channels that WP:RS disdains. --Philcha (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think "History" shouldn't be the first section. Why is it notable now? --Philcha (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All other stadium articles seem to have history first. but oh well, Aaroncrick (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a strong tendency for editors to run on autopilot (nothing personal). For subjects entirely in the past, history is often the best start. But for subjects that are still live, as I reader I'd want to know why they're important to-day. --Philcha (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The main text is all clear except for a few relatively new items that I've just found on a complete run-through. In addition I have a couple of comments about the lead. There are also a few links issues, and one check I could not run because of a tech hitch. Bottom line: these should be easy to fix, let's make it a real GA tomorrow, if you're around. --Philcha (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a GA! Thanks for your determination to put on the map a ground and sport you obviously love. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just 1 DAB link and a couple of points in the lead to go, then it's a GA. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don Bradman

Re the para about his final Test average: The last sentence is messy and I've tidied it up without change of meaning. The comment that he was "bowled between bat and pad" is factually true but misleading since he stated (in Farewell to Cricket) that he got an inside edge - definitely worth mentioning. As for the story of his almost-100 average, it is the thing for which cricketers will remember him two hundred years from now, and I believe it is worth explaining a bit more fully - Wikipedia is read by more than cricket experts. So I've not reverted exactly, but I've made concise changes consistent with these comments. If you wish to revert, please would you (1) compare the two versions without consideration of their relative timing; (2) explain your reasoning? Many thanks - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gluebot

Hi Aarincrixk, it appear GlueBot is he vandal.. however by saying that against GlueBot who is effectively GOD, I may be banned for life by ClueBot. Johnreid09 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can safely say you won't be blocked by Cluebot. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia-India relations: I think the cricket section might need its own article eventually. What do yo think. Also an eye is needed there for POV pushing YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole sport section is on cricket so it may be justified. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

City of Clarence

Thanks for the feedback - and the reminder about City of Clarence. I have been away from editing for a while, and had meant to get back to that, but forgot about it. I will try to tidy up the referencing as you have suggested, and try to get it up to GA status. Regarding the Colony of Tasmania debate I seem to have started unintentionally, I also intend to try to improve the current Tasmania article as well as the Colony of Tasmania article. 42° South (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)