User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/Archive 2

My Talk Archives

Archive 1

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)

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)

DYK for Netball in the Cook Islands

On 10 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Netball in the Cook Islands, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that netball in the Cook Islands features an Easter competition where boys dress in women's netball uniforms? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My Talk Archives

Archive 1

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)

DYK for Netball in South Africa

On 16 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Netball in South Africa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the 1930s, the New Zealand government complied with netball in South Africa's request to leave Māori players at home when they competed against them? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Greetings!

When did you become active around these parts? I thought you stuck to Wikiversity and your own wiki which, last time we spoke, hadn't been visited by an admin in over a month! ;) My signature above suggests you've been busy and that I should spend more time looking at who I'm making the bot template and not just the facts I make it put on the Main Page! Anyway how are you? How's Australia? It's funny suddenly bumping into you all of a sudden six months after the sreencastathon is San Francisco. I still can't watch Nerf gun adverts on TV without laughing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour

I am happy to see you Laura. We are not numerous as women in the sporting subjects in Wikipedia. If I can help you (in the winter sports) make sign, bonne chance --Geneviève (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Friendship Barnstar
		For your most excellent efforts in Women sports, Geneviève will like to award you the Barnstar of Friendship.

Great!!! The best of the chances for the Award of the article Netball. Je vous souhaite la meilleure des chances, Best regards --Geneviève (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Eager, aren't we

G'day, Laura. I think you're probably jumping the gun a bit by nominating Netball as an FAC now. The article is nowhere near ready at this stage. For one, in several places it places undue weight on very specific topics: I'll try to get the "Description and rules" section done by tomorrow (I have work today), and I can tell you now that any FAC reviewer will tell you to take a scythe to the Globally section. After the awfully long GAN process for Netball we had to go through (you most of all), I'd hate to see us bogged down again. I strongly suggest you get the article peer reviewed first. Needless to say though, if you push ahead with the FAC then I'll help in any way I can. I have my own reasons for trying to get this article to FA status quickly as well – namely, I'd like to see it featured on the main page at the start of the Netball World Championships in July. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I understand your thinking now. I'll draft a new structure for the "Description and rules" section today, and transclude the FAC comments to a dedicated subpage of Talk:Netball so issues can be discussed and worked on. I'll see what I can do about condensing the Globally section. Ultimately I don't mind what timeframe we use. In the interim, I'll start reviewing other GANs as well (it'll be good to get some "outsider" experience, and after Talk:Netball/GA1 how much harder can these other articles be?); I also have to work through a whole host controversial edits to Māori history articles, and by the end of the week I'll start peer-reviewing Netball in the Cook Islands if no-one else has. I haven't worked on the article at all, so my review should be sufficiently independent (and knowledgable). Have a good trip! – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea about daughter articles for the Globally section. The leads should probably end up being no more than three paragraphs, so with a bit of tweaking they should make fine subsections. As for GANs, I'm already familiar with the review process, having reviewed articles for WikiProject New Zealand's assessment department. But Mikhail Suslov will be my first formal GA review. I promise to be as "normal" as possible. And I bet you're sick of editors remarking on your "eagerness"; my apologies, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Laura, I don't think that the article is bad; I just don't think that it meet the rigors of the FA criteria. A GAN, no matter how thorough, is truly not a preparation for FAC. GAN looks at a different set of criteria, which are intentionally milder than the expectations of a FA. You and I both discussed that FAs have to meet all sections of the MOS, where a GA only has to meet five specific sections. FAs have to be thoroughly cited; GAs only need five or so specific kinds of information cited. FAs have to be comprehensive while GAs just need their "major aspects" covered, but at the same time, a FA can't be overly long either.

The guys working on SS Edmund Fitzgerald have a very lofty goal in place: to have the article featured on the Main Page on November 10 this year for the anniversary of the ship's sinking. Racepacket also did the primary GAN review for that article, but the editors interested in that goal have also taken the article to WP:PR. They were demonstrating some good strategy to nominate the article at FAC with plenty of time to address comments afterwards in case it wasn't promoted on its first trip through. They're working on stuff, and I've even offered some of my research ideas before they renominate it in a few weeks.

My better/more important highway articles go through the project's A-Class Review forum (ACR) which requires four editors to review and support an article's promotion from GA-Class to A-Class, which is three more editors than many PRs. Even in that event, project members that didn't participate in the ACR may find stuff to comment on at the FAC. (Rschen7754 gave me some minor, but specific suggestions on sentences that needed to be reworded at the FAC because he didn't review it at ACR and because no other editors commented about them, and the article is for the better afterwards. I even had a member of the Guild of Copy Editors give U.S. Route 131 a look and polish or massage anything. In the end, we reverted some of his changes because of minor stylistic differences between variations of English, but he still improved an already good article.

Please, take a small break from the article. Some of the best articles on broad topics take a year, yes, a year, to work up the assessment scale. U.S. Route 41 in Michigan was created in August 2008 and I didn't even attempt to take it to FAC until April of the following year. (I ended up renominating it in May 2009 successfully.) Please, don't stop working on these articles completely, but do take a short break and come back to address the comments and suggestions offered, and seek out some additional feedback from outside of the small group that worked on the article, or even that commented in the FAC. Hopefully by then, the Racepacket dramas will be sorted out, although he's been blocked for a week at the moment. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page -- I'm very glad you found my comments on the FAC page helpful. Seems like you've gotten some good guidance from others, as well. I like Imzadi's suggestion to take a break; these things are often easier if taken one step at a time. Plus, sometimes you come back to find that somebody else has made a really nice improvement you wouldn't have thought of! -Pete (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A WikiProject for women in the sports

Bonjour Laura, I saw your list User:LauraHale/Good Topic : Maybe will you some another importants articles ??? I think at the existing articles on women's hockey: women's hockey players, clubs, leagues and competitions, women's national ice hockey teams and International women's hockey competitions but they are not all FA quality or GA quality . Many important articles for women's hockey are just start quality in WikiProject Ice Hockey. Can be this is to hasty ? Your opinion ? bonne journée --Geneviève (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Genevieve has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thereby I give you this pie for creating the script, which I use to give this pie to you. :) To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

Bonjour Laura, No answer? Nobody opinion? --Geneviève (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Laura for getting back to me: I believe that you badly understood me. My English language is very poor and I am vague in my ideas. Stay up excuse me for it. I did not speak about Women hockey specifically. I spoke of listing existing wikipedia articles on women sports. Wikipedia Articles importants as that - this: Women's association football or Canadian women's ice hockey history . Mattering importance according by me but the WikiProject Ice Hockey can think that the articles are less important ( a important men majority in WikiProject Ice Hockey - I am the only woman in this project ). Thus make a census of wikipedia articles important for a future WikiProject Women's Sport. I believe that the WikiProject Women's History made this approach ? Can being I make a mistake ? Your page User:LauraHale/Good Topic is an good example: I wanted more to elaborate this census (not just GA and FA pages) ...maybe it is to hasty ???

Thus I did not ask you for a bibliography on the Women hockey. On this subject, there are very few books. I know the book of Nancy Theberge: Higher goals: women's ice hockey and the politics of gender. Many books on the hockey do not approach the women hockey and are only mentioning him on one page or two pages. Reluctantly I am not student in a university. My school notes was bad. I have only a diploma of Hight school. I am a former player of hockey (which stopped because of a grave wound in 2009). I am always to imply in the women hockey, If the life is good, I shall be a journalist in a newspaper. This is my dream. Every human have a personnal dream. Je vous remercie de votre courtoisie. תודה על האדיבות שלך --Geneviève (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merci de votre réponse. Thankyou for replying. Next week, I am going to begin a list of Wikipedia articles (just importants pages in Hockey for next week...) to complete your research User:LauraHale/Good Topic. No stress with that - because we have time and we are going to be a great team - each person can find his place ). It is necessary to have pleasure in this research and not to put under stress, I wish you a good weekend, je vous souhaite un bon week-end avec votre famille. תודה --Geneviève (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Genevieve has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Portal

Good day. I am also a friend of Genevieve and saw the conversation you were having. If I may interrupt please, I write prominently about women's ice hockey on Wikipedia. There definitely needs to be some type of organization for women's ice hockey articles (such as a Portal). A wikiproject for women in sport is badly needed but any proposals have not yet yielded any positive results. At this point, I feel that a Portal would be a reasonably good start. Cheers Maple Leaf (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Female hockey player birthdays

Bonjour Laura, your work is excelling User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article Athlete Birthday List. Quite as the project to list important wikipedia articles on sports and the women User:LauraHale/Good Topic and User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article List. I am going to help you next week (and other weeks). Because this weekend I am very occupied in the young women championships of ice hockey. From Tuesday I shall be available. If you authorize me , I shall make the additions on your pages. Good weekend with your family, je vous souhaite un bon week-end --Geneviève (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Objective of the game of netball?

Hi Laura, I am new to Wiki. I was reading the article on Netball this morning and I noticed it says "the object of the game is for teams to score goals by passing the ball and shooting it into the opposing teams goal". I haven"t played netball for a very long time but I don't think the object is to score goals for the opposing team! I"m not sure who wrote this, but I have never edited before and I would really appreciate it if you would correct this mistake. Thank you. Regards, Cathy Mrs muffet (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Laura for the encouragement Laura. I made the change. Regards, Cathy Mrs muffet (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Laura. I've responded to the query on Talk:Netball and on Mrs muffet's talk page. Essentially, the original wording is correct, and I've restored it for the moment. However, we could probably reword the sentence to make it less confusing. What do you think? – Liveste (talk • edits) 08:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Auckland meetup

Hi Laura - thanks for the invitation, but I only get to Auckland every 2-3 years (I'm in Dunedin), so I won't be able to make it. Hope it goes well! Grutness...wha? 03:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Info you asked for

WP:ANI = Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, where you would go with incidents that are too large, complex, or intractable for more focused noticeboards, etc. Present your situation with some diffs backing the facts up there, and it will get a lot of eyes evaluating what has and should be done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Netball and the Olympic Movement

On 5 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Netball and the Olympic Movement, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that netball became an Olympic-recognised sport in 1995 after 20 years of lobbying? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations Laura. I am very proud of you --Geneviève (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Working for Portal:Women's sports / WikiProject Women's Sports

Bonjour laura, I know that you are very busy. You are in studies in New Zealand. Each person done his best. So is the human life. I only want to inform you about my work. I saw your drafts : User:LauraHale/Good Topic , User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article List , User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article Athlete Birthday List . And now I will completed for the Women ice hockey. There are the first drafts on my page:

1. User:Genevieve2/Women ice hockey Good Topic  Done
2. User:Genevieve2/Women ice hockey Portal Article List  Done
3. User:Genevieve2/Women ice hockey Athlete Birthday List

This week and next week, I am going to work with Maple Leaf, He is very kind and he is one excelling co-worker in Teamworking. For the new banner Women ice hockey, I make a first list of wikipedia important articles in the Women hockey. I almost ended this week.

Joli papillon pour égayer ta semaine / פרפר יפה בשבילך

I saw the Beautiful page of introduction: Portal:Women's sport. I am very impressed with all the work you have made. You are sensational! but I shall have preferred the words Portal: Women's sports to the plural mode. As it is used in English language in Canada and in the USA. Is it possible to make this change?

Take care. Prend soin de toi et bonne semaine. שבוע טוב --Geneviève (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you need any help getting this off the ground just ask me --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ANZ Championship videos

Hi Laura. Hope you're enjoying your trip. You do own the copyright to any video you make, but I'm not sure if either TTNL (the organisation that oversees the ANZ Championship) or Vector Arena has any policies regarding the use of recording devices at the venue, as a condition of entry. We haven't had any issues with photographs – except perhaps a chronic shortage of them. You can always contact TTNL and ask (feel free to give a plugin for your workshop while you're at it ;). Sorry I couldn't give a more definite answer. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 11:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

meetup

Will be late, I'm emailing you my cellphone number etc so you can reach me. I was intending to bus in in the morning but there's been a complication. sonia♫ 11:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I talked to Epipelagic (who was sitting to your left) after the meetup, and he's interested in organising Wikimedia New Zealand. I've posted some links to his talk page.

The person I suggested you might be interested in meeting in Wellington is Stuartyeates, who works for the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre. The other project I mentioned, which digitises 19th century New Zealand newspapers (the NZ equivalent of Trove), is Papers Past, part of the National Library of New Zealand.

It was nice to meet you.-gadfium 03:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

More follow-up: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 6. Please help me with the notes- I don't remember exactly everything that was covered, but it'd be good to have a record! Hopefully this discussion does go somewhere, and thanks for wanting to meet up :) sonia♫ 07:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

My two messages erased by Racepacket on his talk page

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Racepacket&diff=425070361&oldid=425064903
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Racepacket&diff=425076741&oldid=425075745

I do not know what to think ???? Thanks and bon courage --Geneviève (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• last intervention for help Racepacket: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Racepacket&diff=425079059&oldid=425078153

So be it a way to explain? it is sad for me. C'est triste à mes yeux --Geneviève (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations

Hi - in this diff what evidence have you got that a user here contacted your work? If you have any evidence of that it would be immediately blockable, if you don't have any it would amount to an uncited personal attack and you should retract it. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This link here: Racepacket believed the WMF was my employer. He went to the organization that he belived was my employer and brought my wiki related actions to their attention with the purpose of having them take some action against me. I'm not going to retract it. Had I better understood at the time what was happening, that I should have immediately gone to ANI and reported this, I would have done so. --LauraHale (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see all of meta:Foundation wiki feedback#Foundation fellow needs guidance where Racepacket contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about Laura's editing when he originally thought that she was employed by the foundation. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, her employers have not been contacted, from Laura Hale's comments I was led to believe serious external reports which is not the case at all, thanks for the detail. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket contacted the people he believed to be my employers. It doesn't matter that he did not correctly identify my employer. He still made an attempt to contact them. The attempt was public. Racepacket sought to get my employer to intervene to modify my on wiki actions. In the process of contacting my believed to be employer, he also outed me by connecting my real life identity to my Wikipedia one. --LauraHale (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the *attempt* to contact her employers that bothers her. It would bother me too. ---Rschen7754 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes agreed, at least it was not off project - but it was far from either necessary or correct escalation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the connection to off project. That he belived my employer to be WMF makes his actions less chilling and offensive? --LauraHale (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To make this more clear, WMF are NOT my employer so whatever higher standards there are regarding WMF employees being held accountable for their edits is not relevant. I'm not a WMF employee. Thus, this goes back to the general: Racepacket contacted who he believed to be my employer to get them to intervene with my editing practices. There shouldn't be a free pass on contacting employers to get a person in trouble just because he got the employer wrong.--LauraHale (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can independently confirm that LauraHale is NOT a staffer of the WMF foundation. In fact, i invite you to check this website: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff to see the current list of the staffers at Wikimedia Foundation. --Zalgo (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never claimed to work for WMF. Grant money reciepient kind of maybe yes. I helped write a proposal that got funding from WMF. I was a volunteer for Wikiproject Screencast. WMF paid my airfare from Australia to San Fransisco. I proposed bringing a project I created into the WMF fold. (It was rejected.) I've gotten grant money from WM-AU. But that's it. I've never claimed to work for WMF. Racepacket believed I did with out any substantial proof of this and contacted them to try to get them to sanction me for on wikipedia edits. (And when it was made clear to him I was an academic, he then more vigorously persued the line of inappropiate paraphrasing, to the point of wanting me to have a mentor to approve all my edits. This despite zero evidence of that having been done. I view the two things in connection to be harrassment. Especially as the most recent allegation was made yesterday. ) --LauraHale (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Roller Derby

Thanks for your edits to the roller derby article. It's a very interesting subject sociologically, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's Sport Wikiproject

Here is the teamwork: User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article Athlete Birthday List. Regrettably I did not end the sporting banners: User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article List. I made some sports: Ice Hockey, Football ( soccer ), Ringette and Softball. I worked also the page Women's professional sports. I cannot answer in every week because I am outside of Canada for summer. Sometimes I have an internet connection of a small health center. Bonne chance et courage --Geneviève (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw also this page List of sportswomen

File:The Girls Netball Team.jpg

I am writing because you have been involved in editing Netball and Netball in Africa, where this photo appears. (I realize that you are not the uploader of the photo.) There has been some discussion of this photo at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Flickr a reliable source as to photo contents. Various editors have raised various issues about the photo, not all of which I am concerned with. What I am concerned with is the relevance of this photo to netball. The women in the photo are not dressed in netball uniforms, nor are they playing netball, nor are they on or near a netball court. Even if we had a sworn affidavit from the president of the Malawi Netball Association saying that all the women in the picture are netball players, I don't see how this picture helps illustrate an article about netball. It would be like if we had a photo of the Green Bay Packers wearing business suits and standing in an auditorium surrounded by their children, and used it in the American football article with the caption "An American football team". Even if we recognized players in it like Aaron Rodgers or Clay Matthews III, it still would not be particularly useful in illustrating what an American football team looks like when they are playing a game. For that, we would want to show a picture of the players wearing their football uniforms. So I wonder if File:The Girls Netball Team.jpg should be removed from articles about netball for not being useful as an illustration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The picture is not being asked to describe netball. The picture gives an idea as to whom in Malawi plays netball. Therefor, the picture is relevant because it gives an idea as whom plays the sport. The author of the picture is a credible source as he has taken several pictures.

I also wasn't properly notified. Beyond that, as I have made an effort to disengage from a contributor that I am actively in a dispute with that will likely be going to ArbCom, I cannot participate in the ongoing discussion on the board. People made edits to remove the picture with out using the talk page for the article to explain the rationale. And I'm actively in dispute with some one who I am trying to disengage with, where I promised to disengage with on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2.

Beyond the fact that the image illustrates what it is intended to illustrate, I'm deeply concerned about the implications of this on two levels:

1. The person who made this accusation has a history of attacking me, was asked by a member of ArbCom to leave me alone, was asked by several people in an RfC to leave me alone and he persists in going after me.
2. If we follow the logic chain involved here that the picture cannot be verified by credible, reliable sources, it pretty much means that user uploaded pictures cannot be uploaded because that's original research and Flickr as a whole cannot be used because people are self publishing.

--LauraHale (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue of requiring the image to be illustrative of women physically playing netball also is problematic. While conducting Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2, the person who is now having issues with this picture asked for images to be included despite the fact that in response to Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA1 the lack of pictures was addressed: No such pictures existed. The peer review of Netball in the Cook Islands article specifically asked for pictures even if the were NON-ILLUSTRATIVE of netball in the Cook Islands. This seems a case of some one operating in bad faith, continuing to engage in my work despite a request to disengage, that would lead to long term editing consequences across the whole of Wikipedia if his conclusions were followed. --LauraHale (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that, the comments on the page talk about say the Green Bay Packers. Fine. Some one uploads a team picture of they allegedly took. They have a caption on the picture that says these are the Green Bay Packers... but is the photographer a reliable source? While the people in the photo ARE all wearing Green Bay Packers jerseys, why do we trust the person who uploaded the picture and gave it that caption to be reliable? How do we actually know the picture to Flickr of the Green Bay Packers in uniform aren't actually a bunch of random fat black and white guys who attended a Green Bay Packers fantasy camp? Or aren't a bunch of guys at a costume party? --LauraHale (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my example, the people in the (hypothetical) photo aren't even wearing Green Bay Packers jerseys, they're wearing ordinary clothing. Similarly, in the photo under discussion, the netball players aren't wearing netball uniforms or doing anything typically characteristic of netball. I'm not saying that the women aren't netball players, but I also disagree that this photo "gives an idea as to whom in Malawi plays netball". Suppose someone went to a predominantly African-American high school in the United States and took a picture of the boys' basketball team, wearing basketball uniforms and standing on a basketball court. Would that photo give an idea as to who in the U.S. plays basketball? Only a very partial idea -- it wouldn't say anything about the fact that basketball is also played by children and adults (in addition to teenagers), by members of other races (in addition to African Americans), and by females (in addition to males). Similarly, there's no claim in the original photo caption that these netball players are, or are not, typical of Malawian netball players. But I do understand that the netball articles have been subject to some controversy recently, of which I was not aware until today. So I'm going to leave the issue of this photo aside for a while, and not try to have it removed from these articles, at least not in the near future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't be absolutely sure that those AREN'T the outfits they play netball in. My major cue that they aren't is not the same as yours. My major cue is that they aren't wearing the pinnies for their positions on the court. And you're allowed to disagree but the issue will be moot anyway. The picture is in a section that is slowly being worked on in order to comply with feedback from a failed FAC attempt. (Where if I recall correctly, nothing about the credibility of the picture came up.) Namely, the by country sections in the by region articles need to be shortened to by region. This is slowly being done by working on Netball in Africa and related articles. That involves fixing up articles like Netball in Lesotho first. On the daughter articles, the picture does illustrate the point. It just takes time. (I'm on a netbook and my books are largely at home. I can't work on it like I want.)

I apologize if the tone of my comments came off as unduly harsh. I'm just a bit stressed as all I really want to do is improve content in an area I'm interested in and things have been... difficult recently. I might have been a bit more terse than I intended. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rules of netball

Hi Laura, I probably won't be able to take a peek until tomorrow. I've just come back from a holiday and I have quite a bit of catching up to do! Graham87 07:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I've been spending Easter with the whānau (learnt any Māori words yet, Laura?). Seeing that bedlam's started up once more with netball, it's probably time to get into the Netball article again. I've got more ANZ Championship updating to do, so I'll be responding to multiple netball issues later tonight. Regarding Rules of netball, my main focus would be more on the Netball section than the daughter article – you don't have to write the daughter article's lede before the overview article's corresponding section. But I'll certainly help out if needed. Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No Maori learned. :) and :( Spent easter in Tauranga at the Jazz festival. I've picked up a number of books about netball. I think my collection is now up to about 13 specific books. I have picked up about 5 other books that mention netball. Lots of potentially good information to improve sourcing. On the whole, I really love New Zealand. :D --LauraHale (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The netball image bedlam is because some one didn't disengage. I think we've finally reached a compromise. At some point, I may go through and see if I can't find more images to add to the article that feature more female players as male players appear to be over represented in pictures compared to how many actually play. --LauraHale (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, something came up suddenly and I didn't get a chance to go through the article. It seems under control though so I will keep an eye on it and hope it steers clear of any impending drama. Also if you or Liveste could give the shortened version in the main article a good going over that would be great. I only know the rules from watching my sis and girlfriend throw the ball around so it might need some cleaning up. However, I don't think you should worry about the leads transferring between the articles. Just say what is needed in the main article and let the daughter article leads work themselves out. AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

please don't edit other people's comments

If you wish to reply to my comments, as you did in Talk:Netball in Africa and elsewhere, please don't edit my comments, without my agreement. I find it annoying. My comments were not directed to you exclusively, and I put them together for a reason. --Rob (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply

About this: It's kind of you to make the offer, but your absence wouldn't help. If we're going to get useful results from the discussion, it can't be perceived as some sort of dogpile on Racepacket. If we started it today, I'd expect one of the first couple of respondents to "help" by pointing out the previous discussions, including the RFC/U and ArbCom request. The intention would doubtless be a sincere effort to help, but the end result would be anything except helpful.

As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to provide your opinion at any RFC, including this planned one. Thoughtful opinions are always desirable, and are too often in short supply on the English Wikipedia. If someone wanted to reduce the odds of the RFC being yet another extension of this dreadful dispute, then he or she might consider the benefits of being one of the last to comment, rather than one of the first. If we can start off with some uninvolved folks, it might help set a constructive tone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally understand your concerns and understand the fear of dogpiling. It sucks. And it sucks even when people are making good faith comments but you've been in conflict with them so hard to read them rationally. Understand that from both perspectives, which was why I made my offer. In any case, I understand the reason for the delay and good luck as it would be interesting to see that situation better resolved for things going forward. --LauraHale (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Netball and the Olympic Movement

I'm aware of your ongoing issues with User:Racepacket so I'm not sure how much your are currently editing in the area, but as you seem to be the principle editor of Netball and the Olympic Movement I thought I'd better inform you of some issues I've found with the sourcing of the article. I've listed a few points that need looking at on the articles talk page. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 14:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw you asked for some help in working out what my concerns over Netball and the Olympic Movement and Women's sport at the Olympics were. Sorry if I've been a bit confusing but hopefully I can explain here. There are two seperate issues;

• The first was that the two articles were (at one stage) no different in their content, thus I suggested the merge. Your addition of information on more sports to Women's sport at the Olympics has fixed this and that article is now well on its way.

• The second is specifically on the netball content (some of which is now in both articles). A list of my concerns is at Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement#Sourcing issues and there are points raised by other users in Wikipedia:Peer review/Netball and the Olympic Movement/archive1. The underlying issue is that the article appears not to be written from a neutral point of view. If the article is not suitably neutral then it would fail a potential WP:GAR.

As I've said I'm happy to allow time for improvements to be made (I have no wish to see the article get delisted if it can be easily fixed) and if require any further clarification then feel free to ask either on my or the articles talk page - Basement12 (T.C) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Netball around the world

Hi Laura. Since there were no complaints about the rules split I have had a go at trimming the global section. Got through Africa and Americas, but she is slow going. Anyway have a look and let me know what you think. Unless there are any objections I will work through the rest this weekend. AIRcorn (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Netball GA mess

Because of the unique circumstances of the two GA reviews for this article, and continued claims by Racepacket and others that the article does not meet the GA criteria, I believe a reassessment is required to avoid the status of the article continuing to be under a cloud. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1. Chester Markel (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)