User talk:Ginger Warrior/Archive 2

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super League template

Yes, it's ready for use. You can see the example of how a completed template should look and a few notes on the template talk page. LunarLander // talk // 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on creating the 5 and 6 team play-off templates, I'd tried but it was sending me insane! LunarLander // talk // 20:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. It took me a few cups o' tea before I understood it too, until I realised it's really just a big, fancy table. At least they're all done now, I can start to get the results articles all done by September when I go to uni. GW (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos 2009#2009 Results

Thanks for your input into the table. I've just redesigned it, taking some of the best bits from other clubs' results tables. Can you see anything obvious missing? Cheers. Julianhall (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and it looks much better than it did previously. More information, and less boldness. Format-wise I can't see anything missing from that table, I'm sure the date for that friendly can be found somewhere in the archives of the Leeds website though, and the referees need adding of course. It would be nice adding the referees to the other club's 2009 season articles, but the tables are way too crammed as it is. The only thing I would say is that it's not necessary to have the same team interlinked more than once in any given section of an article, just the first time it appears, but that's real minor. GW (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that, all good points. I'll do a bit of tidying up and filling in now. Cheers again. Julianhall (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Foster (rugby league)

I notice on the notability guidelines that people with limited or no game time should not be included. Foster has played in 2008 in Super League XIII, would that be sufficient? If not I do understand the terms and necessity of deletion.

Thanks,

Ymron (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which game(s) did he play in? I checked rugbyleagueproject, and there's no mention of a Jamie Foster on the St Helens players' list. Given, they've been wrong before. To avoid deletion, it would probably best to write a small bit about his SL debut, and give the match report as a reference. the BBC reports usually have the full teamsheets. GW (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He played against Wakefield, which I am certain of and I have put details of his performance on the page. Whether he has played in any other games I will have to research.

Thanks for your reply,

Ymron (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the game against Wakefield was Paul Sculthorpe's testimonial so it doesn't categorise as first-grade competition and I have just found out the he hasn't yet made an appearance for the 1st team. My mistake, fell free to delete.

Thanks for your time in this issue,

Ymron (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He may well play rugby league in the future, if he is that talented, so you might want to copy all the coding on the page to a Notepad file or something. But for now, the article would have to be deleted. I'll replace the PROD template. GW (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ginger Warrior. You have new messages at SpecialWindler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Windler talk 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:EAR

Copied here for your convenience. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan Athletic

An anonymous editor ("he", for argument's sake) removed some content in the Wigan Athletic F.C. article, because it was not sourced. I reverted the edit, and asked him to at least give time for editors to find a source. He did not do so, and reverted my revert. I warned him for disruptive editing via Twinkle, searched the Internet and found sources for the claims he disputed, but he disputes the reliability of the sources I referenced. I have 100% confidence in the source, and I'm not sure how to put an end to this edit war. Please can I have some assistance? GW (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to give time to source something in an article. Quoting Jimmy Wales, "random, speculative" info "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". However, the disputed sentence in the article (about it being the youngest club in the league) appears to be true. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to add multiple sources so that there can be no dispute about their accuracy. I suggest adding these two:

These two are reliable sources and should be enough to backup the claim. One is a site connected with The British Council, and the other is a well known news site. Also, you guys seem to have been waging quite a revert war on the article. I suggest you discuss things like this on the talk page in the future and come to a suitable agreement, instead of simply re-reverting. Chamal ^talk 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you were in the wrong to warn him for disruptive editing. "Legally" he is in the right to have removed the unsourced edit. One could say it's not particularly collegial, overreacting for such a little fact, etc., but he's perfectly within the rules by doing so. This is analogous to if a neighbor calls the landlord on you for making noise at night instead of just politely approaching you. As a long term plan for interaction, calling the authorities on an apartment neighbor on a first offense is a very bad idea and likely to lead to future trouble. But of course as an "anonymous" IP, probably he doesn't much care about future interactions. However, with the sources given above by Chamal_N, now you are in the right to add the disputed statement. If he reverts you again, then you can simply report him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, pointing out that you are in the right with reliable sources, and an admin will take care of it. Be careful not to engage in edit-warring, particularly the 3 revert rule. Before taking anything to the noticeboard, It is best to notify the user first on his user talk page and the article talk page (there seems to be no discussion there, the dispute taking place entirely in edit summaries), that you have new sources and that further reversions will be seen by others as being in the wrong. --C S (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan Warriors

You might want to get in on this discussion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unfamiliar with the COI noticeboard so I'm not sure what you "discuss" there, however, I've left my suggestions and thoughts. From experience, I genuinely don't believe he's a disruptive user, just misguided. GW (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really think s/he's misguided either, but it is a little annoying that I'm pointing out policies to him/her on his/her talk page, but they seem to be ignored. Thanks for your two cents though. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template loop

I neutralised the template loop on User:Ginger Warrior/Sandbox. It occurred because a page may not call upon itself. The solution is simple: move the example to another page, leaving only the code. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The template was never released onto Wikipedia anyway, so I've just removed it altogether. GW (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DW Stadium

Good work so far. I was a bit concerned about the refing problems but seems good now. I should continue with the review later today Tasmanian time. Aaroncrick (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the review and the encouragement. The Sun won't die overnight, so take your time. GW (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work with the referencing. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on a holiday and a family wedding for the next fortnight, and I won't be able to gain Internet access (or no-life by editing Wikipedia on holiday!). Strange request since you've already raised a problem with the article's GA status, but please could you either review the article based on its current merits, or put the article on hold until I'll be able to give the article due attention? Thanks, and hopefully The Ashes will be back in Australia by the time I get back. GW (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good holiday and hopefully everything goes well. No problem. You Aussie? Ashes back in Australia, doesn't look likely. :( Al the best. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm British. I just admire the Aussie cricket team, and Ponting as a captain. GW (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a first. :) Didn't think anyone over there admired Ponting as captain! ;) Aaroncrick (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few edits and looks alright. I'll give it a final run through tomorrow. Hope you had a good time, Aaroncrick (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the help. GW (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, congrats. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help during the review! GW (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN notice

Hi Ginger Warrior, you currently have at least one article up a WP:GAN in the Sports and recreation section. In an attempt to clear out the backlog there, User:Wizardman asked all sports WikiProjects to review at least two articles from that section. I'm now going around and asking anybody with an article nominated under Sports and recreation to review at least one article in that section to help us clear the backlog out so your articles can finally be reviewed faster! iMatthew ^talk at 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one must prove they have an understanding of the criteria for a successful GA nomination before they start reviewing others' articles, else articles that shouldn't be passed end up being passed, and the quality of GA articles overall becomes tainted. I also believe such proof comes with a successful GA nomination on the editor's part. As you've noted, an article I have mostly written, DW Stadium is currently undergoing a GAR. If that passes, I'll happily become a GA reviewer. If it doesn't, then it only proves I don't understand the criteria yet, and would be an unsuitable reviewer. As you've also probably read from mine and Aaron's discussions (above), Aaron plans to finalise the review in the next 48 hours, so we'll know then. Cheers for the notice, GW (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. iMatthew ^talk at 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]