User talk:SpecialWindler/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Why MoneyPenny section?

Dear SpecialWindler,

What makes the MoneyPenny section of the Bond film series article any more OR than the Q section or the villains section or the Bond girl section? Curious. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it was the first one I came across with OR, admittedly I don't know how James Bond (film series) is a good article. The recurring motifs section is totally out of whack, I'm trying to clean it up (I don't really have time myself, and it's too big a job) by doing it one section at a time. Personally, I would remove some of those section's entirely, especially everything that happens in a usual Bond film, because it is entirely OR, and really I don't think appropriate to the whole article anyway, maybe a small section outlining what each of them are like here, not drawn out with a thousand images, and hardly any sources. Moneypenny, is hopefully the instigation that the whole Recurring motifs section is rewritten and or removed.  The Windler talk  21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The narrower WP policy violation you probably should cite is "improper synthesis" (one of a list of things that qualifies as OR). (I'm a huge advocate of being specific about exactly which element qualifying as OR is being violated.) The tag at the top of the whole group of sections that says this reads like a story-narrative was probably motivated by a similar concern.
This sections would work better if there was some attention to how the conventions evolve and shift over time, but that would make it even more imperative that sources be cited. IMO One can cut some slack on sources if it is only plot summations, but if you go into differences between Bond in the 60s, 70s, 80s, you improve the article, but you make the need for sources much more imperative. The books on Bond by Raymond Benson would probably be excellent sources.
The article was in that format long long before I ever got to work on it (about 18 months ago), but I wrote most of the Felix Leiter sub-section of the "Allies" section, and almost all of the last two bits James_Bond_(film_series)#Characters_with_only_two_Bond_film_appearances and James_Bond_(film_series)#Characters_limited_to_an_era, both of which (I hope) could survive if the article was reworked. I also touched up M and Moneypenny adding all the closing material on the different actors playing them. Finally, virtually all the photo montages throughout the sections are mine, as is much of the section in the article on DVD releases.
Well, it's stuff to think about.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

create jersey

hey how do u create a jersey i want a jersy for some local darwin clubs and eastwood rugby union how do u create them help would be much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1991 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments using ~~~~, anyway, I used Inkscape which is freely downloadable from its website. I can't offer much help, just use the help files in the program and tutorials around the web. If you have any specific help, I'd be happy to help although I might not, it is a complicated program.  The Windler talk  01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Willey

Seems like Ron Willey was captain-coach 1 season in '62 then a regular coach '70-'74. Wally O'Connell was there 66-69. Those RPL links kind of make it clear - thx. On the tally front maybe something you've done has fixed it ? I've now split the Manly coaching stints giving me 7 coaching entries in all. Perhaps the tally populator trips at 6 since it now seems to be ignoring the blank Bradford Bulls 7th stint but gives a tally on the 1st six. Oh well, it looks good anyway. -Sticks66 13:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My User Page

A non-free image was recently removed from one or more of your userboxes. Please be advised that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Wikipedia policy does not allow templates (which includes userboxes) or user pages to contain any copyrighted content not under a free license; so, for example, claims under "fair use" are explicitly rejected. This clause is to be interpreted strictly and without exception, for legal reasons. You can research Wikipedia's non-free content policy for more details.

I hope this does not discourage you from creating more userboxes; your contributions to Wikipedia are greatly appreciated. For images and other media that are freely available for use in userpages and userboxes, check out Wikimedia Commons. Thank you.  The Windler talk  09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, sorry for using it. Ymron (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Super League colours??

I hope you don't think I'm being slightly forward or ignorant, but would it be too much to ask that you could create some kit templates similar to those we see on the NRL pages, please?? User:Ymron Ymron (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to mass create them, but I still create them on request, if you provide a URL with the image of the kit you wish me to create, I can. I have no problem with you being forward about asking for jerseys but I do have a problem with you calling me a "fucking arsehole" on your user page, please be civil.  The Windler talk  21:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just annoyed at the time. Ymron (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/pu/puma-08-09-st-helens-home-rugby-shirt.gif Sorry again for the user page. Ymron (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time at the moment, and I'm not really interested with English Super League, it takes a while to create these jerseys, and I don't have the motivation. Sorry,  The Windler talk  03:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem.Ymron (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another bloody jersey question

Hey Joel, I know you're well sick of doing jerseys and maybe this has been mentioned before but I've just added a pic to Balmain Tigers and it confirms what I've long suspected : that after the Tigers wore the simple Black/Gold stripe from Foundation they then went to one of those Stripe and Hoop arrangements. No big deal but I suppose given where I've positioned the pic it embarrasses the date range shown in the jumper gallery. -Sticks66 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a date range for the new jersey?  The Windler talk  02:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to make any jerseys now, but I can modify another one to suit the colours, like File:St. George home jersey 1921.svg or File:Parramatta Eels home jersey 1949.svg or File:Gold Coast Seagulls home jersey 1991.svg (the last one with out the red stripes), otherwise I don't like making them. I don't know how I was motivated to make all of them last year.  The Windler talk  04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a photo of Chook Fraser leading out Balmain in 1925 wearing the tiger stripes and they are in the hoops and stripes by the late thirties. By the late forties they are in the V.  florrie  05:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of the years I put are estimates especially pre 1990s, I try to find accurate years, but I have never said that the years I put are accurate. I may have made those tables like on Balmain Tigers showing the years, but really I shouldn't have. I should put indications that they are estimates on my gallery page. So if I made this new jersey to be Balmain home jersey 1925 then is that alright (I'm going to use the Gold Coast 91 jersey).  The Windler talk  05:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have access to year by year club photos, it'd be pretty difficult to determine the years/changes with any accuracy so I agree that estimates are the best you can offer. Maybe you could say tiger stripes up until the end of the twenties, the hoops and stripes during the thirties and then the V from the forties. From the pics in various books, I can see they are wearing

• up to at least 1926 - tiger stripes
• 1930-1940 - variations on the hoops and stripes as in the 1939 pic
• 1944 & 1949 - the V

 florrie  07:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use 1930, and upload it in a minute, and place it on my gallery. I will keep the previous 1940 for the V, as it is very hard to move an image on Commons.  The Windler talk  07:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done File:Balmain home jersey 1930.svg  The Windler talk  07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Rams

Thank you for your review, I have hopefully addressed your concerns, and I would appreciate it if you would finish your review. Thank you, and take your time, I'm in no rush.  The Windler talk  12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I had been awaiting your ping before returning to the review. I've just looked again. In my view the article needs a copyedit before any further general review – it has some very odd sentences at the moment. I don't mind trying the copyedit myself, if you are prepared to wait a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you it would be greatly appreciated, I'm in no rush, I would like the article to become FA, but it doesn't mind me if it is in a month or a decade. Thanks,  The Windler talk  22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have completed copyediting the article. You should go through and check that I haven't inadvertently introduced errors through misinterpreting the text. I think it reads pretty well, now. I have put a temporary citation tag against the statement about "the highest crowd attendance for any rugby league game to date." This fact needs to be cited to a source; also you need to clarify: highest crowd for any rugby league game? Highest in Australia (including internationals)? Or just highest in the state of South Australia? Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again, do you believe that it has the potential to become a FA now? Or does it have a bit of work in additional sources and/or more content?  The Windler talk  03:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Or do you recommend continuing a "general review".  The Windler talk  03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the star! In the next couple of days I will add a few more comments to the peer review. Also I think it would be a good idea for another reviewer to read through the article and make independent comments. I will ask someone to do this. Watch the PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the effort, you deserve the star, I have also copied this discussion to my talk page, as I prefer to have discussions in one place.  The Windler talk  10:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you have finished the review, but would it be too much to ask to respond to my last comment on the Peer review page. If you need anything clarified, just give me a note.  The Windler talk  09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the additional section is a good idea, and have left a copyedited version in your sandbox. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Owen Cunningham

A tag has been placed on Owen Cunningham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Quartermaster (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I keep trying to remove the Speedy Delete tag based on seeing you're a good faith editor but you keep editing and causing conflicts and my attempts to rectify the situation keeps getting stomped on. In any case, it's obvious you're a good faith editor and I'll bail out on this. However, might I suggest you use a sandbox to create more fully fleshed entries before putting them in the mainspace? Keep up the good work, this is no big deal at all. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry, I'm more of a minor editor doing things in smaller batches than one edit for all.  The Windler talk  14:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor editor my butt! No problems. I've been around longer, done less edits than you. Apples compared to oranges, neh? Anyway, you're on my list of "people who know what the hell they're doing." The edit I saw as patrolling new contributions was a single sentence of "this guy is cool" of which we see a lot. I'd still say that you should look into establishing a personal sandbox where you can flesh out an entry before contributing. Then, folk like me who are "weeders" won't even flinch. Usually, when I see /ruggers/footballers/etc who know what they're doing, I defer to them (you). Carry on! --Quartermaster (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox source

I noticed when you started work on Owen Cunningham you have put rugbyleagueproject.com as your infobox source. So that means your sourcing your stats from the RLP site? I'd advise against that as that site has a lot of indiscrepencies. Either nrlstats.com or yesterdaysheroes.com are I think would be more reliable as they seemed to always mirror that official stats site that we can no longer access. I think RLP is good for some other things like figuring out positions and rep matches, but for me I've found so many discrepencies in their figures (something the creator has also admitted to) that I think it's probably the worst option for infobox stat sourcing.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe RLP, is good for rep matches as you have suggested. Apparently, he has done all the test matches between Australia, NZ and England since 1908, and alot of others. I admit I have become a little lax in my infobox sources of recent times, and have simply just carried the sources. I believe nrlstats is incomplete, but I do like yesterdaysheros as a accurate source for first grade NRL up to 2007. The old NRL Stats used by Florrie, is dead, and using it, I don't think is good, and at times, I just replace it with the RLP source, without checking. So I look at yesterdayshero for a substitute for that, and RLP for players with reps. But for rep stuff, RLP is probably the best.  The Windler talk  14:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been deleting the NRL Stats links as I come across them as well and replacing (if not already there) with RLP. So far the current figures I have seen (mostly for Wests Tigers players) are accurate and I definitely use it for rep figures. I rarely look at Yesterday's Hero, but I shall try to do better. :) I won't use NRL.com at all, there always seem to be errors.  florrie  05:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nrl.com reguarly update itself, and links become dead, too soon. I don't reccommend for external links either. Yesterday's Hero, seems to be perfectly accurate for NSWRL-ARL-SL-NRL up to the end of 2007. So its good for that.  The Windler talk  07:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Stadium names

Hi, I think I'll just start renaming some of the more obvious stadiums (CC, MES, CUA, WIN, etc) but I'll leave alone the stadiums like Newcastle where there is no clear alternative. What do you think? Bongomanrae (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mal Meninga Medal

you added tags to this page, do you think enough improvement has been made to get rid of them? --sss333 (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have fixed a little up and removed the tags, and thankyou for contributing to Wikipedia.  The Windler talk  03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)