Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:30, 11 April 2010

This user is a cricket pundit for the Times of India, the world's largest distribution daily English language newspaper. Details/disclaimer

This user is a cricket pundit for the Mint Wall Street Journal - [1]

User:Blnguyen/UB

FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE

Archives

Requests

Sindhis - Please help prevent vandalism
Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park - Genghiskhanviet (talk · contribs)
Economy of the Republic of Vietnam - Genghiskhanviet (talk · contribs)
Michigan State University Group - Kevin Forsyth (talk · contribs)
Nguyen Tri Phuong - Magnifier (talk · contribs)
Phan Thanh Gian - Magnifier (talk · contribs)
Vietnam War - Wandalstouring (talk · contribs)
Sikh and Sikhism - help preventing vandalism --Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blnguyen banana.JPG

Vote in polls below to rouse the checkuser attendant!

Could you take another look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel? Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Could you please help to protect List of Pakistanis by net worth. It has undergone a fair amount vandalism since creation, with IP users adding their own names to the page. I would be most greatfull if only registered users could edit the article. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to send you a confidential email, preferably on the secure portal. Kindly please advice. --Zwinglio (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo poll

The images are of the Australia national women's cricket team and New Zealand national women's cricket team. . The results will be used to choose which images go into the respective articles. Simply vote by

1/2/3 etc ~~~~

Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Blackwell (cricketer)

Is this person Alex Blackwell (cricketer)?? . Looks very much like this shot of her

4 or 5 Harrias (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 4 —Spaceman Spiff
7 - Well, she certainly knows how to frown! So that rules out 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 - leaving 2 & 7, both wearing sunglasses. Hmmm. Actually, I prefer 7. --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 - best view of her face Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 - best view of what she looks like. Dincher (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 - best shot of her face.—Sandahl (♀) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 seems to be the most popular so I have uploaded a new edit of that image with shadow/highlight changes applied. Refer to the file history to see the difference. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 is the best shot of her face but 2 is a more interesting photo.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Mathmo ^Talk 11:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 undoubtedly but needs a little crop. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 —Dark 06:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 edges it for me - though 4 is just about acceptable. Privatemusings (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 -- Y not? 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 Bastique ^demandez 00:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 –MuZemike 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 - She looks like she's constipated in all of the others. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 or 6. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 Abecedare (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 --Roisterer (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6, she looks mean in all the other ones. Khoikhoi 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 7, unless she is well-known for frowning. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Blackwell bowling

2 —SpacemanSpiff
0 --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
0 - shows the follow through of a pitch or I guess "bowl" Dincher (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- a) Huh? As Sandahl says, selecting "0" means "none of them". --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- b) Well, it ain't a "pitch". "Shows the follow through of the bowling action" is FAR too wordy, and sounds pretentious. You raise a good point!! Perhaps the easiest solution is to say: "Shows the follow through"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
0 none of them.—Sandahl (♀) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 is a more fluid picture.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
0 none of them
0 —Dark 06:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go 2. Privatemusings (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Bastique ^demandez 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 –MuZemike 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 but crop the mud and tarp. Abecedare (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Khoikhoi 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Blackwell batting

2 —SpacemanSpiff
0 --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - figure occupies more of the frame Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - same as Ruhr Dincher (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Errrrr. OK, I admit it. I'm confused. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (♀) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 is more compact.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the follow-through on 2. Grand master ka 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 - but not a great shot Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either -- Y not? 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like 1's crop better, but 2 has the lead room. Either —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Bastique ^demandez 00:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 –MuZemike 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1, but she's not batting. It looks like she's hitting the ball one-handed for some sort of fielding drill. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 --Roisterer (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 Abecedare (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Khoikhoi 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. —Aaroncrick (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Healy

Alyssa Healy catching

1 or 11 —SpacemanSpiff
Dunno - too much choice --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 good action. Dincher (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11 for me -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 —Sandahl (♀) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 or possibly 9.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 definitely. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 10 hamiltonstone (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 —Dark 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 -- Y not? 18:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1, but I've added a retouched version at File:Alyssa Healy catching rt.jpg, as I was having fun. - Bilby (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 by a liddle bit. Privatemusings (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 first, 1 second choice —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 –MuZemike 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 is good for showing who she is, 5 has a nice balance between her body and the ball. Too much space in the others. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 5. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 9 Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 or 10. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Khoikhoi 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown person

0 --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 but needs a crop. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3—Dark 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 - but is this useful? (here perhaps?) Privatemusings (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

0 —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 –MuZemike 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None until we know who she is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 3 Abecedare (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 is the best but is she even a cricketer? Khoikhoi 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellyse Perry

Ellyse Perry batting

2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 good action photo. Dincher (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 2. Maybe both. As Dincher says, 2 is a good action photo. --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2—Sandahl (♀) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 - --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 -- Y not? 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 is a better action shot, but I like the stance in 1. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... 3, because you need to see a face (even if not really) - 2 is ok for Forward defensive article - good gender balancing :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 –MuZemike 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're all useful except number 4. 1 establishes the batting position, 2 is a good action shot, 3 is a good demonstration of a cricketer's equipment, but 4 is too busy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Echo what cryptic said. Abecedare (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2, or 1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellyse Perry bowling

1 or 2 —SpacemanSpiff
1, maybe 5 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Dincher (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5, though none of them make her look too great – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per Harrias. I probably prefer 2. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5, given that we are more interested in her bowling action that a recognisable face with this group of photographs. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 as I prefer front on bowling shots. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 or 1. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 5 —Dark 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 -- Y not? 18:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 for the action. - `Bilby (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Privatemusings (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 –MuZemike 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 2 if you crop it to the top of the black wall. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 5 Abecedare (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are you kidding me? She looks ridiculous in every other one but 2. Khoikhoi 05:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Osborne

2 —SpacemanSpiff
2 - don't need to see that water bottle Dincher (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 if the water bottle is cropped? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1: agree with Pdfpdf.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 if cropped Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Privatemusings (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 if cropped. 2 is an awkward body shape. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 Echo what cryptic said. Abecedare (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Khoikhoi 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Osborne bowling

4 —SpacemanSpiff
Hard one. Don't like the backgrounds of 1-4. Do like seeing the ball in all of them. Maybe 5 or 6?? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have uploaded an edit of 5. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 - --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 —Dark 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 Privatemusings (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. It's easy to find the ball and her arm position looks better than in 6. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Abecedare (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Khoikhoi 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Cameron

1 —SpacemanSpiff
1 - a different color. Dincher (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - yeah, like the pyjamas - particularly given the other photos do nothing for me. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 - can see her face best Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 but needs a crop. Why is it these 20 year olds look like 14? ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 —Dark 06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 but crop out the LGLGLGLGLG boundary -- Y not? 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 (and echo the mild confusion about the schoolboy look ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 5 Abecedare (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Cameron catching

1 —SpacemanSpiff
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
pass --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 —Dark 06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 --User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1, but retouched version at file:Jess_Cameron_catching_rt.jpg. - Bilby (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 Abecedare (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Khoikhoi 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Hunter

Julie Hunter bowling

1 or 3 —SpacemanSpiff
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 - has some depth perspective in it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did a crop on 1 with a shadow/highlight adjustment. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 4. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 —Dark 06:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 Abecedare (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Ebsary

Lauren Ebsary catching

2 —SpacemanSpiff
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 (shows the spectacles most clearly!) Abecedare (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Khoikhoi 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Poulton

1 or 4 —SpacemanSpiff
6 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the right hand index finger? --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 but needs a crop. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 —Dark 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 --User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 6 Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Khoikhoi 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Poulton batting

3 —SpacemanSpiff
2 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did an edit on 3. When framing and cropping this type of shot it's a good idea to leave more room to the right. Centering is less important than giving the viewer an impression that she has enough room to swing. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - I like the stance Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - stance as Ruhr says. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 likewise, stance hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 —Dark 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 3 Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sthalekar

2 —SpacemanSpiff
2 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 AND 4 --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 (smile), 2 is also good Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 or crop 4. Finally somebody who looks their age!! ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 hamiltonstone (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 4 Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Khoikhoi 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sthalekar batting

2 —SpacemanSpiff
2 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like 1 - a real action shot. 2 is good too. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doesn't need a thing. Good capture. :) Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Aaroncrick (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sthalekar catching

2 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1—Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of them. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 —Dark 06:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 (she looks pained, but that's what distinguishes cricket from baseball ;-) )Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 (lol Abecedare). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Haynes

6 —SpacemanSpiff
3 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 6 —Dark 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 is a better photo but 6 shows her more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 Abecedare (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Haynes batting

4 —SpacemanSpiff
2 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 is the best image, but you can't really tell who it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 —Dark 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 4 Abecedare (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Haynes fielding

4 —SpacemanSpiff
4 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Rachel. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 I guess Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 —Dark 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 Abecedare (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Haynes bowling

7 or 11 —SpacemanSpiff
- There's no 11. —Dark 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9 ball and wicket visible, 7 is OK Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 —Dark 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 7 Abecedare (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Farrell

1 or 6 —SpacemanSpiff
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - pyjamas again. Go Pyjamas!! --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or maybe 2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1—Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or a crop of 3 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 6. —Dark 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 4 --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Farrell bowling

1 or 6 —SpacemanSpiff
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
0 - She doesn't seem to be enjoying it much! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Best contrast. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Gives the best view of her bowling action as the ball is about to leave her hand. May not be as artistically appealing as the shots where the ball has left her hand but a better shot for the purposes of explanation and description.
5 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5—Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 —Dark 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5--User:Dakota ^{Leave message here} 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 5 Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Farrell fielding

1 —SpacemanSpiff
1 – Harrias (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
0 - No, sorry ... --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1—Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of them. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 —Dark 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or none (the face is overblown in 1) Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McInnes bowling

He doesn't seem to be enjoying himself much, either. --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2—Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 (looks better full size) Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Andrews

1 —SpacemanSpiff
4 -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 3. 4 looks like she just spent a wet weekend in Wolverhampton. At least she looks her age though.... ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 —Dark 06:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 (captures the concentration) Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Andrews batting

They're an interesting pair of pictures. I like both. I probably prefer #2. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have uploaded an edit of 2. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2
2 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —Dark 06:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 in Sarah's article. 2 in Hang the bat article. Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Andrews catching

4 different looking Dincher (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 - agree with Dincher. --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the other 3 have their merits, too Pdfpdf (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 3. Normally ball-in-the-air is the obvious choice, but the framing and low posture on 1 are unusually clean. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 for me. Good shot of upward pointing fingers. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - face clearly visible, athletic looking pose Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 —Dark 06:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 (all 4 are good!) Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Elliott

1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 -I thought she was 14. She is twice that age!! ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 13:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 —Dark 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 (or none) Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Elliott bowling

3. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 —Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 13:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 —Dark 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 3 Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Elliott fielding

3 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3—Sandahl (♀) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 13:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 —Dark 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Burrows

Abby Burrows batting

2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Dark 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 — Harrias (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Burrows bowling

7 - like the perspective Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 7 —Dark 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 7 —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 — Harrias (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Satterthwaite

2 or maybe 1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Dark 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 — Harrias (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Satterthwaite bowling

5 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 or 5 hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —Dark 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5, if you can balance the colours — Harrias (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Campbell bowling

4 or 1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7 —Dark 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7, but crop the foreground. Durova⁴¹² 05:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7 Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Stead

Are these of the same person - looks fairly different in the two shots. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~1, but I would agree with Ruhr.~~ —Dark 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First image is the same person as the "young nz coach". Therefore, 2. —Dark 07:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova⁴¹² 05:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 (if that is Gary Stead) Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 (though they don't look the same). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katey Martin

Katey Martin batting

2 (I like 5 but for the arms growing out of her head) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 5. —Dark 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 --Avenue (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova⁴¹² 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —SpacemanSpiff 07:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 — Harrias (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 3. Abecedare (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Aaroncrick (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katey Martin stumping

13 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 -- Avenue (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova⁴¹² 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 or 13 —SpacemanSpiff 07:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 — Harrias (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Abecedare (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 ThrowawayAccountforYMpoll (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Fahey

3 or 5 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Bastique ^demandez 00:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Durova⁴¹² 06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 5 —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4, if it was cropped — Harrias (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 4 (the foreground shoulder and arm look weird in 5) Abecedare (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Fahey bowling

1 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or maybe 7 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Bastique ^demandez 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova⁴¹² 06:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 — Harrias (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Abecedare (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morna Nielsen

3 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Bastique ^demandez 00:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova⁴¹² 06:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 —SpacemanSpiff 07:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 — Harrias (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 (looks better full size, despite the shades) Abecedare (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morna Nielsen bowling

8 or 9 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11 Bastique ^demandez 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Durova⁴¹² 06:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 —SpacemanSpiff 07:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 — Harrias (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Abecedare (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dodd

1 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 — Harrias (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dodd bowling

3 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1—Sandahl (♀) 02:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova⁴¹² 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 — Harrias (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 (although I wish the man wasn't in the frame) or 1 Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Browne

4 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Bastique ^demandez 00:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Durova⁴¹² 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4—SpacemanSpiff 07:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 — Harrias (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 4 Abecedare (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Browne bowling

6 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 Bastique ^demandez 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 —SpacemanSpiff 07:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 — Harrias (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 Abecedare (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 or 4 Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old NZ staff

2. "You shall not pass" for 1 :)—Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Bastique ^demandez 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 it looks like shes ready to kick the camera person out in 1. Outback the koala (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

old nz staff bowling

1 . Probably couldn't even move my hand at that age—Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 but possible side cropping needed. Outback the koala (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Old NZ staff is another article I want to read! Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara McGlashan

4 hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 3 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 or perhaps 1 -- Avenue (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 (I prefer 3, but there is a line in the image which is distracting) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Bastique ^demandez 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 (actually prefer 3, but the line is a bit distracting) —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 (because of line artifact in 3) Abecedare (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 (but would've preferred 3). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara McGlashan bowling

1 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Avenue (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 (or 2) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Abecedare (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sian Ruck

2 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 - smile Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Bastique ^demandez 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —SpacemanSpiff 07:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sian Ruck bowling

3 or 5 hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 6 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Bastique ^demandez 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 —SpacemanSpiff 07:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Devine

2 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Bastique ^demandez 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 —SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Devine bowling

1 or 4 hamiltonstone (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9 Bastique ^demandez 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 —SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 (or 9 if the pitch brightness can be reduced) Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 or 9. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Lind

2. Urghh.. grumpy. —Dark 06:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 without a doubt. Bastique ^demandez 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 —SpacemanSpiff 07:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else

First Test 1948

Just a quick word. Bowes has a bit of stuff on this test if you would like me to add it on. Also, came across a little bit regarding the dropping of Hutton after the second Test due to him "flinching". I can add that to the second test article if you think it would be useful. And found a bit on Yardley which refers to these first two tests if that's any good! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Yes please YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added some content from Bowes about English tactics and also added a bit from Wisden to give an English verdict on the massacre! You'll probably need to massage it a bit to make it fit better. Feel free to take anything out that doesn't work. Also added the info on Hutton to 2nd test article but again it may need tweaking as it feels a bit stuck on. The stuff on Yardley is more of a summary of his achievements in the whole series, so I'm not sure where it would go. It comes from Gibson's Cricket captains of England and it also claims that the selectors (i.e. Walter Robins) wanted to drop Yardley later in the series. Don't know how true this is. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add some naked Yorkshire prejudice :) Is it worth pointing out in the background that Australia struggled against Yorkshire in the build up? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, the Invinicibles Doco talks quite a lot about the Yorkshire and Essex match YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aus

May I ask why? —Aaroncrick (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. But people seem to have had it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid 56kb speed. Anyway, I'm not going to be around over Easter. Your days might be numbered? ... Hopefully that's not meant to mean what I think it does ... —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? It's taken 10 mins for your talkpage to load and I don't even get an answer. Silly monkey. Anyway, I nominated a FARC last night. The Indian arts have been annoying me for some time... so is Canberra ... you using refs from Australia? And yes, Hodge and Marsh would be better. —Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it's unfortunate to say but most people can't be bothered doing any more than teh bare minimum to get their star and won't fix an old article unless you threaten to confiscate their star. As for any projects, one people notice a trend of bad articles they can just keep on sequentially nomming a pile of articles by the said person or wikiproject, eg Nichalp's are always getting put up. Nevertheless, Yarralumla is just sitting around waiting, worse than Canberra, and fauna of Australia doesn't look good. Malleus has been down at WT:MHCOORD getting stuck into the cut-and-paste USS articles from DANFS, so maybe there might be a spree on the boat articles YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived some of the sections of the poll which reached consensus. Maybe you can vote now :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's considerate of you. Should be fine soon. Tryin' to work out how to get a spell checker to work - I'm sure you can. I don't want to nom Aus articles, however. —Aaroncrick (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just try and work on them from time to time so I don't see the point, but when the other unsourced articles get bumped off, if Australian ones aren't improved, the probability of them getting picked off rises YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iravan

I am planning a FAC for Iravan soon. Can you please check the WP:ALT (though it a temporary suspected FA criterion), as do did for Kanhoptra? Other suggestions for improvement are also welcome. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can get away with being brief as people don't seem to make sure that it is detailed as in the example on the policy page, eg List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag has a pile of "Man in blue India uniform" type stuff. But it is optional anyway, but if you are going to bother might as well do it in detail. For the refs, dashing is needed still, I've done some, and your footnotes aren't consistent because of some with spacing after the p/pp. and some without. Another thing that sticks out is that the article switches between different spelling variations of his name. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Kensington Oval

Added the prose. What else would reviewers want? —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Well, my opinions aren't in line with FLC orthodoxy. Well anyway, many of these centuries came in giant partnerships when both folks made centuries, so it might be good to point them out. The Lawry and Simpson opening stand was 382. The Atksinon/Depeaiza one was 250+?? and it prompted Miller to threaten to biff Johnson because his tactics were rubbish. Some of the other partnerships must have been very large?? The Sarwan/Ramdin one? The Lara 150* that engineered the 1-wicket win might be worth mentioning. Or maybe how many ODIs it took until the first century (not until 1985). As for what reviewers want, well they generally don't really want anything at all YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Eden Gardens one mentions the partnership between Lax and Dravid YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged85

Hello Yellow monkey!! I´m new on wikipedia and I couldn´t help noticing that certain user called Jagged 85 is making some weird edits,and pushing forward many false,bombastic and propagandistic claims in Islam-related articles,mainly centered on science and technology.Some of his lies include:Da Vinci´s mohter was arab,Avicenna invented the thermomter,Avicenna knew about bacteria,telescope was invented by some guy called Taqi ad din,Muslims had advanced heliocentric theories,universities were invented in the muslim world(and doctorates too),thermodinamics were developed in the muslim world,the scalpel,the curette and the forceps were invented by arabs,and the muslim arrival to the americas is not pseudohistory according to him. What can we do about this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight1993 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbachmann might be interested in a crackdown; maybe Elonka or Durova or Jehochman might, they went after a guy who did pseudohistory on medieval stuff. WP:FTN also may work. In any case, you'll have to talk to Jagged or revert his edits to see what he does, ie, if he backs down or not. Or you could pack all these articles off to WP:AFD if they are based on a nonsensical basis and it isn't worthy of a topic. What articles are you referring to by the way? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most affected articles are,for example,History of Science,History of Medice,Tiemeline of Historical inventions,Medicien in Medieval Islam,Islamic golden age,all that stuff.And I´m not the first one to have problems with this guy.You just have to go to his talk page and see all the complaints poeple make to him.I mean,he posts incredible lies like Leonardo Da Vincí was arabic,or that Madrasas are universities,or thatmuslims invented the telescope and the thermometer.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could start a WP:RFC or keep on keeping him on his toes and see if he persists and ask for a block at WP:ANI if nothing happens YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another image question!

Sorry, pestering you about images again. The reviewer of the Hammond GA has pointed out that the image in the article has no source info and has put a tag on it. Fair enough, and I've no info it. As usual, I'm useless with images and have no way of scanning them at the moment. Have you any good images of Hammond that could be used? It looks a bit bare now! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought there was one of Hammond in Bodyline on cricinfo that would be PD-Aus, and some on Bodyline Autopsy that you didn't like. There's an iconic one of Hammond cover-driving some Australian spinner which is very famous. They're running a big drive to cut down the GA backlog so it might be a good time to stick out a lot of GANs and get them polished off while the queue is moving a bit more quickly. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realised this about GAN. I've already had Barber and Hammond passed, while Jardine and Macaulay are being reviewed. Might try and get one more on while the drive is on. Found a decent image on cricinfo, like you said. I'll make sure there is an image before it goes to FA again, it passed GAN without images. The Bodyline Autopsy book has only very grainy images for the most part, and I've still no scanner, even if there were any good ones! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Leah Poulton

On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leah Poulton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Invitation to discussion

Hello, you are invited to take part in the following discussion on this topic. The discussion is about general ways to improve Wikipedia in terms of verfifiability of contents. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARs

Hi YM! I've been thinking about the two FARCs that have been lingering on the bottom of the pile for a while now. My thought is to close them both as keeps as that is the default option, there is no consensus to delist on either, and they are both seem to be going nowhere quickly. Canada has been at FAR for over six months and Manila for almost four, and they really need something done with them. I'd say to keep them, and if someone wants to bring them back in a couple of months for a clean-slate review, they can. I can't take action on the Canada one, however, as I have commented fairly extensively, and so I need/want your cooperation on this :) Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think another Malleus nag will tell us if the articles really are up to scratch. The main problem with FAR is that the hardcore reviewers stick to FAC and sometimes even a few flagrant rubbish keep votes can trick an unwary delegate, eg check the Ahmedabad pass in 2008 with hacked-up prose and messed up formatting and unsourced stuff everywhere. It can seem a bit pointless to always raise FA standards while old articles are left unaccountable. Hamiltonstone's also bitten on Canada YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dana's on the right track ... FARs should not be hanging around so long, and if there's no clear consensus on insanely long FARs, they should be closed as a default keep, with a note to the participants about what is expected still in terms of improvements, and a note that a new FAR can be initiated in three months if those issues aren't addressed. FAR will never become active again as long as FARS are dragging on like this; there is no motivation to work there. Direction is needed from delegates. Having a less than superb FA hang around a few months longer is less damaging than having the FAR process become so ineffective-- action is needed on those cases-- I support closing them as a default keep. If they aren't fixed, they'll be back in three months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a couple of days to look at Canada and Manila and I'll comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for disinterest, people just can't be stuffed fixing up other people's work, and you don't get an official star or a WBFAN ranking out of it. If an article gets promoted it gets signposted, or a delist, but nobody gets a mention for fixing up a FA, sometimes completely redoing them. Barnstar and fame incentives are very strong influences on Wikipedia, and there's no fame in cleaning up someone else's shortcomings. Nowadays there are plenty of PC admins who avoid everything of substance and just rely on gimmicks and TV-time on ANI to make political mileage, and this is always increasing; despite the output on WP being steady or decreasing, there are more and more meaningless posts and "leadership" roles being invented so people can claim credit for others' work; similarly for inventing gimmick porcesses/mechanisms so people can create a "legacy" for themselves. Wikipedia is just getting more cynical with more and more people trying to freeload off each other, and trying to maximise their fame/networth with the least amount of work. People are less willing to unglamorous community work (eg copyediting, cleaning out junk, referencing unreferenced articles) but are more willing to engage in exploitationism (leadership gimmicks to take credit for others' work while not actually doing anything) or trying to maximise their article credit/fame (only writing GA/FAs, which get attention, and doing the bare mininum to scrape past and not researching properly because of a lack of content people to pick up missing bits, and then doing nothing at all to improve the article, unless forcibly hauled to FAR). If people say that their articles and totally complete and they never happen across sources that they had missed before, then I don't think their being honest. I don't have a problem with giving direction but a some of the really slow and debated FARs are tactical manoevres in that the authors do a little bit, a few explicit examples to shut the reviewers up and then stop working, even though there were dozens of other cites that were similarly done incorrectly, with noun +ings, or lack of n-dashing, or even mixed Br/Am, and then ignore the 95% of the repeated instances of systematic inconsistencies and go "what? where?" to try and stall the system, to try and induce the reviewer to give up or simply fix it themselves. I could indulge them and repeat the same thing over and over and play cat and mouse, but those guys would then try and force me off and play legal games. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to bite on some of the non-trivial non-abandoned FARs now because I think Dana won't entertain filibustering stone-age article owners; I think there were too many of these in the old era including many where chunks of unreferenced information and uneven formatting were all over the place except the owners just caused enough of a riot, or a numbers keep like Ahmedabad. On lots of FARs that I had to process I thought "This would cop 3-4 opposes at FAC from serious reviewers" but none of the indepts were willing to do anything and there were only wikiproject (usually ethnic/nationalist/nation-based) votestack keeps from 100% keep/support SPA reviewers, so I would just keep them open despite 4-0 support and wait for Tony or Malleus to eventually turn up. If I pointed out the obvious the SPA reviewers would make a lot of noise and try to have me disqualified from closing it. That's also why I hardly ever close without FARC even though the sometimes the [fanclub] feedback in general discussion is 100% favourable despite clearly broken prose, and because for whatever reason, the serious reviewers don't come until the closing stages. With a lot of FARCs there is a whole pile of perhaps mock incredulity and mildly histrionic "what?!?!?" each time it gets segmented, but eventually Tony/MF will come and state the obvious after a "urgents nag" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to close the Biman and Dalek FARs, go ahead. I had been thinking about it, especially the Biman one. However, I've been trying to keep my archiving work to Tuesdays and Saturdays, as that is when GimmeBot runs to archive. Perhaps we should work out a schedule something like what Sandy and Karanacs have, where one does any archiving on Tuesday and the other on Saturday? Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good ... I know it's very frustrating for Gimme that FARs haven't been closing according to his Tuesday night, Saturday night bot runs ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nash FA

Yes, I'm very slowly and painfully getting the article ready for FA candidacy. Considering he was one of the most written about sportsmen in Australia in the 30s, I've still got a lot of material to cover. --Roisterer (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, which quote/typo? --Roisterer (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, that one. That would be my fault. I'll change it now. Thanks for spotting it. --Roisterer (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Ping. –Moondyne 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. And do you have plans to reference Yagan more thoroughly, because it will end up at WP:FAR eventually because of modern requirements of more citation coverage YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

protetction of St. Joseph's Convent School, Sagar

Is the full edit protection at St. Joseph's Convent School, Sagar really needed? Rettetast (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undo it if you feel appropriate, although Indian articles are rather lawless with most people only tending to their personal collection. Spam and vandalism are entrenced in amny school/organisation articles YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the full edit protection that raised my eyebrows. Semi protection does not seem to be needed either since there is no history of IP-vandalism. Rettetast (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it must have been a mistake YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rdeshmukh

You blocked this user, without warning, for "blanking" but I could not identify any edits of that sort. Rather, this user seemed to be engaged in some kind of article editing. Could you please explain, at User talk:Rdeshmukh, exactly why you blocked, why you did so without warning, and what the user should have done differently? Mango juice^talk 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah looks like he took care of himself YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viet gian

Hi,

Could you find a source that definitively mention when the concept of "Viet gian" (analogous to Hanjian) first appeared? I could not find any source that places the term earlier than the Viet Minh during the Japanese occupation. This is for the article vi:Việt gian; some users insist that the term had been in use much longer, but couldn't provide sources. My best chance of definitively pinpointing its origin is in this article, but I don't have access to the full text. DHN (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My library doesn't have it. How are things going on vi? Any new initiatives etc? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

San Antonio Bay GA review

I appreciate your review. I will make the changes as soon as possible. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuff reviews on the go? Have u seen the tas election result? - what a farce. -- Aaroncrick - 9 April.

Yes enough, Could be like Belgium a few years ago when they didn't get a govt for six months or more. Are you still going to finish voting? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, just thought I'd ask this since I imagine you'd have a good feel on this. For attempting to get an athlete to FA-status, how much personal life info is seen as necessary? I know there's not a fine line, and you at least need some. For example, some of the articles I'm working on have essentially no early life notes out there. I don't want to waste people's time at FAC, so any suggestions on what to use as a benchmark to separate the GAs and FAs? Or should I just try and go for it anyway? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends on if you have any printed anywhere. If you don't, then I doubt anyone cares too much. I'm not sure whether people would treat politics/army officers differently but Ton That Dinh and Le Quang Tung don't have anything at all, as American historians aren't going to care about non-professional work matters and they aren't going to do a full biog on a foreign general unless he took power in a coup or something. Keith Johnson (cricket administrator) has very little as well. But if there is a full biog out there, then there should be a heap, or a mini-biog in a compilation book about a team/club then there should be a small paragraph as well. And if this is a player from the old days the personal life can be a bit more important as social expectations were more rigid in those days and race/religion could be a clear factor in how their career turns out. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just scanned the Baseball FAs/GAs and saw that I had two credits Neil Harvey and Norm O'Neill :P. I would say the bigger problem is why so many articles on old sportspeople in other sports are reliant on cheesy websites (although stats databases are good) whereas cricket FA/GAs on old topics eg Harvey and O'Neill are heavily reliant on famous sports historians writing in books mostly, because if only websites were used the content would be much more stilted and silly/less serious, because web pundits are moronic, generally speaking, and especially news outlets are a bit PC sometimes to not offend fanboy readers. I would just say get lots of books and if there's none there, we're safe, but if only websites are scanned then there could tons of stuff of all types missing. But on the other hand the problem with Wikipedia is that often only people inside the WikiProject know the content in great detail, and some WikiProjects have 100% votestacking records because they are interested in their prestige in the community rather than the reader (or propaganda). I'd say that focusing on the book research is the way to go. WP:AUS hasn't lost an article to FAR for 24 months and I think one of the reasons was that the old articles, even though they had no inline cites all referenced qood books and cites were relatively easy to track; not amateur sites etc which were allowed then, and have now gone dead. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Of course I know to use books and major news sources to use for information as opposed to random online stuff. Granted, many of the people I'm writing about aren't going to have books written about them (save some of the major ones). Best I can do is look for anthology on some of the players that could give me some info, though most of those just concentrate on playing careers, which I'm already covering just fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article too premature

Someone has recently created the Australian cricket team in England in 2010 article (which was, curiously, originally written in past tense). Given that the tour is going to start in a few weeks I don't any point in nominating it for deletion, but you might be familiar with how to handle these articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do some cleanup YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reviews

Need to remember to transclude reviews to talkpage :) Aaroncrick ^TALK 12:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, horrible crowd for first IPL match in Nagpur -- looks to be only 15,00 there... Aaroncrick ^TALK 12:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N. T. Rama Rao

HI. Can you put this article on your watchlist? For some reason it attracts ridiculous edits. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paracel Islands

Hello YM, Would you please take care of those high school students editing the Paracel Islands article. Thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,216: / Line 1,216: @@
 ==[[N. T. Rama Rao]]==
 HI. Can you put this article on your watchlist? For some reason it attracts ridiculous edits.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''''Dr. Blofeld'''''</font>]]</span>     <sup>[[User talk:Dr. Blofeld| <font size="-4"><font color="Black">White cat</font></font color> ]]</sup> 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
+== Paracel Islands ==
+Hello YM,
+Would you please take care of those high school students editing the [[Paracel Islands]] article. Thanks.--[[User:Trinhbaongoc|Trinhbaongoc]] ([[User talk:Trinhbaongoc|talk]]) 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:30, 11 April 2010

Requests

Photo poll

Alex Blackwell bowling

Alex Blackwell batting

Alyssa Healy catching

Unknown person

Ellyse Perry batting

Ellyse Perry bowling

Erin Osborne bowling

Jess Cameron catching

Julie Hunter bowling

Lauren Ebsary catching

Leah Poulton batting

Lisa Sthalekar batting

Lisa Sthalekar catching

Rachael Haynes batting

Rachael Haynes fielding

Rachael Haynes bowling

Rene Farrell bowling

Rene Farrell fielding

Richard McInnes bowling

Sarah Andrews batting

Sarah Andrews catching

Sarah Elliott bowling

Sarah Elliott fielding

Abby Burrows batting

Abby Burrows bowling

Amy Satterthwaite bowling

Emma Campbell bowling

Katey Martin batting

Katey Martin stumping

Maria Fahey bowling

Morna Nielsen bowling

Natalie Dodd bowling

Nicola Browne bowling

Old NZ staff

old nz staff bowling

Sara McGlashan bowling

Sian Ruck bowling

Sophie Devine bowling

Victoria Lind batting

young nz coach

young nz staff

Everything else

First Test 1948

Aus

Jagged85

Yet another image question!

DYK for Leah Poulton

Invitation to discussion

FARs

Nash FA

Email

protetction of St. Joseph's Convent School, Sagar

Viet gian

Talkback

San Antonio Bay GA review

Question

Is this article too premature

GA Reviews

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Paracel Islands