User talk:Refsworldlee/archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2 January – 14 April 2007
  2. 15 April – 22 July 2007
  3. 23 July – 23 October 2007
  4. 24 October 2007 – 17 January 2008
  5. 18 January - 10 April 2008

Contents

List of Digital Asset Management systems

I've prod tagged it as violating WP:NOT. If the prod is uncontested, you may not need to send it to WP:AFD. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It went - it's gone. :-) Ref (chew)(do) 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your repeated work enhancing the social network article, I award you, Refsworldlee, this diligent editor's barnstar. Awesome job! Bellagio99 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! My first one! I did move it from my userpage though, but it is much appreciated. Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I awarded the Barnstar for all your help on all your articles, especially the social network related ones. My academic world is filled with negative feedback, so I like to give positive strokes when I can.) I'm glad that I was the first -- sort of like finding a virgin. As to my minding where you moved it to, it's your Barnstar, so tack it up on any Barn you please -- even both pages (user and talk:user). Bellagio99 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Neil Warnock

Hey, sorry about the edit to that article and thanks for the compliment. TBH I saw it and thought it was just erroneously placed there (and didn't check the talk page like I should have) while I was edits to the english refs category. Yonatan talk 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Social networking edit

Hi,

You reverted an edit I made to the social networking page. Hey, dude, you're fast! I was just building a page for the site I added, lol.

I wasn't spamming, I was playing on the site last night. Thought it would make a good addition. No worries - I'll build the page first then add the link.

Regards, SmSm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smiffy247 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:SUFC Invitation

For the record - accepted with pleasure. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Segar

here mate sorry about the change, i just couldn't help myself because i'm an immature fool, but how do you protect pages cos i think that is in need of it 82.39.187.136 19:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You are very honest about yourself. However, if everyone realised that the joke was unoriginal before they added it, perhaps they wouldn't. Page protection is reserved for far more serious breaches of etiquette and some very ugly edit wars. Only admins do that, and I think they'd probably laugh at Segar (but not the joke you posted!). By the way, when doing any editing of talk pages, please put your post at the bottom (there's a + sign you click at the top of the talk page which will make sure of this), and also remember to finish your post with ~~~~, which signs and dates your post automatically for you, like mine at the bottom of this message. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for that. Yes, I'm busy, so if you don't mind can you do it? Thaks a million.Kfc1864 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's a bit squashed, you may need to re-arrange your userboxes when you get time. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dermot Gallagher

Good link to above article. I've added further info regarding refereeing Ireland V Russia. Djln--Djln 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very notable entry, there aren't many refs who get to do their own side, as it were. Just a small point about date linking though. I've had a conflict over this before, and all the admins I have consulted say 'go by the letter of MoS', which allows and encourages multi-facet (day, month, year) linking to facilitate user preference settings. So I'm afraid any articles on my watchlist are deemed subject to this in my eyes. But thanks for the inestimable good work you've done. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What in tarnation?

Whatcha thinkin' man? Am jus tryin' to give people a lighter atmosphere. Most folks vandalize because they want a good laugh. I thought I'd be givin' em somethin' ta laugh about, then I'd tell 'em to respect the page. You don't agree with my edits, I feel you would overstep yer justices if ye would ban me fer it. ah well, just tryin' to do ma good part, if yall want to send me away, cuz am different, that's yer perogative I suppose.

I thought I'd be saddened by vandalizm, now I'm saddened by the admins that are aimin' ta prevent it. I didn't think I was oversteppin' any bounds, ya hear? I thought y'all were supposed to assume good faith, I guess I was mistakin'. ClaimJumperPete 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I believe ya linked 'vandalizm' to yer comment. I'd like to make a direct quote from that article, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

For a lighter atmosphere, I go to a comedy show in the the local theatre, watch a TV sitcom, or sit with family and get some repartee going. I don't expect or require that from Wikipedia.
You mistake me for an admin. I can't ban you. I can complain, but that's all. I don't want to see you banned, I would rather try to convince you, like Chris, that a more measured and thoughtful approach to our encyclopedia is much more rewarding than your current involvement.
Especially, though, articles don't need hidden source messages as a general protection - they're sometimes added when the level of problems means that editing them in a certain way is to be discouraged. The articles you have chosen to 'nurture' (a bit one-tracked, if I may say, with their 'Wild West' connotations) do not appear to have a long history of abuse needing discouragement in the source.
I believe you have set yourself up as a 'characterisation', a figment of your imagination. I can't see the value of that to Wikipedia. "Southron", to us mere Brits, is very hard to read, or at least your interpretation of it, and I believe that, as a US language 'dialect', it is actually supposed to be a heard thing, not a seen thing.
Finally, I agree that one or more unrelated edits which assume good faith are indeed not vandalism. A string of identical 'hidden source' edits which are subsequently reverted by not just me but many other experienced editors, and which come to the attention of a respected admin and are commented on by that admin (including standup advice for you to consult vandalism guidelines) might add up to an assumption of bad faith. Not to mention your re-adding the same hidden messages to the same articles even after notes to your talk page suggesting you didn't.
Your protestations to talk pages of users who do not share your vision merely reinforce opposition to your ethos where Wikipedia is concerned.
I genuinely hold no malice, and thank you for your post to my talk page. When you return, I hope you will find the capacity to contribute fully and constructively in a more conventional way. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, ma friend, ya answered ma question substantially as well as in a satisfactory manner, I wouldn't ask ya again. ClaimJumperPete 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Got sarcasm?!

Do you really think my work so bad it deserves sarcasm (my main guess), or do you actually think I do some good work (not my main guess), or are you on a personal vandetta, not related to my work on wikipedia(another guess that seems likely? I have stated that I will work on my tilding. If you think that honor bound statement not good enough in comparison to the level of annoyance it creates (/I've trouble understanding how it could, sincea bot fixes the problem w/in 10 minutes/ what do you need w/those 10 minutes) then maby get someone w/some seniority to tell me, or better yet, if your so bad-ass, maby you can get me kicked off of wikipedia all together. I promise that I try to remember every time, and additionally promise I'll put more work into it. What are your requirements and what is the basis of your complaint. I request a non-surface answer to your issue('s).Thaddeus Slamp 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I do not pretend to be the best wikipedian on earth. A look @ my userpage boxes should clear that up. Additionally, I think a non-biased look @ my work will show that I make good/semi-important small changes fromm time, even if it be found that that is all that can be said for me. I am about to look @ what can be done about harrassment, myself/ really don't look forward to such a task.Thaddeus Slamp 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC) BTW: I am of the opinion I just handled this situation beautifully. I guess We'll find out whether or to what degree I am wrong-headed.Thaddeus Slamp 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have absolutely no idea why you are so upset. The only input I had was to mention the four tildes. When these are signed it helps me recognise who is making good edits or otherwise. I have made no mention of whether your edit contributions are good or bad, and would never do so outside of a 'Request for Comments' page.
My entry to your talk page is nothing more than what it says, "please help me by signing your stuff so I can understand easier". If you choose to read something else into it, I have no control over that.
Please have a look at my contributions to better assess my Wiki intentions. I have done so with yours, and find that you are a proper Wikipedian. Reminders about signing don't affect that good record one bit. I have no wish to go higher on this, so I will leave that as your decision. I say again as I did before, best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 12:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Major humble apologies

. The reason I thought you were being sarcastic and failed to assume good faith, is that you chose stuff I suspect most contravercial/ becouse I know that there are much better Wikipedians than I. I do things sloppily when it seems to me content above form needs be emphasized (tho a little bit of laziness is involved) and I know that such is not entirely lacking error/ is sure to rise ire amongst some. I walk on egg-shells, in a way, on wikipedia, becouse I value it highly. I also pull no punches, and its a difficult ballance. Also I usually work with some strange work station restraints.Thaddeus Slamp 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if such is appropriate, but I wish to go into detail about how I ended up jumping the gun: 1) someone else had already asked me to better mytilding habits 2) the article you intralinked is 1 that still has an editors label questioning the articles validity. I've written another article that is not so racked w/ contraversy. 3) when you intralinked on the words "valid points". I confused it w/ a reference to "important points" in a talk page question to user: Antaeus Feldspar questioning why he trashed an article improvement I attempted/ which I'd yet to give responce. Feldspar aint no joke. It looked like someone was having fun @ my expence.

Right after I wrote you someone vandalised my user-page.

Scanning your work real briefly, I see no major points of common interest. What brings you to my neck of the woods?Thaddeus Slamp 17:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Refswordlee for keeping an eye on the Social Networks page. I've been on holiday for the past week+. Anything else of our mutual interest I should check on? Bellagio99 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks refsworldlee for your compliment/what you have contributed to my David Allen Hulse pageThaddeus Slamp 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a stub?

Dear Ref...,

To me a stub is saying this article is poor and may not even deserve to exist. I think the INSNA article is pretty complete as is, with its cross-references to social networks, etc.

That's why I de-stubbed it. And the stub hadn't attracted other contributors for months.

The only things to do for this piece -- one day -- is for me (or someone, probably me) is to add a bit of institutional history, a list of officers by year, and a similar list of keynoters.

But even now, it is not just a stub.

Bellagio99 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are of course right, the article is not strictly a stub; however, I usually leave stub templates in until an article is a good length. I always hope to attract good editors who might have something to add that I hadn't thought of, or couldn't source.
I would have suggested that after you had added the proposed content, it could have been de-stubbed. However, you are within your rights to remove the template now, and I will not be re-adding it. I think we just have to agree to disagree over stubs, and the value of leaving them in.
Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Social networking sortable edits

I don't seem to see the incorrect sorting problem you mentioned here? When you sort, the first click sorts entries from small to large; and the second click sorts entries from large to small (the desired order). I think the benefits of viewing entries in sorted order is significant. Cong Yu 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pat Partridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks re SN article

Thanks for the tip. Just trying to be helpful. Sometimes too helpful Bellagio99 22:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I'd rather have dealings with you than blessed trolls and vandals! Regards. Ref (chew)(do) 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia (1)

Hi. I came across the above article at Chris' talk page. It's extremely interesting. Would you mind if I went through the article to correct some instances of grammar which need attention? I also know how to reference, but will leave that to Chris. Let me know. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't! I'd really like you to correct it, if you'd like, because my knowledge of English-gramma ain't very good. So, know you know! Feel feel to improve whatever you think needs to be improved, but try not to be to radical; I'd like to see most of it intact. Thanks for offering your help; it is certainly welcome, and that wayI wish you the bset of luck! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 06:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pat Partridge

Sorry, I misunderstood your message on the talk page; as you say, perhaps in future you should make it explicit you only mean things like nominations for deletion. Well done again on an interesting article. Qwghlm 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Neil Warnock

Appologies. I read a local newspaper that incorrectly reported he was sacked. Also, perhaps putting him no longer being a Blades fan was inappropriate. TomGreen 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. We do have to be a little careful where biographies are concerned. Although Wikipedia does not respond to threats of legal action, it's better that the subjects of our biographies have no potential axes to grind! Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess Who?

I'm not sure if I ever told you, but as one of the people who wanted me to get an account (IP 24...), I will tell you who I registered as: AnonGuy. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Scott Tremaine

Well, it depends - it might be considered "self-published" since it's just the professional homepage of some other faculty there - Ed Roth - per WP:SPS or might not. It certainly doesn't seem "ideal" to me - and it's probably "policy-wise" no good - especially with the living persons clause in biographies. WilyD 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia (2)

Are you interested in adding references to this article? It has been tagged for a long, long time! Murlock 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Chrislk02 has promised to go over it at some point. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maxl trivia hacking

I've placed a final warning on his talk page, following his last edit. One more and he's blocked. --Oscarthecat 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Rooster Teeth Networks

You'll find that Rooster Teeth Networks is the name given to the group of sites on which the community-based website runs. I can understand why you don't know that, however, because it would seem that only people who have an account on the site know that.

As to why it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, well that fact just mystifies me. Thanks for the message though. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 09:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I got your point re my Social Networks comment

Thanks for your instructive point. I am not being mealy-mouthed here, as I did learn something. I could have phrased things much more diplomatically. However, I am going to drop the conversation here, though, third-party willing. And I'd bet 99:1 that I am right substantively. I see a callow youth over-inflating him/her self. The same person (or IP address) posted an article onto a site, claiming it was a classic because it was given at a CASOS conference. Lotsa papers are given at lotsa conferences. Ref in peace, Lee. Bellagio99 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bellagio99 - again, you're demonstrating that you're letting false perceptions obscure your views. First, while I appreciate the application of the word "youth", I'm actually not that young (and I do not appreciate the use of the word callow, you just said you didn't know me?). I did not claim it was a classic, only a reference -- and my justification as to its merit was it won an award (selected by peers) at the most recent NAACSOS conference... oh yes, the one you just said you didn't attend. Might I suggest that you, or someone more impartial, actually read the paper and then decide (1) whether or not to include it as a reference, as apparently the NAACSOS people thought it had value; (2) you re-think about who I am (hint, I'm 35+, tenured at Emory, and was only trying to start a foray into Wikipedia and help out where I could within my range of academic knowledge... but apparently folks like you have become so connected to their Wikipedia-"turf" that you're not open to soliciting the views of others). For Ref, thank you for you calmness and politeness in all of this, I do appreciate your sheparding of us BOTH, as I know I'm learning a few things as well. Thank you. 68.223.56.104 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who Did that?

"who did that? amended"? Beats me. I never noticed till now. Bellagio99 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone appears to have inserted the word "although" into "social", but it could have been me by mistake. Ref (chew)(do) 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments

It is not appropriate to remove other peoples' comments from talk pages when it is directly related to the article. Please revert your removal of a valid comment at Talk:Uriah Rennie. violet/riga (t) 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are clearly not entirely aware of how article talk pages work. I took that comment to the talk page and did not immediately add it because I was short of time. You are not allowed to remove another person's comment from a talk page unless it is not relevant to the article and/or is offensive. Please don't make a habit of it as it is a blockable offense.
As for the item itself, I'm not really sure how you can call an official world record "trivia". Saying that he has a tattoo of a goldfish would be trivia, but not performing a feat that nobody has ever bettered (on official record). violet/riga (t) 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I always assume good faith, but as you say the talk page is for discussing what should be included in an article and the item I added was a serious contender. There have been many discussions about the inclusion of trivia and I know that finding a definition is difficult, but you should only ever remove something from a talk page if it is irrelevant or offensive. If you had just commented that you didn't think it warranted inclusion then that would've been fine, and I'm not arguing that point here. It's just that the removal of good faith talk page discussion is not seen as a positive action.
As you said, however, the case is closed and the item itself can be discussed on that talk page. violet/riga (t) 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yid Army

Not knowing how to respond to the speedy delete notice, I thought it best to put this message on your talk page as the user who added the notice. Your reasoning for the speedy delete is that the topic is already covered in the article about Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs), which it is not. The Yid Army mentioned on the Spurs article is a general reference to aterm used for the fans of the club. However, the Yid Army article is not about general fans but about the Yid Army hooligan firm specifically, as referenced by the BBC news articlein the article. There are a number of articles about hooligan firms, most of which are more comprehensive. However, just because the Yid Army article is not comprehensive is no reason for it to be deleted, nor is it covered in the main Spurs article. In my opinion the article needs work done on it to expand it, rather than merely deleting it.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Craig Thomson (referee)

Its not so much about avoiding the redirect, rather using the correct and most common name. Therefore I've changed it back. Thanks. Kanaye 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have two points in response: Firstly, I think we should stop the reverts until we can agree on the best way to proceed. Secondly, when it comes to the naming of articles, I understand it's usual to use the most common name rather than the strictly correct, but often unwieldy name. For example, the article on Scotland's top football league is entitled Scottish Premier League rather than The Clydesdale Bank Scottish Premier League. In this vein, I believe Scottish Challenge Cup is the most appropriate title to use. It follows that the same (or at very least a similar) name should be used on linking articles. Your thoughts? Kanaye 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
A better example may be the the FA Cup, where the most widely used name has been used in place of the full title of the competition, although the full title is made clear in the article itself. WP:NC(CN) seems to support this approach. I wonder whether the Scottish Football League First Division, Scottish Football League Second Division and Scottish Football League Third Division titles should be changed to Scottish First Division, Scottish Second Division and Scottish Third Division? Kanaye 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SN commisserations.

I think you've had a busy day on the Social Network front. Moreno is universally thought to be the founder of "sociometry" (a weird subject in its own right). Look Google, I never heard of "McDowell". Bellagio99 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Refsworldlee,

Thanks for suggesting i use the sandbox to add my social network to the social networking page to be honest I really don't know how, I'll give it another try.

If I am unsuccessful can you please add it?

Thank you 24.110.255.153 09:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ashby

I go through phases with uncat versus adding cats. At present, I tend to go with uncat unless I'm reasonably confident I know all the cats to add to make the article fairly complete. In this particular case, I knew I didn't. I also know there are people a lot better at hunting cats than I am. I'm totally with you on the whole frustrating edit conflict thing, and I'm sorry it happened to you. It'd be nice if the editor were more advanced and gave us more options, but I'm not sure what amount of coding that would require and what sort of strain it might put on the servers. Erechtheus 19:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Wikipedia can be a wild and frustrating place that challenges all brave enough to tangle with it. Erechtheus 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Zachary Coffin (1)

Lee, Hi. I'm new to Wiki. I saw you added a talk comment to Zachary Coffin. As I mentioned to someone, I am Zack Coffin, so I understand the issue of CoI. In response to someone's request I added sources for notability, I added references to about five different articles. Now I understand your comment, but I don't know what to do. The info I put up is objective, neutral and referenced. It took me a lot of time to figure out how to do it, so I'm reluctant to take it down. That said, if you think it doesn't pass muster, I'll understand if you take it down. Also, following your suggestion, I did add a request at WP:REQUEST. I would be grateful if you responded to the request! Thanks... Zcoffin 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Zachary Coffin (2)

Hi; I tend to allow editors to have their articles back for review when asked, unless of course they are attack or ninsense pages, which this is not. I reaslised at the time that the author was the subject, but it appeared to be a factual article rather than a simple vanity one. I also note that there appears to have been no improvement since I restored it.

I operate a policy of not changing my mind on any admin decision more than once; if you feel that this article merits deletion then please feel free to apply a {{speedy}} tag to it, and we will let another admin decide its fate. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted article and pasted to Notepad. I've made a note also on the actual page. Thanks again -- to both of you -- for your earnest efforts. Best regards, z Zcoffin 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pierluigi Collina

Thanks for pointing out my error in choosing that particular source as a citation. I just wanted to double check that my replacement one is valid. Regards. BeL1EveR 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's one of those tasks that everyone would like to see done but very few people have time to source everything they'd like to. Even so, tagging something that seems to require a citation is nearly as good. At the very least it helps promote thought/discussion, and once the tag's there the chances of somebody else providing a new source dramatically increase.
Keep up the good work! BeL1EveR 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Social Network linkspam

Thanks. Trying to edit less these days. Actually, some of my best friends are Bulgarians, and I did some scholarly and healing work in the country 1988-1989. Bellagio99 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If possible, could use your help/guidance/expertise

Hi Refsworldlee - I truly respect your balanced approach to Wikipedia and if your busy schedule permits, could use your assessment and wisdom at an article located on Wikipedia. It's Knowledge_Ecosystems. In my knowledge (both as a researcher/academic and as a practitioner in business) this does not represent a buzzword, and a Google "test" of the term reveals several, varied sources using the term consistently. So I believe it's not corporate PR but a legit technical term worthy of description for others. However they disagree. Given you're an outside third party, would you be willing to visit Knowledge_Ecosystems and give your views too?

Many thanks. 217.44.80.78 07:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of referees

Thanks for your message re Paul Danson and comments regarding notability of referees. Thus far I have only contributed articles on referees who have operated at Premier or FIFA level who are clearly notable. It might be worth clarifying the notability or otherwise of past referees who were active in the old Football League and handled a large number of top division games but never reached FIFA level or took charge of a major Cup Final. I think a few of these might still be notable enough for an article. One example that comes to mind is David Hutchinson (1978-1990) among whose matches over a twelve year career was the Liverpool-Arsenal title decider in 1989 - a match arguably on a par with a Cup Final in its significance. He was at that point one of a number of ref's granted extensions because of high performance which might be another point for notability. Are such officials eligible for an article?Alan Briscoe 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work in refining and developing my referee articles. Regarding notability I do think it is important to give due recgnition to referees of the past. Some referees from before the Premier League handled far more matches at top division level than many current Premier referees. However it is almost certainly the case that there will be more interest in current (or recently retired) Premier referees and many past officials will have faded from public attention and difficult to justify in terms of notability. A few of them who didn't achieve major "honours" like Hutchinson may be justified but I won't cover any of them for some time yet as there are a lot of ex-Premier and Cup Final referees to cover.
Regarding Gary Willard, as an ex-Premier and FIFA referee I feel he warrants inclusion. There isn't a great deal of information about him - I have some more in print sources - but enough for a short article in the future.Alan Briscoe 10:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)