From your recent user page and user talk page edits, I assume you are back, at least for now. Welcome back. ww2censor 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delighted to get you back ! While Cz claims that it is not just for experts, the impression that I have always received from browsing through Cz and its forum is that they look down upon amateurs and non-experts. Tintin 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Did this because it is not available anywhere online. Tintin 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I'm pleased. -- Dweller 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you either need to alter your introductory sentence, and perhaps the article's title, or else omit the coverafe of the tours of the country in 2005-6. At the moment there's an inconsistency. Oh, and welcome back! JH ( talk page) 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've left a further reply on WT:CRIC for you to have a look at. Thank you. Bobo . 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I undid 4 of your edits: 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4. You said in the edit summaries of each of those that you were "redirect"ing them, but you just blanked them, and didn't apply any redirects. I am not sure where you wanted to redirect them, so if you still do, go ahead and do it. Just thought I would let you know. - Rjd0060 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just came across these also: 5 and 6. - Rjd0060 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You OK? -- Dweller 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice article. Being my usual pedantic self, it seems to me that the three references to cricket abroad, whilst interesting, don't beloing in an article about English cricket. Also, if you are listing all f-c matches for 1811-1815, perhaps you should explicitly state that there were too many in 1801 to 1810 to list (assuming that to be the case). JH ( talk page) 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A minor point concerning your "Further Reading" books that appear in many of your articles. My understanding is that, when Altham's "A History of Cricket" was first published in 1926, it was in a single volume, and only in a later edition (the 1962 one?) was it split into two. After all, in 1926 a first volume extending till 1914 wouldn't have left much for volume 2! So giving a publication date of 1926 but referring to Volume 1 is rather misleading. Since later editions are likely to have included some corrections and additions, there's a case for always referencing the most recent edition (1962 in hardback - I think the 4th edition - with a paperback version in 1968). The whole work I believe had its authors specified as Altham and Swanton, but I believe that volume 1 was almost entirely Altham's work, volume 2 almost entirely Swanton's. JH ( talk page) 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page link to History of cricket in India from 1985-86 to 2000 rather than 1970-1 to 1985. -- Jpeeling 10:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi blackJack -- you started the Category:Philatelic associations and societies. I've been doing basic cleanup & standardization of organization categories, and most of them are "Category:X organizations". That would be a simpler & shorter name & more standardized category; do you have any objections to renaming PA&S to Category:Philatelic organizations? -- Lquilter 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The AFD Barnstar | |
For dedication to WP:AFD, I, Shark face 217, hereby award you this barnstar. -- Shark face 217 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
I investigated the matter at AN/I and resolved to block the editor over various breaches of WP policy. Unfortunately reviews only happen when people are around, and it being the week after New Year's I think it was in part simply your posts and those of AlbertMW were slow to get attention from an actual administrator amongst a sea of others. At the time you posted them I was off happily creating Former Local Government Areas of Victoria so didn't even notice the request. Orderinchaos 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
|
-- Jpeeling ( talk) 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: The earliest biographical information about Scott is provided by Arthur Haygarth [1], who describes Scott as a "very successful batsman indeed for the Hambledon Club, for several seasons". Scott? I was tempted simply to replace the two occurrences by "Robinson", but then wondered whether the whole paragraph had perhaps strayed from another article about some other cricketer of the name of Scott and so needed to be deleted. JH ( talk page) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed the definition from limited overs to List A cricket. What do you think? — Moondyne 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering, wouldn't it be best to discuss changing the WP:Cricket notability criteria on the talk page before making what is a rather substantial change to them? I'm not saying that I disagree with them as such, though I do have some quibbles with them, but this does seem to be the sort of thing which some sort of consensus needs to be reached on, especially when it's been changed to what seems to be your personal point of view. Andrew nixon ( talk) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The most important of these "many other schools" was unquestionably Harrow... At around this time one might make a good case for Rugby School which, under Thomas Arnold, seems to have done much to foster the idea of "muscular Christianity" that was to become such a watchword of the Victorians. JH ( talk page) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know about his sovccer connections. When I saw the article, it seemed like a good idea to look him up in Lemmon's book, which didn't say anything about his soccer. While doing so, I discovered that none other than William Ward was in the chair for the meeting that set up Surrey, Ponsonby having another commitment on that date, and that the seconder of the motion that a Surrey club should be formed was Nicholas Felix. JH ( talk page) 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on J Wyatt (Essex cricketer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
CastAStone
//(talk)
21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been searching on the names of those players who were members of thr nobility, to see if Wikipedia has any more information on them. I came up with the following:
I hope that some of that is useful. JH ( talk page) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased things have calmed down and that you are staying under this name, which does not have the baggage that has accumulated elsewhere. You know that my view has always been that our coverage of early cricket would be nothing without you (however irritating some of your other habits may be!). I'll do nothing on the matters where I have a few qualms unless they become an issue again, which I hope they won't if we're all agreed that matters external to Wikipedia should stay external. Kind regards. Johnlp ( talk) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look at your revision in detail yet, but I do think that it would be better to retain the old first sentence at the very beginning, as it would state up-front what the article is about, ie This article seeks to explain the key differences in alternative versions of English first-class cricket statistics. At the moment, the article goes straight into the nitty gritty. Of course, it may be that I've looked too soon and you are about to do some further work on it. JH ( talk page) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wild stab in the dark... did I once affectionately refer to you as "belligerent gnome"? -- Dweller ( talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:English cricketers of 1701 to 1760 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Moondyne 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:English cricketers of 1761 to 1786 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Moondyne 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
From your recent user page and user talk page edits, I assume you are back, at least for now. Welcome back. ww2censor 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delighted to get you back ! While Cz claims that it is not just for experts, the impression that I have always received from browsing through Cz and its forum is that they look down upon amateurs and non-experts. Tintin 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Did this because it is not available anywhere online. Tintin 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I'm pleased. -- Dweller 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you either need to alter your introductory sentence, and perhaps the article's title, or else omit the coverafe of the tours of the country in 2005-6. At the moment there's an inconsistency. Oh, and welcome back! JH ( talk page) 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've left a further reply on WT:CRIC for you to have a look at. Thank you. Bobo . 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I undid 4 of your edits: 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4. You said in the edit summaries of each of those that you were "redirect"ing them, but you just blanked them, and didn't apply any redirects. I am not sure where you wanted to redirect them, so if you still do, go ahead and do it. Just thought I would let you know. - Rjd0060 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just came across these also: 5 and 6. - Rjd0060 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You OK? -- Dweller 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice article. Being my usual pedantic self, it seems to me that the three references to cricket abroad, whilst interesting, don't beloing in an article about English cricket. Also, if you are listing all f-c matches for 1811-1815, perhaps you should explicitly state that there were too many in 1801 to 1810 to list (assuming that to be the case). JH ( talk page) 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A minor point concerning your "Further Reading" books that appear in many of your articles. My understanding is that, when Altham's "A History of Cricket" was first published in 1926, it was in a single volume, and only in a later edition (the 1962 one?) was it split into two. After all, in 1926 a first volume extending till 1914 wouldn't have left much for volume 2! So giving a publication date of 1926 but referring to Volume 1 is rather misleading. Since later editions are likely to have included some corrections and additions, there's a case for always referencing the most recent edition (1962 in hardback - I think the 4th edition - with a paperback version in 1968). The whole work I believe had its authors specified as Altham and Swanton, but I believe that volume 1 was almost entirely Altham's work, volume 2 almost entirely Swanton's. JH ( talk page) 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page link to History of cricket in India from 1985-86 to 2000 rather than 1970-1 to 1985. -- Jpeeling 10:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi blackJack -- you started the Category:Philatelic associations and societies. I've been doing basic cleanup & standardization of organization categories, and most of them are "Category:X organizations". That would be a simpler & shorter name & more standardized category; do you have any objections to renaming PA&S to Category:Philatelic organizations? -- Lquilter 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The AFD Barnstar | |
For dedication to WP:AFD, I, Shark face 217, hereby award you this barnstar. -- Shark face 217 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
I investigated the matter at AN/I and resolved to block the editor over various breaches of WP policy. Unfortunately reviews only happen when people are around, and it being the week after New Year's I think it was in part simply your posts and those of AlbertMW were slow to get attention from an actual administrator amongst a sea of others. At the time you posted them I was off happily creating Former Local Government Areas of Victoria so didn't even notice the request. Orderinchaos 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
|
-- Jpeeling ( talk) 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: The earliest biographical information about Scott is provided by Arthur Haygarth [1], who describes Scott as a "very successful batsman indeed for the Hambledon Club, for several seasons". Scott? I was tempted simply to replace the two occurrences by "Robinson", but then wondered whether the whole paragraph had perhaps strayed from another article about some other cricketer of the name of Scott and so needed to be deleted. JH ( talk page) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed the definition from limited overs to List A cricket. What do you think? — Moondyne 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering, wouldn't it be best to discuss changing the WP:Cricket notability criteria on the talk page before making what is a rather substantial change to them? I'm not saying that I disagree with them as such, though I do have some quibbles with them, but this does seem to be the sort of thing which some sort of consensus needs to be reached on, especially when it's been changed to what seems to be your personal point of view. Andrew nixon ( talk) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The most important of these "many other schools" was unquestionably Harrow... At around this time one might make a good case for Rugby School which, under Thomas Arnold, seems to have done much to foster the idea of "muscular Christianity" that was to become such a watchword of the Victorians. JH ( talk page) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know about his sovccer connections. When I saw the article, it seemed like a good idea to look him up in Lemmon's book, which didn't say anything about his soccer. While doing so, I discovered that none other than William Ward was in the chair for the meeting that set up Surrey, Ponsonby having another commitment on that date, and that the seconder of the motion that a Surrey club should be formed was Nicholas Felix. JH ( talk page) 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on J Wyatt (Essex cricketer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
CastAStone
//(talk)
21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been searching on the names of those players who were members of thr nobility, to see if Wikipedia has any more information on them. I came up with the following:
I hope that some of that is useful. JH ( talk page) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased things have calmed down and that you are staying under this name, which does not have the baggage that has accumulated elsewhere. You know that my view has always been that our coverage of early cricket would be nothing without you (however irritating some of your other habits may be!). I'll do nothing on the matters where I have a few qualms unless they become an issue again, which I hope they won't if we're all agreed that matters external to Wikipedia should stay external. Kind regards. Johnlp ( talk) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look at your revision in detail yet, but I do think that it would be better to retain the old first sentence at the very beginning, as it would state up-front what the article is about, ie This article seeks to explain the key differences in alternative versions of English first-class cricket statistics. At the moment, the article goes straight into the nitty gritty. Of course, it may be that I've looked too soon and you are about to do some further work on it. JH ( talk page) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wild stab in the dark... did I once affectionately refer to you as "belligerent gnome"? -- Dweller ( talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:English cricketers of 1701 to 1760 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Moondyne 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:English cricketers of 1761 to 1786 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Moondyne 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)