User talk:Batsnumbereleven

Advice
I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. John Reaves 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Glen Jacobs
We're cool. Cheers, -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN  21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cricket
Hello, Batsnumbereleven. Thanks for updating all the England cricketers' infoboxes today.

I'm writing to ask if you've discovered WikiProject Cricket yet. If you're interested in editing cricket articles, feel free to come and join us. We have a talk page where we discuss the cricket articles, and also a little quiz.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: PPV location terminology
I agree with you. "From" doesn't sound right.-- bullet proof  3:16 19:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...sigh...-- bullet proof  3:16 04:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it
Bah...beat me to it on the reverting of vandalism of the RAW page. How dare someone actually revert right before me! :P Keep up the good work! Anakinjmt 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GoF
I felt that it didn't read very well after the information removal - by reducing it to a short summation of a few key moments, it became a list, which seemed almost arbitrary in the information kept or removed. Michaelsanders 14:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

World Cup "draw"
It went as follows:

Australia (1): group A Sri Lanka (2): group B New Zealand (3): group C Pakistan (4): group D.

Now, from the next level (5-8) there were three teams that had to be kept apart from Australia, so South Africa (5) had to go there. Otherwise it would have snaked back and South Africa would have been in group D. Instead, West Indies (6) in group D, England (7) in C and India (8) in B.

You'll also notice the ECB press release which is cited ; "If the draw were made using the rankings as they stand at the moment, the groups would be as follows:". This suggests there was no drawing of lots involved whatsoever. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thought you'd see it my way. ;)


 * By the way, top work on Australian cricket team in England in 1993. Must have been a chaotic time! Sam Vimes | Address me 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alain Prost
I've suggested what looks like the middle ground at the Alain Prost talk page (regarding team mate comparisons). I'd be grateful if you could comment on whether you're willing to accept it. Cheers. 4u1e 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

English cricket team in Australia in 1994–95
Hello there. I saw your addittions to the above, and would like to drop a quick, friendly and polite word about your writing. Your contributions, while well written, sometimes read more like a match summary by the BBC or CricInfo, whereas Wikipedia is to report the bare facts. I have removed some of the less suitablly toned sentences, and by my edits you may see what I mean. As a lot of it is uncited, thus the risk is run that your contributions read as your own opinions and conclusions regarding the match, when Wikipedia can only report the conclusions and opinions of third party, reliable sources.

You might find my attitudes too conservative, or think I was too drastic in my reductions, I am happy to agree to disagree, however I do feel this article could do with some tone, style and content changes, many of which I have effected and the rest I have tagged for.

Happy editing, and kind regards. SGGH speak! 11:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Worcestershire County Cricket League
Hi ! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by a parent project as needing  possible attention to  some details. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Worcestershire County Cricket League, and leave any  comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)