User talk:BlackJack/Archive 7

All-England Eleven
Hello,

I just dropped a message on All-England Eleven talk page (see here). I think you're obviously concerned... OrangeKnight (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Flags
Why did you remove flags from World Cup Cricket but ignore other pages with way more flags and not bother waiting until WP:FLAG is properly sorted out? Most of the cricket pages have only 16-24 flag images, though they are repeated alot they are not multiple downloads.--58.111.143.218 (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello from 2006
Hi, Jack. This is my first login since before your note to me 31 Mar 2007. About "Sports History" we conversed mainly Sep 2006. If all goes well I will now continue to be around here some. I will do a little editing today in order to whet my appetite.

When something goes very well and I have income to buy pounds with dollars, well let's wait and see. P64 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Western-film-actor-stub (in case you're checking in)
Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Pegship (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Are you editing again? --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bs
Welcome back! I was interested to see that CricketArcgive - and hence presumably the ACS - rate the match in which The Bs were dismissed for 6 as first-class. Wisden evidently does not (perhaps because it is too early for them), as in its list of lowest f-c scores the lowest is 12, though the list has a footnote mentioning the Bs' score. This might be worth a mention in the Variations in first-class cricket statistics article. (I like your new introductory paragraph for that, by the way.) The List of first-class cricket records article goes with the 12 figure, while again having a footnote about the Bs' total. JH (talk page) 20:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick query
Not sure if you'll be able to provide a definite answer to this query, but is Thomas Selby (cricketer, born 1791) the same person as the Thomas Selby mentioned in this article? I've looked through the sources I have to hand, and online, but haven't found an answer I can be certain of. &mdash; AMBerry (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All-England again...
Hello 'Jack,

I still hope to get your opinion about this idea. We discussed about that on the WP:CRIC talk page a few months ago, and it seems that there was a consensus for the split in the article All-England Eleven, so that William Clarke's team can have a separate article (as has United All-England Eleven, for example). Since that discussion, I've not been bold at all (I'm still afraid to do some mistakes and I don't rate myself as "fluent" in English) and I'd like to have your opinion about it. I'm ready to split the article by myself... Thanks for your answer. OrangeKnight (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! However, I've not a lot of time at the moment and I don't know if I'll be able to use other sources (I've begun with Birley's A Social History... and I'd like to go on with Major's More Than A Game, the only other book dealing with the global history of cricket in England that I have). OrangeKnight (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club
The article says that the county club was formally established in 1844, but it also says that the county name was first used for a side in 1857. It seems that either one of those dates is wrong, or that the original 1844 establishment must have quickly collapsed before they got around to putting a team in the field (in which case the article should mention that). JH (talk page) 09:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WG
Hi Jack. I agree that it's a pity that the WG article is so lowly rated. However I do I tend to feel that the endless nit-picking that the FA process seems to involve takes up a lot of time that could be better spent. I haven't a great deal of experience of that process, though, as no article that I've been heavily involved with has ever been put forward for FA.

When and if I have time, I'll have another read through WG's article, and see what I can do to improve it. I agree that it doesn't need to get much longer. I have to admit that I'm not really in sympathy with the idea that some on the cricket project seem to have, that absolutely everything that is known about a player should be included. Rae's biography runs to well over 400 pages, and we can't and shouldn't try to match that for comprehensiveness. A Wiki article isn't a full biography. JH (talk page) 10:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That might be a plan. Isn't GA handled within the project itself, though? However I've never understood why an A rating, whivh is supposed to be higher than GA as I understand it, doesn't seem to require the formal process that GA does. JH (talk page) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm thinking maybe it is a bad idea to go through the reviews and we should just make the article as good and as complete as we think it should be, which is what we try to do anyway." I'm very much in favour of that view. Incidentally, would I be right in guessing that you've recently acquired the Rae biography? Obe thing that I like about it is that it's one of the very few cricket books to document its sources as thoroughly as a good Wiki article does. JH (talk page) 20:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Well you can always rectify the lack of subject experts by chipping in  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I could but time is the factor that works against it. And I much prefer editing to reviewing.  Good luck with the Invincibles reviews.  ---Jack | talk page 19:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Carpenter
Fair enough. I'm a relative newcomer to cricket on Wikipedia, so a few innocent errors are to be expected, particularly when it comes to pre-1980s cricket! Cheers for correcting me. – PeeJay 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cricket Lead
Thanks Jack - appreciated. Mind you, I give it less than a week until we see all 104 countries listed in the lead. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Brown of Kent
Could you fix the external link on Mr. Brown's page, you forget to switch from a 'templated' one when you created the article and I'm unable to find the chap on CA myself. Thanks in advance. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Portsmouth&Southsea
I've commented at WP:ANI re your raising the issue there. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you suspect that P&S is a sockpuppet, WP:SPI is the place to go. I just AGF'd that the user is new, that's all. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
When you file an ANI report, don't forget to inform the concerned users of it. This is both a requirement and a courtesy. Abecedare (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wondering why I didn't inform the attacker of the ANI notice. I hardly feel inclined to go anywhere near the talk page of someone who leaves obscene garbage like that on my talk page.  I am not an admin and I expect those who are to do their jobs by protecting genuine editors from attacks.  You have said on his page that his conduct is completely unacceptable so why haven't you banned him?  Jack | talk page 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't feel like leaving a user a message, you should at least mention that in the ANI report so that someone else can inform the user. This is not really optional, and while we do look past simple oversight, you were already told about this requirement yesterday by User:Mjroots.
 * As for why I haven't blocked/banned the account: we try to stop disruptive behavior without blocks as far as possible; only if an editor continues with disruption despite warning do we issue blocks of increasing length, and if the editor still does not improve, the community or Arbcom can ban him. Hopefully we won't reach that endstage in this case. Abecedare (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is political correctness. Just like something out of New Labour. You are evidently more concerned about me not leaving a message on his page than you are about his obscene conduct. In addition, you have failed to deal with the "sockpuppetry" he is engaged in. It is not enough to say you don't know the background. Investigate it and do something about it. I have no confidence in you and I want another admin to deal with this. Are you going to hand it over to another admin or do I have to find one myself? Jack | talk page 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) copied from my talk page to keep discussion consolidated. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of your accusations and responses on my talk page, I will be disengaging from the discussion for now. Any other admin is free to take a look at your ANI report and respond as they see appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lumpy Stevens
Am familiar with this part but a confusion - "In those days, it was the leading bowler on each side who chose the place where wickets would be pitched". Bowler of which side - home or visitors ? Tintin 08:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Somerset County Cricket Club
Jack, I don't usually disagree with your edits, but changing the "Famous Players" section of this article to "International Players" changes both the tone and the substance. Surely the aim of this section is not to be just another mechanistic list of international cricketers, but a list of those whose deeds were significant to Somerset, which is the subject of the article as a whole. And one aim might be to encourage readers to look further at other articles, so a degree of colour in descriptions is surely admissible. To call Lionel Palairet "England Test player" is baldly correct, but as a Test batsman Palairet was a failure, and his renown surely rests more (or as much) on his reputation as a stylist of the golden age (and as a batsman curiously omitted from Test teams for most of his career). Omitting Gimblett entirely seems harsh on any criteria, as he played Tests (and was picked for several others and then pulled out of them), and in this context we ought to say what McCool's contribution to Somerset cricket was rather more than a somewhat spurious reference to 1948, when he didn't play any Tests anyway. Roebuck, the latest addition by someone to this list, is surely more important to Somerset than Tom Richardson was. WINP, I reckon: we can surely afford to have some colour in here, and not only international cricketers contribute at county level. Johnlp (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RE Foster
Good move. Always thought so, but never had enough motivation to make the move because of the possiblity of getting into a long debate with someone. I started seeing "Tip Foster" only in the last two-three years, thanks entirely to some individual in Cricinfo. Tintin 04:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there
I'm certain you will do so, but please check out the thread on WT:CRIC that YellowMonkey started concerning "Redlinked FC/List A players". If you do have any requests for teams whose names I haven't included on my first-class players lists page, feel free to contact me either on WT:CRIC or directly on my User talk page.

Hope you are doing well recently. I have spent so little time on Wikipedia lately that it's about time I got back into the swing of things. Bobo. 17:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Bangladeshi cricket seasons
Template:Bangladeshi cricket seasons 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. – PeeJay 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bangladeshi cricket seasons
No problem, mate. I was going to do a couple of Sri Lankan seasons, but I couldn't find info about the 2006-07 Sri Lankan season. Was first-class cricket suspended there at that time? – PeeJay 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

date of birth missing should be placed in the talk page
Hi. Just fyi Category:Date of birth missing and all categories starting with "Date of..." should be plaved in discussion pages only. Not in article space. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Shultz tables
Hi. :) Unfortunately, this one was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria and is not eligible for G4. If the contributor doesn't follow through on the OTRS correspondence, it will be deleted again as a copyvio. If he does, it will probably find its way back to AfD where it can be judged on its merits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) OTRS is the system that handles e-mails to the Wikimedia Foundation. This one was originally nominated for AfD, but speedily deleted as a copyright violation. We got an e-mail indicating that it isn't a copyright violation, but hosted with permission. The e-mail wasn't quite good enough to confirm that legally, though. The article has been restored and blanked until we can clear that up. If the contributor clears it up, then the speedy deletion criterion will no longer apply, so it can't be redeleted as a copyvio. But the AfD can proceed. It's a lot of hoops to jump through for what seems like inappropriate material, but there you have it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

John Arlott
I hope that you enjoy both Arlott on Cricket and your holiday. I agree that TMS is not what it was. It's become too jokey for my taste, with Jonathan Agnew and Phil Tufnell being the worst offenders. Of course one wanta a leavening of hunour, but not at the expense of describing what's going on on the field. JH (talk page) 09:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see from the references that you've added to WG's article that you now have Arlott on Cricket. I hope that you're enjoying it. JH (talk page) 08:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that you had a good holiday, and that you've been enjoying the book. Yes, what I wrote about Alresford was all taken from that book. He's also very good on Hambledon, of course, as you'd expect from a Hampshire man. Cheers. JH (talk page) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WG
What makes you so convinced that the bit about WG playing foorball was rubbish? It seemed to me plausible that he might have done as a young man, though I added a "citation needed" tag as it clearly needed some evidence in support. JH (talk page) 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just dide a Google search on Grace Wanderers football and it turned up a relevant hit on http://books.google.co.uk/ in a book entitled The Wanderers F.C.: five time F.A. Cup winners by Rob Cavallini. Google Books shows the whole of the relevant page of the book, and it seems completely above board, so I'll be restoring it to the article, complete with citation. (A better Google search turned out to be Grace Wanderers Alcock, when the relevant Google Books entry is the first hit.) JH (talk page) 20:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(: Judging from the text from Cavallini's book available on Google Books, it seems that WG probably got involved with the Wanderers through his friendship with CW Alcock, who was a leading light of the club. He is mentioned as scoring against Clapham Rovers in 1871-2. I managed to find other passing references to his football here and here. In the latter case he plays agaubst Sheffield at Bramall Lane in 1872-3. JH (talk page) 09:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Dawson
Per your comments at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, I have indef blocked this user until they commit to contributing in a more constructive manner. I have marked the matter resolved, but if he pops up again feel free to let me know. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Hi. Thanks very much for your help.  As you say, editors must act constructively.  I'm always happy to help someone who is learning and means well but this character was definitely trying something on.  Jack | talk page 11:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Harris
Alas, as CricInfo is the only source readily available to me, all I can do it start out. Feel free to be bold. SGGH ping! 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

re Arthur Booth
I wonder how a players with such a limited career in fcc be anything other than a 'stub' class. What would you add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.1.153 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Plenty. His best performances in 1946 and the significance of his efforts to Yorkshire's title for a start.  His career in minor counties.  His war record.  His career after he finished playing as he was still involved in the game.  His personal and family life.  His style and technique as a player, especially as a bowler.  All of that if suitably referenced could easily move the article up to B-class.  Jack | talk page 16:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should look in from Lads to Lords —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.144.26 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly. That covers cricket to 1787 whereas Booth played in the 20th century.  Jack | talk page 05:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Maps in infoboxes
Hi. Can you offer your thought on the template talk page of having a pointless map in a navigation template such as Template:Postalhistorybycountry. It bloats an already oversized navigation templates and really has no purpose. If people are so dumb that they don't know where Asia is they can look... I propose we split the template into seperate ones by continent Himalayan   10:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

New articles
Hi. I've stubbed Postage stamps and postal history of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Postage stamps and postal history of Bahrain, Postage stamps and postal history of Bhutan, Postage stamps and postal history of Cambodia, Postage stamps and postal history of Albania, Postage stamps and postal history of Belarus, Postage stamps and postal history of Belgium, Postage stamps and postal history of Andorra today. Could you expand a few of them in your own time? Gradually we'll get most of them up and running on here... I'll start with A-D... Himalayan  21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Whitespace?
Hi Jack. I saw your "delist" comment at the List of Cricket World Cup records. I agree there's a lot to do, but you specifically mentioned problems with whitespace. I've tried the page in both Safari and Firefox and have no problems. Are you referring to the space between the TOC, the picture of the World Cup, and the Notation section? If so then that shouldn't be a major issue, I'll collapse the TOC down to level 1 only and when I've expanded the lead, we should have no major problems. Anyway, if you're having problems with other images (you said they were aligned incorrectly?), could you help me out with exactly what you're seeing? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have I solved the whitespace problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dr Tillmann"
Blackjack has nobly edited thousands of articles. However, in line with the precepts of historical research it must be pointed out, as it has been in the past, that he frequently references sources he himself has compiled and published on the web. Within these works which are essentially lists compiled from several secondary sources, are unsubstantiated claims about the origins of cricket and a few assertions, perhaps accidentally, written in such a way that suggest they are either the result of blackjacks own PRIMARY research or are cribbed from other established reference books. In strictly research terms this is more a little unsatisfactory albeit that blackjack has created many excellent inserts to the project. It is interesting that blackjack is often critical of others referencing when his own is, in one sense, non-existant. Dr A Tillmann


 * It is true that I have included my own site as an external link in those articles where it is relevant to the subject-matter. But, and this has arisen before, the earlier sources are also given and they are used in the inline citations.  So, where a piece of information is taken from G B Buckley's book, for example, and is also on my site because I got it from Buckley, I always use Buckley as the citation in the article while my site is mentioned merely for further reading.  I justify this because the works of Messrs Buckley, F S Ashley-Cooper, H T Waghorn and Arthur Haygarth are mutually exclusive of each other.  Buckley even goes so far as to add further details of a match reported by Waghorn but not repeating or altering any of the information in Waghorn (even when Waghorn had made one of his frequent errors), hence it is sometimes necessary to cite both sources re a single match.  The main objective of my site was to consolidate the works of these four gentlemen, and a few others, in one volume covering the period in question (i.e., to the opening of Lord's Old Ground and the foundation of MCC in 1787).  Therefore, I provide all the match references found in their books but in one volume.  Given that their books are relatively rare and few people possess all of them, I think (and feedback I've received supports this) that it is very useful for readers to have one ready reference that covers everything (or at least tries to cover everything) instead of getting only part of the picture from one individual author.


 * Now it must be said that other users have edited these articles since I first introduced them in 2005–07 and some of these people have looked at my site and used me as their source. I can't help that, but I did once query it with one of them and he responded that he was citing the source he had himself used per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.  There is no answer to that given that he doesn't have the books by Buckley & Co.


 * All the stuff about cribbing other people's work is nonsense when you read my main objective, stated above, about consolidating the earlier sources. In any case, how often do you see a book that consists entirely of original research?  Well, I can immediately name all the books by my four authors that cover the 18th century because they took everything from contemporary newspapers or scorecards.  But what of the myriad of other books we use for our references?  How many of the source books used for the Invincibles articles were the result of original research?  Taking one at random, Chris Harte's History of Australian Cricket, this has a bibliography that runs to five pages.  So, would it be true that Mr Harte is also guilty of the sin of "in strictly research terms this is more a little unsatisfactory"?  The fact is that, unless you are one of the very few authors who do perform original research, the vast majority of authors perform research by scouring other books for relevant material.  Nowhere do I claim to have done original research except when I provide my own analysis of a situation which is unclear due to missing data.  I make clear from the start what my main objective is and I have a very large bibliography page myself.  What can possibly be the problem with that?  The mind boggles.


 * "Unsubstantiated claims" is rather a stupid thing to say about an author's own analysis of the available data. Clearly this person is not an analyst, whereas I am a professional analyst.  The whole point of analysis, to try and deduce what must have taken place when there are no definite facts available, is to form a theory about what happened based on the data that is available.  In my work, I have made clear that anything which does not cite an earlier source is my own analysis and people can take that or leave it. "Dr Tillmann" has completely missed the point.


 * As for me being "critical of others referencing", I'm puzzled by that because it isn't something I do very often at all. I tend to use certain books that I rely on and I accept that other people use other books that they rely on.  One prominent member of WP:CRIC cites John Arlott frequently, and quite right too, whereas I have only recently started referring to Arlott because until last month I had not owned any of his books.  I can answer the questions about my site easily enough but I'm afraid he's got me with this "others referencing" thing and I can only say he must have taken one comment I've made somewhere completely out of context.


 * So there you are, that is what I am about, although some of our longer serving members have seen it before and are probably and justifiably fed up of it. I have nothing to hide from the likes of "Dr Tillmann".  I'm not really interested to know where he is coming from, though I think I can guess.  Jack | talk page 10:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the references to Bj's lists of classification of matches and the text appended to that (His work on 1800- etc on Cricket). The text is dubious historically and not a reliable source. His match list is his own and whilst it has 99 percent congruity with the 'official' lists (from which it is cribbed) - there are, or have been variations. The refs should be published works of credibility not one's own lists and speculations. The ACS, cricketarchive, Bowen et al have a track record and met with the approval and provenance of the cricket 'academic' fraternity. I haven't time to go into precise detail but the first para of Bj's Classification of Matches(link from several of his edits) proves this point, at least to my satisfaction. Bj is very quick to, well slag others off. Anything he edits, whilst usually sound, does carry a health warning. It is not used by the mainstream cricket historian, of that I can assure you completely. ==Dr A Tillmann== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.17.237 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that at least makes it clear enough where you are coming from. Would you by any chance be the person who sent an anonymous letter to my wife in early 2008 objecting to my work on the internet and caused her distress?  If not, do you have any information about who that person is?
 * I'll take your points in order. If you think the articles in the English cricket season series should be amended then follow the guideline in WP:BOLD and do it.  As long as you abide by site rules, there is nothing to stop you.
 * There are no official lists. Any list of first-class matches prior to the ICC ruling is the author's own opinion and I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours.
 * My classification was not "cribbed". I devised it myself from the matches in From Lads to Lord's which, as I have already explained, is entirely based on the works of Buckley, Waghorn & Co.  For the period from 1787 to 1825, I relied almost entirely on Haygarth, some of whose matches are not found on CricketArchive while I discounted a handful that are on CA because I disagree that they were first-class matches. If you think I cribbed it, which list is identical that it could have been cribbed from?
 * When you talk about the first paragraph of my webpage proving a point, I'm afraid you've lost me. Please explain what you mean.
 * As for "slagging others off", the words "pot" and "kettle" come to mind given some of the stuff I've had to read.
 * And as for your final point, you appear to attach quite a lot of importance to cricket history on Wikipedia and on the internet generally so you may even agree with me that the "mainstream cricket historian" now is the internet. If a cricket fan wants to learn something about an early cricketer, what does he do?  He goes to Google and types in a name, say, Robert Colchin.  In fact, I've just done it and, guess what, the first thing that appears is the WP article about him.  Given that I wrote that article, it does rather look as if my work is indeed used by cricket's mainstream history.  Not only that, the eighth item in the Google search for Colchin is my biography of him in From Lads to Lord's.  You'd be amazed by how much credibility some people give to Google searches and there are numerous members of this site who insist that a high placing in a Google search confers WP:Notability.  I don't agree with that personally, but some people will argue the point all day long (as those of us who were involved in the Bill O'Reilly debate will recall).
 * Reading what you have to say, and given also that I think I know who you are, why don't you join Wikipedia and make regular contributions? We need much more historical coverage.  Jack | talk page 12:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the Colchin article, I notice that my site is used for citation re one point but this was done by another editor, who introduced the citation when he made this edit. If he chooses to do that, it's up to him.  Jack | talk page 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about the 1800–15 series, you have a point as I have admitted on WT:CRIC. I've left Haygarth as the key source for the individual matches which is the correct approach, so thanks for pointing that out. But I would be interested in hearing from you further re some of the points I have made. Jack | talk page 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of Cricket World Cup records/archive1
Hi, can you revisit to see what else is to be done here? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No hurry, but if you don't have time to revisit, can you state that your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for your prompt response. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Verity
I've undone your edit and it strikes me that whoever wrote the article did quite a good job once the pov was eradicated. I indicated that Verity is seen bowling on British Pathe. Cricketarchive is a primary - secondary site in a sense that many scorecards go straight on and the statistical stuff done by Phil Bailey is original.. Hills book is a good read but it is weak on sources. YCCC hold stacks of reports etc but many journalists wish not to rock the boat by quoting them. Remember how long Kilburn was YP reporter - lovely writer but hardly a historian and there is a big difference. The book on Blythe is the best example of this - well written hut in fact has no sources because in this case there were none to be had and thus the book is completely speculative. I do have access to a great library of my own and others resources. You can contact me at the web site of the former acs editor. Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.242.53 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

++Verity++ You must be highly ignorant as I directed you specifically to watch the Pathe film. As a professional historian I know a deal more about sources being challenged in the world of academic literature rather than Wikipeople. I have reverted the edit which is important as a it quotes a PRIMARY SOURCE. I suggest a dictionary in the new year to discover what this is. Allen Hill's book is all fine and dandy but it was not a scholarly work - few cricket books are - exceptions being those by Rosenwater, Wynne-Thomas, Frith(Usually), Warsop, Midwinter. Haygarth did not write a book, he compiled sources from Primary Documents with his own annotation. I have a doctorate from Lancaster though beleivig Doctors are really medical practitioners I have not used the title since recieving it in 1993. My subject was commenwealth writing in England before 1955(Windrush etc). It required two years of research from, yes, chiefly Primary SOURCES. Please do not enter regions beyond your wit. Tillmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.19.235 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This site does NOT recognise primary sources. Read WP:PRIMARY.  Your own ignorance is evident from your inability to use the site properly.  You can't even sign your posts.  All posture and no contribution is what we have seen from you.  If you are so sure that you are right about your Pathe News item, then ask the admins at WP:ANI and see what they say about it.  I think it is odds on that they will back me up.
 * If you are such a superior being, then what are you doing down here among the "wikipeople"? Evidently you know little about the "wikipeople" as this site is used by numerous individuals with high academic qualifications, including some who are members of the cricket project.  As for your qualifications, so what?  If your subject is "commenwealth writing" then why can't you even spell it?
 * You are entitled to your opinion about what constitutes a scholarly work but I think you will find that a lot of people disagree with you. Wikipedia for its part is currently rated the fourth most read site on the internet worldwide and it contains thousands of articles that are widely considered scholarly, including some written by members of the cricket project.  Where, for instance, will you find a better internet article about Bradman (the best cricket biography anywhere on the internet) or Grace (which is still unfinished) than here on Wikipedia?  Unless you can write a "scholarly" article on Wikipedia yourself, I suggest you go back to the ACS and stay there.  Jack | talk page 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well as most people who have dealt with you will accept, one has only to set you off and you hang yourself. The Sun is the most popular paper in the UK - it doesn't render it a work of much value. There are scholarly articles on Wikipedia, usually redrafts of scholarly papers - sometimes, not always by the original author. As any half decent historian will tell you, indeed any first year student, primary sources are what it is about. We only have your opinion as to the so called first class status of several pre 1790 cricket matches. My opinion of HV's bowling can be verified by visiting the site. I give a guide for the general reader, like the article, like 99 percent of the Cricket articles. Incidentally I have no connection with ACS - I am too busy with work. Oh and I am a professional writer being author or part author of over a hundred sleeve inserts for classical music labels as well as perhaps two hundred published articles on that subject and fifty on other subjects(mostly Commenwealth Authors). I of course have writtern numerous cricket related articles and occasionally, during lacunae, see if there are any bits to fill in. The difference between you and I John is that you copy things out of book whilst I, and my academic colleagues, find the things that go in the books. You might remember I actually let your pre 1800 stuff get into print despite numerous critical remarks from ACS committee people. Of all the articles I included it received the most brick-bats and was part of the reason I left them all to it. However I've got to get back to the day job having been away. A.Tillman(I can never rember the password to log on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.18.6 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times do you have to be told that Wikipedia does not accept primary source material and that its entire purpose, as a tertiary source, is to document material derived from secondary sources? Why can't you get that into your skull?  And, as that policy is clearly so unacceptable to you, why do you bother with this site at all?  Why not find another site that welcomes your "original" research into material already published by Messrs Ashley-Cooper, Buckley and Waghorn?  You equate original research with true scholarly research which encompasses all relevant sources whether primary, secondary or even tertiary (like Wikipedia).  Your chum Mr Wynne-Thomas has published several books but are you saying that everything he has written is derived from primary sources?  I rather think he has found a few things in secondary sources as well, don't you?
 * So I get my material from books, do I, like 99.9% of writers? Well, I can live with that, although it shows how little you know because, like most writers, I also study primary sources: though only occasionally for cricket.  Cricket is but one of my interests as a writer, for your information.  As for my qualifications, I don't bang on about them like you, mainly because they were so long ago and have no direct relevance to what I have been doing for the last eon or two.  However, although I have been to Lancaster and like the place very much, my academic affiliation is to a much older and, dare I say, more prestigious institution whose teams I still support in The Boat Race and the various Varsity Matches.  Okay?
 * Now lets consider you, seeing as you have confirmed who you are. I was given the story of your editorship by the then chairman of the ACS who summarised your tenure as an "ego trip".  I'm told that you were effectively if not actually dismissed from your post because you were not up to the job and were driving the proofreader to distraction with your unsatisfactory spelling and grammar, not to mention annoying numerous members with the sort of rudeness and arrogance that has often been evident in your posts on Wikipedia.  As for the pre-1800 stuff that you keep wittering on about, your pal Mr Warsop co-wrote that with me and your other pal Mr W-T reviewed it before we (not I) submitted it to you.  It was in my name at Mr Warsop's insistence because I set the ball rolling and did all the typing. I still have the correspondence which Mr Warsop sent me and, guess what, he used books published by Haygarth, Britcher, etc.  Secondary sources!  Shock, horror.
 * Furthermore, if that stuff did receive a few brickbats, I really could not care less. I moved on from the ACS because it wasted my time.  But I learned that, in its reviews, it has a tendency to hurl brickbats and the authors who receive them just keep on doing what they are doing and take little if any notice.  Besides, I have several e-mails from people who enjoyed my work.  You take the rough with the smooth and carry on.  If someone provides constructive criticism or points me towards something useful that I've previously missed, I take note and usually act on what they say.  So, while I have noted your comments about original research (as if I don't know what it is), I will continue to acquire material from other people's books and will continue to study primary sources when I think they are appropriate.  I even use Commonwealth (please note the correct spelling) writers in my researches.
 * I suggest you forget about the ACS if you must "contribute" to my talk page because I am not interested. As for forgetting your password, re-register under another name.  Jack | talk page 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A final word. I have included a reference to the Pathe News footage within Hedley Verity and I have done it according to site policy and guidelines with NO WP:OR or WP:POV.  See that as an example of how to present this sort of information correctly.  If you want to use the site, comply with its standards.  Jack | talk page 07:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just one more word. I've reported your activity to WP:ANI and requested that they protect Hedley Verity so that only recognised users like myself can edit it.  This will effectively ban you from editing that article.  Jack | talk page 09:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that the ACS people are self publishing and I am in the professional domain. Oh Well John Carry On Editing and take your ball home. Researches is not a word - it is research. Indication of a lack of experience perhaps? Till —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.17.165 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pathetic. To the archive for this crap.  Jack | talk page 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:ICC associate and affiliate member competitions
I have nominated icc associate and affiliate member competitions for renaming to international cricket council associate and affiliate member competitions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation
Having received an e-mail from User:Dweller, I have read this discussion and would like to say that I very much appreciate the response of the community at WP:AN.

My purpose on here was always to provide meaningful edits that are hopefully of value to the readers. Although I acknowledge the efforts of the administrators and have generally complied with the site rules myself, I admit I never acquired any expert knowledge of how the site operates or why certain rules are in place. As Dweller has outlined, I have had ongoing problems with another person who "followed" me onto the site with the intention of trying to discredit me specifically and generally making things difficult for other WP:CRIC users. Thanks to Dweller, this person was eventually blocked but not before I had taken unilateral action to try and protect my interests.

Having discussed things with Dweller, I realise now that my actions were not always wise in the context of how the site operates and that I should have worked with the administrators to sort out my problems. So, I apologise for not having done that but I would point out that I never sought any special advantage for myself and I think that was made clear by those members of WP:CRIC who had a discussion about my case last month. If I were able to begin editing again, I would certainly work closely with the admins in future and always seek their guidance before committing myself on any point of order. For example, I note that one of the contributors to WP:AN deplores my habit of referring to vandals as "infantile" and, okay, I take that on board and accept it is something I should not have done, no matter how much it has tried my patience.

I should point out that the person who has been the main cause of my problems is still active on the site, mainly using dynamic IP addresses, and I am aware that some articles I created have been attacked during my absence. He even launched himself into the WP:AN discussion and tried to create a diversion in this discussion on WP:ANI. There is no doubt that he will continue to make a nuisance of himself whether I am on the site or not, but I think that if I could resume editing, and given that I would then work closely with the admins and within site policy, the cricket project would be in a much stronger position to protect its interests.

That's all I have to say. If anyone wants to ask me anything, please do so here or, if it is about a point of policy arising from the WP:AN discussion, please contact Dweller at his talk page. Thanks again for the kind words at WP:AN. Jack | talk page 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked
I have unblocked your account, per your request here, Dweller's request on my talk page, and the AN discussion. Please let me know if you have questions or if there is anything with which I can help you. TN X Man 13:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes
Hi, I'm very new at this and was after some guidance. As you know, I have been trying to update the Wilfred Rhodes article. I was wondering if it is going to be too long at the rate it is going as I've expanded it up to 1908 but there is still quite a bit that could go in. I was also wondering if you knew of any reliable source that would back up saying that Rhodes (and many other spinners) would regularly open the bowling in the 1890s and 1900s. Thanks.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

More on Wilfred Rhodes
Hello again. Thanks for the help earlier. I would like one more piece of help! I think I've done as much as I can with Wilfred Rhodes for now apart from the odd tweak here and there. I was wondering what is the best way forward. I would like other people to have a look at it, and I would hope it is now better than Start-Class. What should the next step be? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

fifth columnist
Jack! I do'nt do any hack(ing). One need not be afraid of பரிதிமதி. By the way, I liked your pun! பரிதிமதி = parithimathi means sun and moon in Tamil. Pl find time to think about the fifth column proposal to include Twenty 20. --parithimathi 13:21, 9 December 2009

AfD nomination of Hooker (Kent cricketer) and others
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Hooker (Kent cricketer), Drew (Kent cricketer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Articles for deletion/Hooker (Kent cricketer) for Hooker (Kent cricketer), Articles for deletion/Drew (Kent cricketer) for Drew (Kent cricketer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Richie Benaud photo
I agree with you that the Benaud pic as a player is more suitable at the top, but I'd like to restore the one you removed & put it in the media section. But I can't understand how the mark-up for photos works. Just dragging & pasting it doesn't work. There must be a magic ingredient! Can you help, please? Rothorpe (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wanted, thanks! And for the tips, which I'll keep for reference. Cheers - Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wally Hammond
Hi. I've been working on Hammond's article as it seemed very brief for a cricketer of his importance. I was wondering about the list of test centuries at the end of the article. Not many good articles seem to have anything like this. Could it be taken out to tidy up the article, or would I be treading on someone's toes? I'm hoping to work on a few pre-war cricketers who have short articles or don't give many details.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance here! Why did you place a question mark after the word "team" and put it in brackets? I suspect I phrased it badly but not too sure what correct phrasing should be.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, should have been parents' team. Oops! Just a minor detail to leave out!--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshire captaincy 1927
Hi again, Jack. Just thinking out loud and wanted a bit of advice. When I was working on the Wilfred Rhodes article I had a thought. I was wondering if there is any scope for an article about either the Yorkshire "captaincy crisis" in 1927 where Sutcliffe was chosen as captain then forced to withdraw, or about Yorkshire captains in general in the 1920s or between the wars. There is certainly enough material to write a fairly detailed article but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate. What would your opinion be? It could be covered in the Herbert Sutcliffe article, but that isn't in a good state, and is another one on my list to expand.--Sarastro1 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at creating the article, Yorkshire captaincy crisis of 1927, but haven't put in any links or put it into any catergories yet. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and give me a bit of advice about what needs doing to it now. Thanks.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Further to this, something appeared immediately on the talk page from "A Tillman" who seems to have a lot to say for himself. He seems to be advocating what seems to me to be original research, but I could be wrong. He also seems to have been tweaking the Hedley Verity article, without adding much to it (there were some very dodgy references which I fixed and what seems to me like original research again).--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One further point. I noticed that you had a look at the Verity article. He does have a good biography, by a certain Alan Hill!!! There are a few other good sources I have access to, and I am hoping to start improving this article shortly.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Olympics
Hello, my favourite belligerent gnome. Hope you're well. Not sure I agree with you on removing this. It may be fairly insignificant in cricket's eyes, but not, for example, in the eyes of people interested in Olympic history. Takes up a minute amount of space - I think it's worth keeping. It's an interesting historical quirk for us cricket lovers, too. --Dweller (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

South Africa edit
Hi - just wondering why your recent reversion on South Africa national cricket team was done. Last time I checked, Trott didn't play for South Africa! Andrew nixon (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I wanted to email you, but you're not enabled for it. If you could possibly drop me a message (I am email enabled) I'll reply. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello BlackJack! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Timothy J. McCann -
 * 2) Ian Quick -

Sobers
I've started expanding Sobers, which should be fun. Though, I'm going to merge the League cricket, Sheffield Shield and County cricket sections into the main body of the article if that's alright.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)