User talk:BlackJack/Archive 9

Some more grounds
Hi Jack. Going through Kent now, just wondering if you've already covered Bowman's Lodge and Cobham Park? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1841 in sports listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pre-1841 in sports. Since you had some involvement with the Pre-1841 in sports redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs
I'm glad to see that you're working on this article. It's something that I've long been aware needed doing, but that I've never managed to get around to myself. JH (talk page) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "If you want to join me and pick up a later phase, that would be great..." Thanks. I can't promise anything, but if time permits, I'll try to contribute. I have Ronald Mason's book (though not Arlott's), and I also have Ralph Barker's "10 Grsat Innings", which goes into the 1926 Oval Test in great detail. JH (talk page) 08:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, but I can't see any point in reverting all the bot-produced "citation needed" templates that included the date with a simple "cn". especially as the bot is probably going to come along again in a day or two and revert them back. Similarly deleting the persondata template that a bot has added seems rather pointless for the same reason. As I understand it, the persondata information isn't intended for human readers but for bots. and since it isn't visible when reading the article in the ordinary way does no harm. JH (talk page) 17:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Our friend below is acually right, unusually, but as usual has not provided a ref for it in the article. If you do want to include it (and I'm not sure it's that important, unless it is compared to bowlers who dismissed him most often) there is no way to give a ref from CA which gives that info. In most FAs, this format is used which links to a list of Hobbs' complete innings and the reader who really wants to check can look at all of the innings: Forgive me if you already knew this, feel free to ignore it completely, and nice work so far. When it's done, this and Sutcliffe really ought to be going for GA and FA! Nudge, nudge. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I added a sentence or two to the effect that his nickname of The Master was bestowed on him by his then Surrey captain, Douglas Jardine, in (if I recall correctly) 1932 - as an aside, that's surprisingly late in his career. I properly sourced this (IIRC it came from Mason's book). I'm a little sad that it seems to have disappeared somewhere along the way. Since, annoyingly, Mason's book doesn't have an index it's not trivial for me to restore it. JH (talk page) 18:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. JH (talk page) 19:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I have the same edition as you. I thought that I remembered that it lacked an index, but when I looked I found that it had one. So I owe you an apology. BTW I checked with CA, and Mason appears to have his facts about that Essex match correct, at least as far as the scores go. I imagine from Mason saying something about it being a tense situation that Surrey had to chase the runs for the win against the clock, but unfortunately I couldn't confirm that. JH (talk page) 21:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Noises Off
Well I corrected a string of misleading errors on the cricket grounds and corrected small errors and made little add ins to the efforts of others. As I write about 5000 words a week I do not have time to write articles.

Note that most of the cricket articles are summaries of a few basic sources though there are exceptions. Nothing wrong with that except for the contention of some that this is terribly important and the WP article exceeds all others in magnificent. WP is open access I can access it as I choose. I normally do this if I spot an error.

My work is concerned with the analysis of original research which it was with ACS in the original pre 1900 match scores. In those days our names appeared in small type even if the book was largely one persons work. At that time we explored the primary scores of the work appearing in Haygarth and read extensively about the context in period sources. This my argument(and others) with you making claims for pre 1800 matches without access to primary supporting sources.

This is not to say that the ACS is not without big mistakes. Take List A which(although I have no real interest in it as I see only limited amusement in one day records) is plain nonsense as it excludes nearly fifty matches which county record books have always counted.

I have no grumbles at all about the Hobbs, Sutcliffe etc things you have done. You have made mistakes(inevitable in this type of work) and do not have a full range of sources but that is not important. Your problem is you are far too precious about what you write.

Remember John, all these mini-bios have been done before, usually worse because the book writers often write to formula, time limits and a certain ignorance when a 'name' is needed to flog the book. But they have been done before.

I cannot believe much could be added to Rae's book on WG but Rosenwater on DGB was missing anything about technique and personalilty. Of course most cricket bios are exorcised of the real story of contentious issues. Has anyone written a truthful bio of Cowdrey?

All statistical information can be accessed via the PlayerOrcale including how often someone scored 22. For fun it is amusing to see how often Hollies scored more than 10.___KestevenBullet (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you did well to spot the errors on the venues but it seems to me that the main problem is around the issue of notability since people tend to think in terms of first-class status and forget that a venue may be used by a local club too. The trouble is that the local club might not meet the notability criteria and some people get very hung up on that.


 * Unfortunately, there are some people who take WP too seriously and I admit I have sometimes done this myself, but it comes to down to pride in one's own work and it is easy to get carried away. You are right that many articles are only summaries and many more (i.e., stubs) provide what is only a definition or the barest high-level description.  There is nothing magnificent about anything on this site for the very reason that original thought is prohibited.  There is no Beyond a Boundary on Wikipedia.


 * I write articles, reports, specifications and other material in my professional sphere and, as I can express myself freely when an opinion or recommendation is necessary, I believe my professional work is much better than anything I write on here. But I find that to write within strict guidelines around style and verifiable sources, especially where it must be cited, engenders good discipline and so I always aim to produce a good quality article within the constraints I am limited by.  It's up to others to decide if it is any good.  I've been satisfied with some of the stuff I've done on here but I know I could write it all so much better if I could express myself.  But there is some good stuff here.  I think Sarastro's work on Wilfred Rhodes has been excellent and the Australian contingent did a very good job on Bradman (possibly better than Rosenwater).  There are other pieces that have been done well too but the fact remains that there is an overwhelming mass of stuff which has just been started, or has been developed up to a point, and then abandoned; or which has gone in a completely wrong direction due to a lack of both scope and structure; or which has just been badly written.  For example, most of the articles about Yorkshire cricketers are very poor, in my opinion.


 * I didn't know the ACS had fouled up on ListA which is supposed to be their flagship, although it was essentially one man's vision and endeavor that got it accepted by ICC. My big complaint was another huge mistake of theirs in failing to understand for 37 years that first-class statistics date from 1772.  How they could claim on one hand that first-class began with the inaugural GvP in 1806 and then used 1801 as their start date was contradictory and illogical.  Anyway, reason finally prevailed and I no longer have a problem with them, though I will never rejoin because I still think they are a waste of time.  I agree with you about limited overs games.


 * The only book on Colin Cowdrey that I've read was his autobiography. A searching biography would certainly be worth reading.


 * Thanks for the advice about the Oracle which I do know about but make little use of. The problem is how to cite it so that the information can be utilised.  It comes down to three parameters but how to express that?  I will see what I can do.


 * I wonder if Hollies was a worse batsman than Bill Bowes or Courtenay Walsh? Jack | talk page 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hobbs
This is fine though the statistical analysis is in the ACS reprint of the Hobbs book(Done by D Lodges brother) I would atgue that there is nothing primary in this as the information exists on the database and technically all searches and calculations actually exist - they are simply waiting to be realised. The 1806 date was to create an accurate statistical compendium of all scores. It was argued correctly that all post 1806 scores were more or less known(A handful were found) It is my belief as it was 20 years ago that it is likely to be impossible to track down all pre 1800 scores because in parts of the country there were few written records and fewer that are extanct. However both Keith Warsop and I have always believed that scores of major and minor matches should be compiled and acted thereon. I do not really hold with the term first class or county matches. They are really matches of importance and less importance and were played by teams styled county elevens.(In relation to pre 1815 cricket) I also contend, with little support, that matches played in Shropshire 1835-50 were 'important.' Few people have read the sources though. To me, matches pre 1815 are important or less important. Pre 1889 I see them as Important or second class. This might seem like Irish but it chimes in rather more with contemporary language and I would include(and argued for) more matches in the ACS match books). Post 1890 when the CC came into being Officially, I move onto First class. I beleive Grace's total should be the larger ones because AT THE Time, the games were important. I have some supporters!.

I also wish that Peter Griffiths at CA used a better system for configuring the scorecards which despite a useful piece of software I cannot print them off properly.KestevenBullet (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wisden on Hobbs
Excellent additional material from his Wisden obituary. The same edition marked his death with a feature article by Neville Cardus that almost certainly has a lot of useful stuff, though of course with Cardus one always has to be careful to separate fact from myth-making. JH (talk page) 09:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Checking my own copy of the 1964 Wisden, I see that you're quite right. In the Obituaries section, for Hobbs it just has a redirection to the Features section. And there is the same acknowledgement there to The Guardian that you mebtion. I suppose that Cardus was by such a wide margin the pre-eminent cricket writer of the time that Wisden felt that they could do no better than use his Guardian piece. (1964 is the first Wisden that I have. I was aged fifteen at the time. It was a good one with which to start: the 101st edition so the start of their second century, including coverage of the classic England-West Indies Test series in 1963, and the obituaries of both Hobbs and Warner. It's now only another three years until - if all goes well - I shall be buying my 50th edition. They do take up an awful lot of shelf spacem though!) JH (talk page) 20:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Italian post in Saseno for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Italian post in Saseno, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Italian post in Saseno until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bongo  matic  03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about searching for new articles
Hi YM. Do you know of a way to display a list of recently created articles that have been placed in one of the cricket-related categories? No problem if you don't know of one. Thanks. By the way, I like those photos of the lady cricketers. Some of them are very nice indeed. :-) Jack | talk page 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You should vote then :) User:AlexNewArtBot/VietnamSearchResult etc can do a search for anything new that has cricket etc in it, so it can catch everything related, even if it was uncategorised by the author.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Central Recreation Ground, Hastings
I see that you've removed the "DEFAULTSORT:Hastings,Central Recreation Ground" that I put in. My idea was that it is far easier for people to find the ground that they are looking for if it's listed by alphabetical order of the town name within the category. People always thought of the ground as "Hastings", and I bet that not many cricket followers knew that it was actually the Central Recreation Ground. JH (talk page) 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * H'mm. Difficult one, John.  I was really doing it by the book but, as you say, the ground has always been called Hastings.  Okay, I'll revert it.  Jack | talk page 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JH (talk page) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajat Sharma (cricketer)
Hi BlackJack Rajat Sharma (cricketer) isn't patent nonsense, but if you think it is a hoax then a hoax tag would be applicable.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added a hoax tag. What is the difference between a hoax and patent nonsense?  The bottom line is that this is invention because this person is not a first-class cricketer (and therefore not notable) as I have explained on the talk page of the article.  Jack | talk page 22:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A hoax is where the something looks plausible but is deliberately false "effortless Moon and the ramp alternative were a music group who had three UK number ones in the 1980s", whilst "effortless Moon and the ramp alternative were a 1980s music group who had a real cool name and would have been really big if they'd ever actually played" is more A7. patent nonsense is more along the lines of "kkkll oppyut in the 1980s". More details at Criteria for speedy deletion. Cheers  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, I've listed it at AFD - we'll get rid of it that way. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi AA. I can't believe that we cannot use the speedy, but AFD must do the trick.  Jack | talk page 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Sutcliffe
It would be a pleasure to help in any way I can. However, I would suggest putting it up for Peer Review first, as they like it more at FAC if it has had a review first. And I suspect that length is going to be a problem. Let me know of anything I can do. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Too late, it's already at FAC! Never mind. Good luck. And again, anything I can do. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it depends. Not always. If I think an article requires tightening up or I'm not sure, I'd go for peer review. But sometimes, I just go for it. Sometimes reviewers can be a little funny if there is too much to do, but I don't see that as a problem. I almost always go for GA first, but not everyone does. And now you're at FAC, you can't be at PR at the same time. The main problem with sports articles generally is finding someone to review them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of sports, not many. There are very British sports articles (although there are lots at GA). Most that come up at FAC are North American, such as ice-hockey and American Football, and the quality is variable. But even these struggle, although I think baseball does OK. The most reviewed articles are by those who are regulars at FAC or who do a lot of reviews themselves. It tends to be interesting articles that get most attention. I think sports is slightly sniffed upon as the writing can be a little obscure to non-sportsmen. Cricket does OK, but the main reviewers are Yellowmonkey and Giants2008. DCGeist has done a couple of cricket ones, and he is very good, and I usually chip in if it's sports. What usually happens though, one or two will review and then it will sit unattended for weeks. If nothing happens, it will usually just fade away. In many ways, it's better to get lots of opposes, at least it gives something to work on. The other problem is that no-one at WP:CRIC ever reviews except Harrias, so there aren't many reviewers who know much the sport. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Grace centuries list
Thanks for your comments, I have replied to your comments here.  Harrias  talk 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom
Please do not remove Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom as a parent category for each of Category:Cricket grounds in England, Category:Cricket grounds in Scotland, Category:Cricket grounds in Wales, and Category:Cricket grounds in Northern Ireland. The first time you did this, the issue went to WP:CFD and the consensus there was that Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom should be kept and re-populated. See here. I repopulated it, but then you removed them again. There is no reason the 4 categories can't be in both Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom and Category:Cricket grounds by country, if that's what the issue is about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Early Cricketer
Template:Infobox Early Cricketer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bosanquet
Bosanquet is at FAC at the moment. I know you are not a fan of FAC, but if you have access to anything about Bosie, could you let me know. I think the main issue is that no general histories are cited, just online refs from Wisden, etc. Anything you have would be appreciated, don't worry if not. Even if there is nothing new, it may be good to have an alternate source for some of the info which is in print rather than online. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you have Frith's Golden Age book. If possible, could you check that for me? Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you don't have another stalker! I remember the Rhodes picture in his infobox came from Frith's book. Harrias already checked that book for me, but anything else after xmas would be appreciated. And I'm OK for photos, some decent ones in there and I've more myself if necessary. On a related note, have you noticed User:Nigej adding some great photos from old books? I also noticed they are reissuing Old Ebor's Talks with Old Cricketers (according to Amazon). Have a great Christmas! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

18th century Hampshire cricketers
Thanks for the tip Jack! Have a great 2011 yourself! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview request
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cricket for an article for The Signpost in January. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, please let me know on my talk page. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please let me know as well. I have also invited Dweller for the interview. I take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and a Happy New Year. – SMasters (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

W.G. Grace
Thanks for the request you posted on my talk page. My first time-consuming attempt to improve the article's punctuation was undone, without discussion on the Talk Page - I believe by you. I restored most of my changes and posted the reasons for them. I did not have time to restore them all. It is open to any editor, of course, to continue improving the page at any time.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Since posting the above, I've read the discussion on the Talk Page. You are wrong about "G.F. Grace" as I have explained there, with references. It seems the only valid reason you had for reverting my edits wholesale was that MCC should not have periods.  If you had just removed the periods from MCC, the current untidiness would not exist. Since I see that a current featured article candidate (Bernard Bosanquet) makes the "mistake" of including periods in M.C.C., there was really no basis for your revert. I might have missed something, but I spent a lot of time inserting periods consistently.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * The reason for making a point of improving the punctuation at Grace's article is precisely because he has been so well known by his initals alone. "W.G." was iconic in its day, "WG" was not.  As for your MCC point, I have no strongly feelings, but judging by the progress of the Bernard Bosanquet featured article nomination, many involved in the cricket projects are perfectly happy with "M.C.C.".  I think the storm in a teacup, as you rightly call it, was stirred up by your insistence that your position on all the points at issue was unassailable.  Not so.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * "I spent a lot of time inserting periods consistently". Did you really?  As for your statement that "W.G. was iconic in its day, WG was not", I suggest you read that aloud and remember that people called him "Double-you-Gee".  How they wrote it then and how people write it now is not the point at all.  The point is that the article did have a consistent usage that was not in breach of any site rules and complied with the, albeit not mandatory, consensus agreed years ago by WP:CRIC.  Then you come along with your insistence on "inserting the periods" and what have you achieved?  Absolutely nothing.  Jack | talk page 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Relax. You could have discussed my edits on the talk page, but instead you reverted wholesale, then justified that by pointing to three errors. I've shown everybody you were wrong in every case. Time to stop digging the hole, I suggest. Or why not go and revise the other prominent cricket articles which make the "mistake" of using "M.C.C." if it's so urgent and important to protect readers?KD Tries Again (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Billy Beldham
I'm surprised you haven't got it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.62.194 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Cricketers of My Time"
I'm glad that you've created this article. It's been on my own "to do" list for some time (along with many other candidates). JH (talk page) 10:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I may find time to do something tomorrow, though I'm not sure that I have any sources that would add anything to what you've already written. I'd like to think that the Rev John Mitford who reviewed it could be the brother of Mary Russell Mitford, who so memorably wrote of her own local village team in Our Village, but that's probably too much to hope for. Thanks for the New Year wishes, and a Happy New Year to you too. JH (talk page) 18:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that research. Since the article isn't about the Rev John Mitford, the relationship clearly isn't worth mentioning, but it's interesting. (And I see that Nancy Mitford and co came from a later generation of the same clan.) JH (talk page) 22:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done some "housekeeping". I've set up The Young Cricketer's Tutor as a redirect to the article, and have also edited some of the articles that refer to The Cricketers of My Time to make the references into wikilinks. JH (talk page) 10:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now down a bit of copy editing. I wasn't clear about the meaning of one bit, so didn't change it: A forensic examination proved that the manuscript was written about the time of its signature. What signature? And how is the time of the signature known? I'm guessing that what is meant is: A forensic examination proved that when the msnuscript was actually written is in accordance with the ostensible date. It's surprisingly hard to express clearly, and you can probably tell that I was struggling a little! JH (talk page) 11:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's much clearer. One other thought: though there's something in the Legacy section, I think the article could do with at least one properly cited statement in the lead section by somebody authoritative saying how important the book is. Maybe there's something in Barclay's, under "A Cricket Treasurey"."Books"/"Literature", which in my 2nd edition starts on page 581. JH (talk page) 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's good. :) JH (talk page) 21:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

John Wood
Next job. Sort this one out. Jack | talk page 17:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

William Bedle
I've just been looking at Simon Wilde's book "Number One", in which Bedle gets a brief mention. I noticed that his year of birth was there given as 1680 whereas the article has 1679. I wondered idf the discrepancy might be due to the use of a Julian date. As I understand it, the Julian calendar's New Year's Day was March 25th, so that dates in January, February and most of March would have been recorded in contemporary records as being in the year previous to what we would now regard them as in. If I'm right, then either Bedle's year of birth should be changed from 1679 to 1680 or at the very least there should be an explanatory footnote. (I seem to remember this problem also arising in connection with the famous Guildford court case at the end of the 16th century.) JH (talk page) 20:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would do it. JH (talk page) 21:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rest of the World cricket tours abroad
I nominated the category which you created for renaming here. Tassedethe (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

M.C.C. err... M. C. C.... er.... MCC
To be honest, this irritating habit of mine has been commented on before! My preference is for M.C.C. simply, as you say, as that is how they were referred to at the time. But it does lead to messy endings to sentences if you end with the word M.C.C.. My gut instinct, being a stubborn cuss, is to keep to M.C.C. for old cricketers and MCC for more modern ones, but I may have to give it some more thought. And if it really annoys anyone at any point, I'll cheerfully admit defeat and go for MCC as I'm not that bothered. Enough of my ramblings... --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire
Hi Jack. I've been looking at the history section of the mess that is Yorkshire County Cricket Club and have added quite a bit up to about 1880 so far. I've used the two histories from 1989 (which I quite like, I don't know if you have them. Lots of details about early cricketers.) but I realise this period is more your area than mine if you can improve it. My obsession kicks in around 1900! Anyway, I think that the article, and county articles generally, need overhauling badly. Lots of the Yorkshire stuff could be cut as it is just stats and waffle, I think it could probably be turned into something good, and the same is true of the other counties. Football seems to do it better: Manchester United F.C. is a FA and seems better structured than our counties. And certainly for Yorkshire, I can see the history section getting very long and maybe making a new article at some point not too far away. Any thoughts? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, and I've taken out the records and notable players sections. Now sit back and see if anyone comes out of the woodwork! Love the Yorkshire history titles, by the way! Brilliant! --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ashraf Mughal
Hi Jack. I created the article for Mughal ages ago, back when I was more of an inclusionist. It survived AfD once, now it's time for it to go as he is nowhere near notable via WP:CRIN. I don't think as the creator I can nominate something I create for deletion (correct me if I'm wrong!!!). Incase that is the case, would you mind setting up the AfD? Thanks AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure he fails lol :) AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Retired
As things stand, I haven't a great deal to be doing on here while there is a lot to be done elsewhere. I've decided to call it a day for the present but I may return someday. Jack | talk page 00:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to read that Jack. All the best to you and I do hope you'll drop in sometime soon.  –Moondyne 13:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see you go as well, particularly when we seem to be about to come under another onslaught from the deletionists who don't like WP:CRIN in any form. Johnlp (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. task force
Hello, you stated that you were a fan of Celtic F.C. in your WikiProject football members support section. I am hoping to start up a task force for Celtic at WikiProject Football. If you are interested please reply here. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Football In Scotland task force
As part of WikiProject Football a new Football In Scotland task force has been set up as you edit Scottish football articles i would like to invite you to become a member if you wish. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalkers
Hi Jack, don't know whether or not you still look at this page, but I thought I'd let you know your stalker has returned as 86.156.42.158 and could be linked to another account which recently took a disliking to the "major cricket" article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Re:Stalkers
Good to hear from you again Jack. It's only been in the past few weeks that they've come back. They seemed to have taken offense to a comment I left on the talk page where Johnlp asked me if my email preference was on so he could send information about Walter Franklin. I said it had been off since the headcase/s sent a couple of spammy incoherent emails to me. I've been wondering how many of them there are, like you say, some of the rantings are almost poetic, some exhibit the writing skills of child. But perhaps that's a ploy to make people think there's more than one of them? Do you actually know the person/people behind those sockpuppets? Anyhow, there's a sockpuppet investigation here on Daft and his alter egos. The 86.156.42.158 IP checked out in Castle Douglas, Scotland and the most recent, 86.157.166.214, tracks to Aberdeen.

Would be good to see you contributing once more, still plenty of early cricketers to do! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Stalker
Sounds like Mr Asquith is a bit of a mental case! Take care. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William King (London cricketer)


A tag has been placed on William King (London 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)