User talk:Cdomm

Bodyline
OK, here is a list of issues, but if I were you, the fact that two editors consider this to be a problem should suggest there may something wrong. What is an "outside war"? Between whom? – Jardine, the press and the crowds were mentioned in the previous sentence. The "not 'unamusing'" quote does not fit in at all here as it has no relevance to Bodyline. The quotes use single quotation marks, the rest of the article uses double. The formatting of the reference does not match the rest of the article's formatting. But my biggest issue is that Mailey, while a fine writer and interesting chap, is far from an authority on the Bodyline series, and in an article where contemporary views are (perhaps incorrectly) not given in much detail, so much from one uninvolved commentator seems to be WP:UNDUE. Elsewhere, you state that Mailey is "one of the few first hand books on the tour". This is demonstrably wrong: Jardine, Fingleton, Kippax, Larwood, Bradman and Bowes among others wrote about the series after being more-or-less involved. Mailey is not really in the top-league of writers about Bodyline. Our article is also a featured article, meaning changes should be carefully considered and often discussed. If you still think the quotes need to go in, by all means take this up on the talk page; to be honest, I think the whole article needs brushing up in places, but have never got around to doing anything about it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

About my incorrect use of WP:ROLLBACK in the Bodyline article
Hi Cdomm,

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. The use of the rollback function was made in haste and in error. While I could make excuses, they would be hollow and disingenuous: as long-time editor, I have no valid excuses at all; I was quite simply wrong; I simply should have known better. I unreservedly apologise for my mistake.

It appears that you may have become disillusioned with the Wikipedia project, and it would be reasonable to presume my ill-advised edit has contributed to this. I again offer my sincere apology... and an invitation to join WikiProject Cricket

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Threats
Threaten another editor like this again and I'll block your account and any other accounts/IPs you use. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

1697 to 1725
My apologies if I've got the wrong person (?) but I think your edit to Bodyline, though somewhat messy with the signoff and the tone of your argument, was well-intentioned and you seem to be leaving AA alone nowadays. So, I'll start over and you can actually help me.

You may have noticed that I've proposed a merger that will close 1697 to 1725 English cricket seasons and place all worthwhile content in History of cricket to 1725. What I want to be sure about is the number of known matches in that period which can be termed "significant" or "important" or "great". I don't trust CricketArchive which doesn't even list the 1697 match. Can you please consult Maun's volume 1 and any other sources you have and see if you agree with me that there were eleven as per this list. As you can see, I reckon there was 1 in 1697; 3 in 1707; 1 in 1709; 1 in each of 1719, 1720, 1722 and 1724; plus 2 in 1725 which makes 11 in all. There are also half a dozen "other matches" including the lawsuit ones which are worth a mention. So what I'm asking is for you to verify what I've seen, please. I've read Maun a couple of times but still could have missed something.

If you have anything additional, can you please let me have details with source including page number. Please use Talk:History of cricket to 1725 if you can't access my talkpage. It looks as if the proposed merger will be approved and, as History to 1725 is a "good article", I want to make sure it's as accurate as possible given the lack of information from the period. I hope you can help. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 07:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Spotted one missing from the Wayback which is Dartford v London at Dartford Brent on Thursday, 11 June 1724. It's a recent discovery, so the one at Kennington Common a week later was actually a return game. I therefore make it 12 significant matches. The 11 June game is already in WP. Jack | talk page 13:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)