User talk:GeorgeWilliams/Archive1

Black Jack's articles
I have raised a point at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket. Please feel free to express your views. Tintin 11:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Cricket categories
Please rememberer to assume good faith and to avoid making personal attacks. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Edits made due to genuine disagreements should not be construed as vandalism. Please keep your cool, since personal attacks are damaging to the community. Thanks. - EurekaLott 15:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack breached etiquette by emptying a category in advance in support of a deletion nomination he planned to make. You are simply making a wild guess that I am not interested in cricket. I am a county member, I have been to test cricket every summer for the last 25 years and I have the ODI on right now. Chicheley 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

George, don't know when you'll be back on here but thanks for pointing out that this person actually did accuse me of bad faith. I've withdrawn my apology to him, which he does not deserve, and demanded one from him. As you yourself know, not to mention the other cricket people on here, I do everything for the benefit of the project and the readers. I cannot be bothered with pedantic, negative, convoluted procedures that hinder progress and provide access to people with no genuine interest in what we are doing. I haven't forgotten 1763 or Waymark(wasn't it?) and the trouble I had with the "deletion faction" over those. I'll show you the mail Tintin sent me re the trouble he, Sam and jguk have had with these people. All the best. --Jack 05:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And this was pointed out to me by someone else so a few people have recognised the same piece of appalling behaviour. --GeorgeWilliams 07:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Member Badge
Much appreciated. Thank you. --AlbertMW 14:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Philatelist categories for Merger
Discussion Page Set Up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30 so please be prepared to give additional views if required. --BlackJack | talk page 12:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you were in on this discussion but here is a message that I have posted to most of the project members. Hope you don't mind the duplication as I see User:BlackJack has already left you a message about the deletion already being up for deletion. I see that there are as usual some who just want to tow the line of country subcategories.

As a member of the Project Philately I would like to make you aware of a discussion about the Category:Philatelists that some of us have recently come to a consensus about. The discussion is here, but essentially a decision was made to try and remove all the subcategories that grouped the philatelists into country categories even though there are only just over 20 pages referenced and some of the subcategories had a few as 1 listing. Besides which, I would never go looking for a philatelist based on a country of origin, even if I knew it, I would look at the category for his/her name. Anyway, this is up for discussion now at a CfD, categories for deletion, page and I would appreciate if you would weigh in on the matter having first looked at the original discussion. I am sure you will see the benefit and logic of getting rid of these redundant subcategories and vote a Support for this. By way of reference, one of these subcategories was up for deletion a short time ago and basically all the non-philately people won the day, overriding the philatelic viewpoint. I am sure you would not want that to happen again. Do not delay as CfDs get dealt with fairly quickly. TIA ww2censor 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you back?
Haven't seen you around for a few months. We are really needing philatelic editors as Stan and I seem to be the only active editors around here and BlackJack left last month, though I have my doubts that you will be able to encourage him to return. The Portal is working and I have been updating it occasionally but I don't see any new editors coming in from that either. Cheers ww2censor 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You win
Okay, George. If my arm goes much further up my back, it'll snap. I'm here.

By all means use Lads to Lord's as a reference point yourself, now that it's been published. But, as you know, I won't use it myself as everything in it has come from the other sources that I've already quoted.

This guy Einar could be just what we've been looking for. I'm going to write to him. I'll see you week after next as we said. All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports forum
George, it really is good to hear from both you and Jack. May I propose that we use Category talk:History of sports as a forum to discuss sports history and perhaps get a project under way? I must go now but should be back on here tomorrow evening with luck. Very best wishes to you.

Oh, and your "ploy" worked! --Einar 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:Gnangarra
I read that as a personal attack on a reputable admin who was complying with community consensus. Please withdraw the remark per WP:AGF and WP:CIV. &mdash;Moondyne 13:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you possibly know if I was a personal friend of his or not? That comment is an attack on me, especially given my comment further down the page where I conceded I'd misread the discussion.  Calling people Orwellian Little Hitler is well into WP:NPA territory.  I suggest you read the policy carefully before making any more posts on this matter.  Gnangarra deleted the articles per community consensus and in his closing comment said "please contact me to have any erroneously listed articles restored".   &mdash;Moondyne 07:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

John Leach
George, not sure how this will go down but it is a needed article to support the references used in Pre-1850s in sports, as I'm sure you agree. Can you have a look at it and see what you can add, especially personal? Thanks. --Einar 08:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)