User talk:Johnlp/Archive 4

Up to end Dec 2012.

Your work is currently at FTC

 * Featured topic candidates/The Invincibles/archive1

 YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Somerset CCC Players
Hey, I was considering creating a list of Somerset players in a similar design to that used by List of Kent cricketers; this list would go in place of the current (encyclopaedic) List of Somerset CCC players. I appreciate that this list is very useful for us making articles for news players without them, but in terms of an encyclopaedia, I don't think it adds all that much. So I propose we move the current list to one of our userspaces as a reference for our use, and then place a list like the Kent one in its place. Although, personally I'd prefer a list included runs and wickets for players who've played either 100 first-class matches or 100 List A matches. What do you think? Harrias (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current directory style article is useful, but one like the Kent list (well, similar) provides more information for an encyclopaedia. Have a quick look at what I'm thinking at User:Harrias/sandbox2 and tell me if you think it's worth having, and if so how we can fit the two together without one being deleted / merged. Harrias (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your point, which is why I came to speak to you rather than just doing it! I love the list that is currently there, and would like it to survive, but I also think that a list containing the notable (where notable is defined by making 100 FC or LA appearances) would also be useful.  But I agree they are different types of useful, and both deserve articles.  The problem as I see it, is making that balance.  With regards to the flags; I would propose keeping them in the squad table, as I feel they have relevance there; but in the records section I would support their complete removal. Harrias (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotten back around to this, and have now created a few lists and pages relating to Somerset. I've also made a template to navigate around the pages relating to Somerset, which should be at the bottom of both of these pages. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. Harrias (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Somerset CCC players by number of appearances
 * List of Somerset County Cricket Club grounds
 * I'm happy enough with the list ordered as it is; as it's sortable, people can reorder it by appearances as they wish, and as you point out, the problem that some of them will have less than 100 would make it look weird. And yeah, at least most of the grounds will want articles, and one of my tasks for the summer is to get around and get photos of those that still exist. Harrias (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sammy Woods
You may have noticed that the other day User:SGGH went through this article with his customary rigour, and has identified some problems with it. I'm attempting to address some of them when I have the time, but I expect that you know more about Woods than I do. In particular, I would like to find a good citation for Woods deliberately bowling a full toss to allow Grace to complete his hundredth hundred. Rae's biography of Grace mentions the full toss, and that Woods was the first man to shake Grace's hand, but doesn't specifically say that the full toss was deliberate. In a book of AA Thomson's, he says that Woods deliberately bowled a ball that Grace could hit for the necessary runs, but doesn't mention it as being a full toss. Also Thomson describes Woods as having bowled fiercely prior to that, whereas Rae quotes Charlie Townsend, batting at the other end, as saying that Woods was so nervous as Grace approached the landmark that he bowled rubbish.

Thomas Mottram
No problem, makes him easier to find. Mottram was a legend at the club, it's always suprised me he never made more first-class appearances with his medium pace being as you said so effective. Going through the less well known Hampshire players brings up some interesting pointers, enough to write mini biographies which Cricinfo and CricketArchive lack. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Johnlp! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 9 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) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Alex Kennedy -
 * 2) Norman Graham -
 * 3) Jonathan Taylor (academic) -
 * 4) Phil Neale -
 * 5) Ken McEwan -
 * 6) Nigel Briers -
 * 7) Phil Bainbridge -
 * 8) Don Shepherd -
 * 9) Colin Bland -

Lionel Gough Arbuthnot
Please would you check this article. Many thanks. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you... MBE. Don't know; I imagine it was military; I have added a source for it. Can't find it in London Gazette. Please would you improve Reginald Arbuthnot and Eric Arbuthnot. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have promoted him to Brigadier-General. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Basanta Regmi
Sorry mate, reckon you're right. I was just going off his Cricinfo profile but they haven't been the most reliable in the past for this kind of stuff. I've reverted my edit so the article is prodded once more. Jevansen (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Comment
I'm going on the basis that by WP:ATH he is notable because he has represented his nation. I refer to an AfD here on Wang Lei (Chinese cricketer), where the decision was keep based not on the fact he is in a national team and thus notable as an athlete. Regmi also played at the 2004 & 2006 U-19 World Cup (which you covered in the comment) as well as World Cricket League matches and ACC Twenty20 matches, both endorsed by the ICC and ACC. This makes him more notable than Adolphus Sparrow who happens to have played a single first-class match for Hampshire in 1902. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, put it up for AfD, if it stays it stays, if not it goes! Consensus is the way to go, democracy is the winner then! Going through the Hampshire cricketer redlinks I have come across loads like Neville Shelmerdine, a good hundred or so out of the 500 odd I have done! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, not many to go now, 9 to go I think (seems 10 but I'm currently working on Arthur Jaques), then the 20 or so pre-county club players without articles, all told about 830 in total. And I have put Grand Master(Cricket) up for deletion, but nothing seems to have been done, I suspect I have done it wrong! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Somerset CCC players by number of appearances/archive1
I've made a suggestion at this FLC that I would appreciate your input on. Harrias (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments nevertheless, as I alluded to before, although I see a definite worth in the list (and with it sorted chronologically too) the name is proving troublesome. Hopefully someone around will have a bright idea!  Will bear that in mind regarding the NZ articles, though I'm sure I'll forget once or twice! Regards, Harrias (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP rescues
Hi John,

thanks for helping rescue articles tagged as Unreferenced BLPs (such as Brian Isherwood) - could you possibly also mark them as done on this list? Cheers, dramatic (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Hampshire cricketers
Yep, all of those that Bobo192 had on his page have been completed. Just been going though and comparing the Hampshire CricketArchive lists with the category page, created a few which were not on Bobo's page. I'll go through the rest of them tomorrow, then once I've made sure all the county club players are done I'll create the 30 or so pre-county club players. After that... Dorset sounds good! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahidul Islam (cricketer)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Shahidul Islam (cricketer), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Shahidul Islam. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahidul Islam (cricketer)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a "Move" tab at the top of the page that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen.  The left orium  15:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology
Hi, there is something needs to be clarified and, now that the picture is virtually complete, I wish to apologise to you for a misunderstanding that arose because of information I received from a well-meaning person who was mistaken.

You may have noticed that I have had my problems with an individual using dynamic IP addresses. If not, don't worry and I won't bore you with the turgid details. Someone who I will not name contacted me by e-mail and provided some contributions info which seemed to indicate that SGGH may be the person who has been chasing me around. Unfortunately, I reacted to this and put a sarcastic comment into the Blackmore AfD, this comment potentially implicating three people including yourself.

Fortunately, I was then contacted by someone else who rightly asked what the hell I was doing and, in the ensuing discussion, pointed out that the real culprit is the former HampshireCricketFan, whom I had totally forgotten. I was one of a few people who got him blocked last year because of abusive edits. This person then appeared, right on cue, in the Blackmore AfD and the argument has spilled over into admin discussion pages. But it has solved the mystery and I now know who has been trying to cause trouble.

It remains for me to unreservedly apologise to you for any embarrassment or inconvenience that I may have inadvertently caused you. Jack | talk page 12:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Lord Harris.jpg
Hi my friend. I just wanted to check, not being overly hot on copyrights, is this able to be released by you under CC? I'm not entirely sure, as its a photograph of an art piece that you have taken (but I'm assuming you didn't paint it!). If the painting itself is in the public domain due to age, does it mean that your photography of it should be under that licence rather than CC? Could you set me straight on this? Cheers, SGGH ping! 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:CRIC
Hi John. Yes, you're quite right. I hope you will understand my over-enthusiasm, having finally got some positive action to deal with that troll. I've reinstated the item. As you say, the Miszabot, or whatever it's called, will be along shortly.

Thanks again for your contribution to that topic which is much appreciated. All the best. Jack | talk page 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

'''

PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Please excuse this indulgence. You asked me to put up about Lads to Lords. I did but of course John reverted it and continued his dialogue with sockpuppetry. Incidentally, I have used only half the user names he claims are me and since the Daft incident I have not been abusive. You will see on WP Cricket Project History he called me a jerk. Recently he asked for a truce but had already ensured I would be blocked. That is an exercise in futility as I have access to numerous accounts because obviously students write silly things and are blocked so we have a special system at work here. Plus there is my own site. If you wish to email me that is available and I can really give you chapter and verse on JL's abusive approach to the ACS and the flagrant lies he propogates a)About the 'uniqueness' (not) of his work' and b)His relationships with statisticians. c)The flagrant publicising of Stumpsite.  My aim here has been simple. BJ has commandeered an area of the project. It is a fiefdom. He has operated numerous very aggressive and abusive sock puppets. His work transcribing scorecards is excellent but many of the conclusions and assertions he makes are, judged by any standard – Faulty. He refuses to acknowledge this and whips up hysteria when he is corrected. He admits openly he has attempted no primary research but he draws primary conclusions all of which are wrong.Also we have the shameless propogating of LTL bas a major source. It is not and all the major experts agreed. Yet it appears within the text of WP articles. That is outrageous. I append examples –some from the first page of From Lads to Lords(which was given a terrible, dismisive review which drew a series of abusive emails from BJto Peter Wynne Thomas, one of Britains most distinguished sporting historians) It really would take a long time to go through it all.

It is written to BJ Well your assertion about the Riot Act, I gave you info on that.(I listed examples to refute an assertion he had made) The pre-1800 County Champions. It has no provence, takes no account of historial context, uses only a narrow stand of sources, fails to take account of anything in the North which requires work at a County Library, makes giant leaps of faith about one match making x or y county champion. There is no exploration of Goulstones work or the histography of Waghorn, Britcher and Buckley. No interrogation of their sources, no methodology. '''The idea you peddle about LTL being the first source of these matches in a combined list is of course incorrect. You need to see CQ from the late 60's or early editions of the ACS magazine'''. DA, PWT, PG, KW, PB, MA and others have had similar lists, certainly we had all the matches you have collated, and in fact research some from new primary sources. We found contexts for matches and were able to establish, through primary research, relationships between areas and the reasons for matches. You make assertions about the 7 years war. How do you know? I have hundreds of sources for that era. Do you know what the weather was like, what happened to newsprint, what was being reported and why, why did the great men of the day stop stumping up cash in such profuse amounts. Might it have been that they didn't want to be mulct by the govt for regiments. Were wager games played in secret. There was also an agricultural depression.Such ideas as this have to be explored from primary sources. In compiling the list of matches 1800-1850, the ACS carried out extensive research of such sources over thirty years and are still doing so.

YOU HAVE TAKEN UPON YOURSELF TO CLASSIFY PRE 1800 GAMES - HOW DO YOU KNOW TO DO THIS? Do you know the context of each game, have you looked at news papers, parish reports, diaries, handbills, other books and the like. No and you freely admit this. More learned people have spent years researching this in great depth, yet WP contains your fictional article. That cannot be the way to compile an encyclopaedia.

-	'''John you are an expert on the statistics of pre-1800 cricket. Your knowledge of the histography is not at anything like that level.'''

-	The first sentence of stumpsite. Modern times begin in 1700 - the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - I could give you a reading list as long as your arm to make that statement seem ludicrous. This match reference.

'''Dartford Brent, Dartford, Kent Wed 29 June 1709 authors have suggested the teams in reality were Dartford and a Surrey village. This view is short-sighted and conflicts with the evidence we already have of patronage and high stakes'''

Where is the evidence? Why would it apply to this match. Have you any context at all. Who were the sponsors? What was their background? can you show a continuous line of information

NEXT

'''The Industrial Revolution can trace its origins to the construction of the first working steam engine, built by Thomas Newcomen (1664 – 1729). Newcomen's atmospheric steam engine, so called because it relied on atmospheric pressure to work against a vacuum created in the operating chamber, was designed to pump water out of mines. Designed in 1705 (see above), the first operational one was installed at Conygree coalworks near Dudley in 1712''' So when Newcomen installed his engine, that was it, we were off!!!!!! Incidentally it didn't work. It was the amended one of 1718 that was successful and it was twenty years before many were built, and not that many. What about canals, railways, Savery's engine, water power, factoryisation. Who says so? Where is your source and context? Hobsbawn says the IR began in 1780, Blake and Morley 1600(the date most usually used as the start and 1750 as the acceleration). No sources or back-up John.

another from page 1 of Stumpsite

'''Swiss traveller César de Saussure noted in his journal the frequency with which he saw cricket being played while he was making his journeys across southern England in June 1728. He referred to county matches "as a commonplace".

If they were a commonplace, they were also keenly contested to the point where winning teams would proclaim their county's superiority (as evidenced by match reports in 1728 and 1729). It is a long time before the actual words "county championship" appear in the sources but it is clear that the idea of a champion county existed in the 1720s if not sooner.'''

Says who? Where's the evidence. One Swiss Traveller. A team from Hampshire travelling to its neighbour and saying 'where the champion county!' Where's the evidence. If not sooner where for God's sake Who says so - sources. Not one mangled reference but context and sources to support such a sweeping piece of fantasy. Where was cricket played. May they not in unrecorded games in Yorkshire say - we are champions! who knows- well there is evidence of cricket North of London in primary sources. We do know that in 1819 in Oswestry for example, a Shropshire team raised by the local MP beat a Cheshire team and were called champion county by themselves.(See Diary of Richard Slaney Shropshire Record Office) And so on. You need a lot of experience to make the type of assertion Jack makes.

I could go on and on. BJ, and a few acolytes are in danger of making the project as laughable as many find WP I'm afraid. It is not only dumbing down of knowledge but something rather more - It is a type of tyranny. He blocks his opponents, has attempted to claim some copyright over LTL/Stumpsite(would look good in law I don't think) and has even put re-directions on some edits to take you to his approved version. Please email if you wish. No doubt this will be sockpuppeted. I wonder why BJ was allowed to edit again incidentally. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME KestevenBullet (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have posted this on your talk page, but also put it here so it is in one place.


 * Sorry in any case for slow response: I am in a particularly difficult work period at present and have little time for WP.


 * I don't think your reservations on the source should be dismissed out of hand, but I do think that they have to relate to material that actually appears within the pages of WP. My impression, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, is that From Lads to Lord's is cited on WP as support material only for articles of a statistical or factual kind and, as you yourself say, as a statistical record of early cricket it is not in (much) dispute. The more contentious commentary material within From Lads to Lord's does not seem to me to be anywhere cited in support of a WP article that makes similar tendentious statements, and if it were I'm sure that far more people than just the WP cricket community would be weighing in to offer their views. My own knowledge of some of the material you have written on my talk page (a couple of published books on the industrial revolution, in fact, though I try to hide that here, where my interest is primarily cricket) is enough to know that the interpretation offered is, shall we say, individual. If that material was being cited, then I would join you in calling for its removal: but I can't see that it is cited anywhere.


 * The broader issue, which will hopefully be resolved by disinterested parties at WP:RS, is whether a source cited for one set of data where the reliability is not questioned ought to be discarded because of unreliability in other areas. My view is that we might well discard an awful lot of pretty good source material if we were to interpret this harshly, including virtually everybody's memoirs or autobiographies; but also that we shouldn't allow a fairly liberal regime to enable falsehoods or misleading information to be propagated in WP's pages. Fortunately, the RS folk will decide on this case.


 * Meanwhile, my invitation remains: put up some material where WP has dubious content because of From Lads to Lord's, or wait for the RS ruling. And if you have material yourself that can help us improve the WP site as a whole, then please join us under a permanent name and make your contributions. You'll I think find that most people here are welcoming to those who want to make a real contribution; but less friendly to those who snipe from the sides without making the commitment to try to help improve matters. Johnlp (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Contentious
On the WP/RS John you said was there anything from that site that BJ runs that has crept onto a WP edit. There are two biggies. One is the list of pre 1820 County Champions. I could fulminate on this but I won't. It's like Charles Berlitz and his Bermuda triangle! The second is the Variations in FC Cricket statistics which was a fine article but BJ has decided to make claims for Stumpsite that are simply untrue. He was not the first, second or sixth to make the list of scores he did. His contribution to the '1772' start date was as one of several people who were considering this. Keith Warsop is I think in general considered to be the main man on this. He has lists of matches stretching back to the first recording notices. He has all the books etc. He is, in the best sense of the word, a Historian. He was behind all the stuff that appeared in the 1960.s on 18thC cricket. He felt that to go before 1801 as a start date was to accept that everything had been found, that a complete, or fairly complete record had been compiled from 1772-1801. No one in the ACS group felt that thee games could be contextualised properly due to the paucity of sources. BJ claimed a lot of things and to be honest his views were so immoderate and so lacking in historical rigour, that he was not taken seriously. The date shifted to 1772 after it was decided, after several meetings, that there was little chance in finding many scores(two have come to light). However BJ took it upon himself to 'rate' these games. This system is not accepted by anyone. I hope that answers your question. I note he has 'retired' again having first put an anonymous post on the reliable sources page in defence of LTL. I shall begin to edit(when I've time) using this user name.KestevenBullet (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the maxims of WP is to be bold (WP:BOLD). If you see material that you know is wrong, then change it so that it is correct and referenced! Cricketarchive and cricinfo are widely cited throughout the Cricket Project pages and are universally accepted (where there is a divergence between the two, Cricketarchive tends to be believed more, but maybe that's my prejudice). If the list of 18th century County Champions is unsubstantiated by other sources, it would seem to me to be right to remove that information wherever it occurs. With the biogs of players who appeared in doubtful matches, amend the copy to say which matches are considered "major" and which not (again using references such as Cricketarchive); if this means some players are then of dubious notability, you can put them up for deletion or you can just leave them. If they were "prominent but not quite prominent enough", then you might take a fairly relaxed view of retaining them, assuming the material in the articles is correct (after all, WP is not paper - not constrained by available space). Where there is correct material that references BJ's work, then it would not seem to me reasonable to remove that or to change the reference unless there is a pressing need, such as the work is no available.


 * The point about all of this is that no one "owns" any of the articles: not BJ, not you, not me. That's one of the joys of WP and also one of the hazards. When we write things here, we basically give up our rights, and copy contributed by experts can be amended by people with no qualifications at all. Fortunately, there are lots of people patrolling the pages and the updates, so vandalism and unconstructive additions tend not to last too long. But the basic premise remains: if you see something wrong, change it. Happy editing! Johnlp (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan Gibson
Thanks to the book reviews in the latest Wisden, I've just found out that last November a collection of Alan Gibson's articles was published, entitled Of Didcot and the Demon: The Cricketing Times of Alan Gibson and put together by his son, Anthony. I know that you are a fan of his writing, so thought I would give you a "heads up" in case you were as unaware of the new book as I had been. I've just placed my own order with Amazon. JH (talk page) 17:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed that it will include the article that you mentioned. Incidentally, Wisden have Robin Martin-Jenkins as their guest book reviewer this year. I'd never read anything by him before, and I was very impressed by what a good job he makes of it. He must have inherited his father's literary talent. JH (talk page) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I recently added the following to JH's talk page. He suggested I also post it here in case you hadn't already seen it...
 * Gibson's report on that day is published in The Times issue of Saturday 8 June 1974 page 15. The day was short of cricket, not so much due to the weather, more because of Surrey's victory by an innings - match over by 1.10pm . I too have enjoyed many Gibson 'pieces' over the years, so am pleased to see that a collection of them has been published. Think we're pretty fortunate here in Tasmania - a reader's ticket with the State Library provides free access to The Times digital archive !
 * RossRSmith (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Enjoy! :) JH (talk page) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thank you very much, a very unexpected surprise for me this morning! (Would have been last night but for my match going into extra time, eugh..) I just try and do a little bit here and there, and mostly feel useless for not being able to get all the articles that I like up to a good standard. But you never know, if I keep trying, one day I might get a tenth of the way there!! Thanks again for all your work on unreferenced BLPs, by the end it was only you still going; I know we still have a couple to get sorted, but I'll be honest, I'm dubious about the notability of some of these Middlesex secretaries myself.  Harrias  talk 07:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

18th century cricket seasons
Hi John. Thanks for taking responsibility for the season articles and ensuring that the edits are done sensibly in accordance with stated site protocols and via a common sense approach. I've complimented your "new" colleague KestevenBullet on his work which has, surprisingly, needed only a few tweaks. However, there have been a couple of instances where I have restored one of the main external links upon which the articles were constructed so, if you could please keep an eye on that, I think all will be well. I might visit again sometime but I'm only here now to extract some info for use elsewhere and I spotted KB's hand in one of the articles I'm taking data from. Best regards. --86.138.10.255 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

List of first-class cricket records
William Ward's 278 is not included in the progressive list and is now a sort of foot-note. IMO, we cannot just say "while some authorities recognise Ward's score as the first-class record" and so on and knock off an innings that is in pretty much every fc list. If we have the right to make calls on the quality of teams, we can start off by removing Dera Ismail Khan from all fc list, and then demote the 1888/9 SA Tests :-) Tintin 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Changed it; just wanted an assurance. Not much change in my status. The work is taking up all the time. Tintin 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi John. I dropped in to make a few more extracts and spotted changes to this article when I checked my watchlist.  I think we can safely say that the position with Ward's innings is that the match is now generally regarded as first-class.  There has been an accord this year that 1772 is the start date of first-class statistics and this has led to an agreement on which matches belong in the list.  Another coalition?  It does not alter the historical significance of matches that are not statistically first-class due to, for example, insufficient data.  But the recent inclusion of Ward in the progressive highest score is correct; or at least not incorrect.  Best wishes.  Jack | talk page 07:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Geoff Clayton
Nice article. Just one thing: I think that "But his abrasive personality did not endear him to county committees..." really ought to have a citation (especially since he's a living person). JH (talk page) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. JH (talk page) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
You're more than welcome to join in any discussion at WP:CFD, of course, but you're not welcome to canvass in favour of your own views. In my view, this invitation at WP:CRICKET was inappropriate canvassing, since you state that "I've already been in to oppose" and then add, "Perhaps others might care to join me." Your notification messages must be neutral and not express an opinion as to the desired outcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mervyn Herbert
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Crabble Athletic Ground
Hi John. It looks as if the ground was shared by the two sports in the same way as Bramall Lane used to do before the football finally won out. I'll redirect my stub to the established article and open up a cricket section there. Thanks for pointing this out. Best wishes and enjoy the match at Old Trafford today if you're watching it. Jack | talk page 08:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Julian Wyatt
You'll need to stick in some refrences before it's put up for speedy deletion Resitate (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

George Arbuthnot Scott
. I don't yet know who he was. But I can help with and his brother Gilbert  (both ). - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have started a stub on his father. Avison_Scott - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Hyman
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eric Hill (cricketer)
There's a good obituary in today's Telegraph. In particular, there's quite a bit on his war exploits, something not currently covered by his Wiki article. JH (talk page) 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm generally content to leave Somerset cricketers to the expert, ie you. :) I think in one of the recent obituaries of Robert Hudson, I noticed a couple of sentences that I thought might have been mine. JH (talk page) 13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Porch
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Nicholson (cricketer)
A tag has been placed on John Nicholson (cricketer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Frederic Waldock
Hello Johnlp, I found Frederic Waldock appearing in User:AlexNewArtBot/SriLankaSearchResult. Seems like a nice article for DYK. Why don't you nominate it. Regards.-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 12:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I found something about his ancestry, http://winters-online.net/MerH/p49.htm#i1450. Give me little time to do a bit of research. Best-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 14:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You were correct John, Frederic William Waldock, the father of the cricketer was a manager of the Orient Comapny. He was a founding member of the Keell & Waldock Ltd in 1902. Now the company known as John Keells Holdings, one of the largest in Sri Lanka. Mackenzie Waldock is a subsidiary of John Keells established in the 1990s. I thought Laddy Outschoorn is the first cricketer of Sri Lankan origin to play County cricket. Seems like the honor should go to Frederic Waldock. Regards-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 04:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Perhaps I hope you change your mind of not nominating the article for DYK. Leave me a note if you need finding any Sri Lanka fact or need help. Regards-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 01:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Gerard Hodgkinson DYK
Sorry, I didn't even see your message! I wasn't trying to ignore you! Your hook looks good to me.  Harrias  talk 16:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gerard Hodgkinson
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview request
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cricket for an article for The Signpost. 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, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Thanks and I take this opportunity to wish you a very Happy New Year! – SMasters (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

George Arbuthnot Scott
Shown on thepeerage.com. No discernable reason for his middle name. Please improve the article. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done. Very good. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander
Can you improve this please? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRI
I didnt change the WP:CRIC. I had added WP:CRI and both work. But I understand your point of view. We shouldn't hog these names and cause confusion. Thanks. -- ashwinikalantri talk 18:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox
I started another section Tintin 08:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thayer is the only one in Titanic. Couldn't find any cketers in Lusitania. Tintin 09:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Add with a comment ? Tintin 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alpin Thomson
I've just read your article on Alpin Thomson. It's a good read, but it raised one question in my mind: what was his qualification to play rugby for Scotland? It's not obvious from the article. I like to think that it might parallel the case of the cricketer (whose identity escapes me for the moment) who is reputed to have played for Somerset on the grounds that he was born in Wellington, the MCC failing to have checked or thay would have found that it was Wellington, New Zealand! So could Thomson have just said that he was born in Perth?! JH (talk page) 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ISTR that AA Thomson had Scottish ancestry, so you may well be right about the name. JH (talk page) 20:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sammy Woods
I noticed a week or two ago that, though the Sammy Woods article had been improved in lots of respects since I last looked at it, just about everything that would give one some idea of what a great character he was had been removed. I'd like to think that it was accidental, rather than resulting from the idea that seems to be popular in some quarters that Wikipedia articles should be deadly dull and consist entirely of facts and figures. I like to think that there's a place for famous anecdotes, so long as they can be reliably sourced and tell you something about the character of the subject. I added back a couple of things, but you might like to take a look yourself as I only had time to scratch the surface.

Jack Davey
Hey, I've made a start on Jack Davey's article, and while doing a google search I came across an ebay auction (here) for a monograph of Davey titled "JJ" - it was written by Alan Gibson, who you told me some months back added the extra initial. I was wondering whether you owned a copy of the book? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jake Seamer
Thanks for the additions you've made to this article, particularly all the university stuff that I didn't have so much information about.  Harrias  talk 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I came across MM in a few of my researches, and by all accounts he seems to have been pretty good at this cricket lark! My own next project is likely to be Mandy Mitchell-Innes: with a lot of overlap with Seamer, he seems the logical next step. Probably more on Walford too!  Harrias  talk 14:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Mtking (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD of a cricket club article
I do realise that you may have moved on after the inconclusive nature of the recent WP:CRIC discussions. However, I thought that I would let you know that in the spirit of the suggestion made therein by you I have nominated a further club article at AfD - Articles for deletion/Academy Cricket Club. What you make of it is, of course, entirely up to you. I have notified and the article creator. Feel free to notify anyone else, although I would hope that the WP:CRIC deletion sorting will do its job. I never have been able to get the hang of delsorts, but I do believe that these things usually get picked up. I hope so! - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I've done bits and pieces around the edge; far and away the majority of the work has been done by you: I've just picked a few that I found particularly interesting. What are your plans once you've got a bit more meat on the recent additions?  Harrias  talk 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alastair MacDonald Watson
Dear Johnlp,

Thank you very much for your work on Wikipedia. I hate to be a bore but as grandson of Alastair MacDonald Watson it would mean a lot to our family if you could remove the hyphen from his name in the records. I have tried to correct the mistake myself but am not used to working with Wikipedia files. Thank you very much. You are doing a grand job. Timothy MacDonald Watson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.64.4 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Done. Johnlp (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar
Thank you :-) AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi John. Thanks very much for your kind words back in January and my apologies for not replying sooner. I've had a lot of problems to deal with this year but I'm looking to get involved again. Probably not so much as formerly but AA asked me for help with the to-do list and I'm going to see what I can do there. All the best. Jack | talk page 11:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Tasmanian cricketers
Hi there. I've been watching the evolution of the Tasmanian cricketers' list with great interest. Fantastic job. when I get home I'll take a closer look but at first glance I can't see anything wrong with it. Roisterer (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cricketers who were murdered
Hello John. Another name to add to your list of murdered cricketers on your sandbox, Nauman Habib, reportedly murdered between 9-11 October. Hope all is well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey
==re-PWT== It was PWT - I've appended my reply to John Leach below. I have to admit that my students and occasionally I have goaded him but quite frankly he writes rubbish and when challanged when he was a member of the ACS, he responded with a tirade of highly offensive e-mails. By following his posts re-1728 one can see what kind of mind is at work. First Maun's book did not exist, then someone 'reliable' told him it did. He bought it and he will analyse it to see if it is any good! Now it is but John has made mistakes and he's not willing to admit it so although he knows he is posting nonsense, he continues writing some hubris regarding his sources. JohnLp - Blackjack is not a valid source. Anyone can copy out from books by McCann et al but BJ adds his own POV - pages of it. Remove it and he goes beserk. I leave you all to it because as PWT said - all the people interested don't use WP - they have the books. I worry that the whole project is becoming dominated by him and his chums. Follow AA's edits - they are enthusiastic but contain many errors. Change them and you are a sockpuppet or what ever it is - that from Leachy who's had a least a dozen. As you can imagine, at a Uni we have several severs and infinite possible user names. We have to do this because whenever we use oner BJ has it block. it's your problem on WPCric but it is serious becaUause within the next two issues, an ACS member(I am not a member) is writing a damning critique. It is a terrible shame because there are many superb entries. Many of thise by BJ are flawed, some are plain wrong. Anyhow best of luck. (I thought he was on vacation incidentally, or working! You get the drift.)

PWT
I was at Trent Bridge and I asked PWT to intervene to prevent the cricket site becoming corrupted with errors and Blackjacks efforts to move the contents of his site to WP. We discussed it and contacted KW who agreed there was a chance Blackjack's personalised style of editing was perpetrating errors because he lacked the level of source we have. How sad we have from BJ more hysterical self promotion. I got a student to have a look and they think you have used at least six sock puppets yourself. What makes all this so sad is that the edits you previously posted are fully available. Quite frankly, I don't know what your problem is John. You sent highly offensive emails to PWT which we were looking at on Friday - you sent offensive emails to the editor of the Cricket Statistcian. Neither I, nor Peter have altered pre 1750 cricket with other than the correct information. If Rambling Man(similar to your own Midnight Rambler Blackjack(see his blog)) wants to block these sites he is of course able to do it. What he will be doing is to enable Blackjack/JamesJJames/Albert WM or whatever it ws and several others to become sole editor. A man who has operated multiple sock puppets and is not regarded as an authority by Peter, Keith or any of the acknowledged expert who have publish books of great authority. I know Maun's view of John but it is for him to put it forward. It was PWT who edited and in response to JohnLp added some comments. It is indicative of the thrall Blackjack has laid over half a dozen people that this project is allowing a string of entries riddled with errors that could easily be altered and referenced by those with the correct sources, carry on because for some reason he is their man. WP is about facts not opinions. See 1728 Cricket for the facts on all newspaper entries for that year. Blackjack wants those blocked who spoil his game and I can, by private email, show anyone who wishes more evidence of his approach through his communications with people who disagree with him. The John Leach(MP) wasd posted by a student but you will recall that Blackjack at one time posted his own biography. It was more accurate - marginally. I will now leave this alone completely as Mr Maun's book has sold a thousand copies which I guess are all the people interested in this project so Blackjack's work is thankfully falling on deaf eyes so to speak. And it was PWT. Dr TM Asquith

Censorship
Within moments my post was censored away by someone called Nev. Hardly what it was all about is it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.62.96 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Contact
If you wish John contact me on (personal details removed) and I'll send details of my usual in-box -Dickie Daft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.100.75 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

John, I've removed the address of the poster above per policy on personal information. Hope you don't mind but I felt it had to go as quickly as possible. I'll put a note on their talk page. Britmax (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Its on your edit screen in History John! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.100.75 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wisden
Hi there, long time no speak! Hope you are doing well. I seem to recall that you have a pretty good back catalogue of Wisden's, though I may be mistaken. If you have access to those during Jack and Frank's brother Harry's career (1909–1934), I was wondering if you might be able to have a glance through to see if there is anything much of worth in any of the write ups, especially for the 1923 season. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Regards,  Harrias  talk 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Duggan
Hi. Any chance you can help with the question about Duggan at the Aggers FAC? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops - I see you beat me to it - thanks! --Dweller (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Martindale
I just noticed your excellent work on Martindale so far. He is certainly someone who has deserved some work. Martindale is mentioned briefly in Michael Manley's History of West Indies Cricket and has a decent entry in The Complete Record of West Indian Test Cricketers by Lawrence and Goble. Let me know if you would like me to add any bits and pieces from there when you are done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put in what little I've got and tweaked a few things. Possibly too much on Bodyline, so feel free to alter anything. I'm fairly sure that he didn't play for Barbados after 1936 owing to a rule that professionals couldn't play in the intercolonial tournament, but no direct evidence so may be a little OR-ish. It's a shame there's not much more on him out there as I suspect he was a pretty formidable bowler. I don't know if you go in for Good Articles, but I think if the lead was extended a little, this may be worth nominating. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, do you have anything on Jack Crawford? I am particularly interested in anything you may have on his tour of South Africa in 1905–06 or his reconciliation with Surrey in 1919. And any comments on the remarkable nature of his selection for England and Surrey as a schoolboy. (I'm not sure how far back your Wisdens go!) I've already pinged Jhall1, but wondered if you had anything at all. If not, no problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I managed to find a little more on Martindale in the Jamaica Gleaner and I have added it in. I also had a go at expanding the lead and re-worked a couple of section titles. Please just revert anything you do not like. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

AA
I've tried, carefully, to point out that AssociateAff is making a massive howler in his work(he's making a million but) calling those Mickey mouse festival games part of the n v S series. below is the result

North v South

As I pointed out on WT cric - you are adding players to North v South who are not proper No v S players. These were meaningless festival games - The N v S series was only important until the end of the 1880's. You must get an understanding of these things before proceeding pell mell. I'd check with Jack or WT cric First. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.176.231 (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC) The match is rated first-class, the pre-1890s matches may have held more importance, but right until 1961 it held first-class status, so as that appears to be the consensus among cricket historians, then any player that appeared in a match to 1961 gets added to the category. However, any mention of North v South matches after 1961 isn't really neded. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Look - it was a festival match OK N v S pre 1890 is an important match - part of a famous series - the others are mickey mouse consisting of whoever was available in september. Do you include those who played for the 'England XI's; at Scarborough, Torquay etc. Please consult someone with greater knowledge Johnlp or Jack will know. Anyone who knows anything about cricket history knows this. Please check out what you're doing. I note previously you were oblivious to the qualification rules which lasted over a hundred years - you take to much on without really knowing the issues and that leads I'm afraid to howlers - whoever unintentional — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.176.231 (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Piss off Daft, you're not an authority. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.176.231 (talk)

Harry Lee
Thanks, that's a nice bit of description! It'll work in well to the article I think, though I'll have to have a bit of a fiddle to fit it in right.  Harrias  talk 09:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited George Francis (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Gregory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited George Francis (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgetown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Percy Chapman
I'm working on Chapman at the moment, having got hold of his biography recently. It's not the best on sourcing, though, and I wondered if you could do a quick Wisden check for me? Anything on his University cricket (specifically his hundred in the Varsity match of 1922, but anything at all really about his general form from 1920. There are only fragments from Wisden in the biography) or on his selection for Gents v Players: (again, anything at all but specifically his 1922 century). If not, no problems. On an unrelated note, I see you are continuing the West Indies theme! Great work so far. I keep threatening to do a few early WI cricketers myself but never quite get around to it. Clifford Roach is on my list somewhere. Happy New Year! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, and great work on Francis! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited National Library of Somalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rex Davidson, not Thomas
Hello John. Have just noticed a change and redirect you made some months back and am uncertain as to why it happened. Could you please correct Rex Davidson's article so it is found under that name and not Thomas Davidson (cricketer) ? As you can see by this link Rex was the name by which he was most commonly known: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/61080666 Cheers, Ross.RossRSmith (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Taylor and other South Africans
If you want photographs rather than line drawings, there are some available which are public domain: this links to an Australian newspaper from 1931 and the page facing the article it links to has pictures of every South African on the Australian tour in 1931-32. All the images should be copyright free as they are PD-Australia and as they were published before 1946, PD-US as well. The only possible objection may be if the images did not originate in Australia, but they are credited on the page to an Australian photographer. Using this source does not always give the best quality images, but they are OK; I've used the Sydney Mail on Abe Waddington, Roy Kilner and Learie Constantine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right about the quality, but if that is the best available, it has to suffice, even for poor old Abe! The other problem is, with these images available, you can't have a free-use image, which would be infinitely better. This is a real problem for some cricketers where a free use image would be great. I didn't actually download the pictures, I just did a screen capture and got them that way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the kind words! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Iain Macleod
A small world indeed. :) JH (talk page) 20:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Leg before wicket
If you get a chance, I've expanded this article and would be grateful if you could have a look. It's a bit different to what I normally do, so it would be useful to know if it all makes sense and what is missing. I forgot what a complicated mess of a law it is... Don't worry if you haven't got time. Writing it made my head hurt, so goodness knows the effect that reading it will have! Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, which I have used to rework the lead. Not sure about the bulletpoints though. And my Brodribb is a 1995 semi-updated reissue. I think he just sort of tacked stuff on the end of some laws though as parts are a little all-over-the-place. And the lbw section barely mentions the big changes in the 1980 code. Great book, though! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
The images look good. The Hobbs one will be very handy, but I'm not sure about the Chapman one as Australian copyright law is a little more complicated for paintings/artwork than photographs. A little digging to establish if the artist can be identified may be necessary to show it is definitely PD before we can use it. Copyright is a damned minefield! Thanks for finding them, and let me know if you find any more useful ones. If you are still expanding South Africans, let me know if you are ever tackling Aubrey Faulkner as I have a few bits and pieces on him. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Chaps
Thanks! Damned automated spell-checker... --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Morris... er... Maurice... er Morriss....
Hadn't thought of checking that! Just had a look for myself, and I suspect some of the variant spellings may be due to poor transcription by either the census people or those working on the appropriate website. "Marcy" looks a fairly definite "Mercy" to me. But interesting that he is Maurice by 1911; there's also a record of the Bodyline tourists returning home, and he is Maurice there too. And if it was him who married in 1928, that is Maurice as well. I think you may be right; maybe they just weren't sure the best way to spell it and/or changed their minds. Or the registrar spelt it wrong (I've seen that before too!) at the registration... But it looks like he considered himself to be Maurice, despite the claims of our anonymous (and now silent) friend. What a shame it's all WP:OR! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Murdered cricketers
Our page got a mention in Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/24/the-spin-cricket-bad-news?INTCMP=SRCH It is time, we moved road accidents to the main space. Tintin 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Verity
Thanks for your very kind words which are much appreciated, but I think you are doing yourself something of a disservice by them! Sarastro1 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Bowes (cricketer)


The article John Bowes (cricketer) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * probably not notable, 8 results for full name on google

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 23:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Iain Macleod.jpg
Just wanted to double check. Did you take the photograph yourself, or was it from another source? It is currently under consideration at an FA candidacy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Very weird Wisden request!
This one may be a little obscure! I'm slogging through the apparently interminable Jack Hobbs article and the end is sort-of in sight. I have two sources which quote Wisden 1930 on Hobbs, and the proportion of Surrey matches Hobbs had missed in the previous seasons. One gives missed 53 out of 136, the other gives 40 of 108. If you get a chance (I'm assuming you have 1930!), I'd appreciate if you could see what it really says. Thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. I'm afraid mine only go back unbroken to 1988, with clumps in the late 70s and late 40s. I also have 1918 which is an interesting little read for various reasons! I really should start extending backwards again... Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 53/136 is the count for 1926 to and including 1930, though when I add up I get only 52/136. Tintin 03:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But where does this come from? Mason gives it in his Hobbs biography (apparently quoting the 1930 Wisden), but McKinstry and the 1930 Wisden give the 40/108 figure. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wisden figures for Surrey's competition matches (ie County Championship) from the Surrey averages of the relevant Wisdens: 1926, 15 out of 26; 1927, 15 out of 26; 1928, 19 out of 28; 1929, 17 out of 28; 1930, 17 out of 28. I make that 83 out of 136 played, so 53 not played. It's 42 not 40, by the way.
 * Anyway, here's the solution: In Wisden 1931 there is the following quote: "Owing to the calls of representative games and at different times to injury from which he has been suffering, Surrey, in fifty-three championship matches out of 136 during the past five seasons, have had to take the field without their great batsman." Wisden 1931, Part II, Page 261, Chapter: Surrey Matches. Johnlp (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I used Scorecard oracle and Player oracle in Cricketarchive. A column in the results indicates whether they are County matches or others. Tintin 02:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Another one!
Any chance of another Wisden check? Gents v Players, Oval 1924: Gilligan was hit over the heart, which basically finished his career. Different sources give different bowlers: Pearson and Howell; the Times does not mention the incident except obliquely the next day, and no other sources name a bowler. Does Wisden mention who it was? Thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I think I'm OK on the seriousness of it. Typical how no-one gives a simple fact like that! Looks more likely to have been Pearson, which is odd as he was a slow bowler, but never mind. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A Note
All of Blackjack's sites have been removed from the web rendering many of his 'links' and 'references' redundant. it makes the things he edited somewhat dubious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdspsg (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Next question!
Sorry to be a pain, but it's just because I'm jealous of your Wisden collection! If you have the time or inclination, could you check if there is anything in the 1924 Wisden on George Dewhurst, the West Indian wicket-keeper on that tour? I just created an article on him; rather a strange chap it would seem. To be honest, the state of our early West Indian articles is pretty poor. There are a lot of missing articles, and many others that barely qualify as stubs. Grim. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And another...
For what it's worth, I've got my hands on Wisden for 1922 to 1925 (Willows reprints, alas, but it's a start...), so these questions should begin to lessen. However... Percy Fender. When you get a moment, could you check Wisden 1921 for Fender (specifically any comment on his bowling style that year). There may be similar questions for a few later years too, I'm afraid. Thanks as ever, your help is greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Right
So User:Jim Hardie and I are the same person? If you believe that, go to WP:SPI and prove it. I don't think the argument/discussion between Jim and myself in 2008 about online citations will help your case or prove WP:DUCK. The outcome of that was that I agreed he was right and I was wrong. Are you ever wrong?

Is your talk page a sanctuary for a vicious troll, subject to WP:BAN rather than the mere WP:BLOCK, who has driven more than one person, including Jim Hardie and User:AssociateAffiliate away from the site? Is your talk page so sacrosanct that it allows scum like Asquith to use it as a mouthpiece to insult bona fide editors who have a track record of improving the site? I don't claim to be a brilliant editor like Sarastro or TRM or Yellow Monkey who are way ahead of both you and I, but to my credit I have singlehandedly created WP's coverage of early cricket history and I singlehandledly (before you even joined the site) established the category structure of CRIC that is now so readily taken for granted (I am, after all, an IT analyst). Against that, what has your friend Asquith done apart from disrupt the CRIC project and subject all its members apart from you, his sole sympathiser and colluder (if that is the right word), to sustained disruption and harrassment (which is a criminal offence, in case you don't know)? Asquith's record on here includes harrassment of myself, AssociateAffiliate, TRM, Dweller, JH, Sarastro, Nev1, AndrewNixon and others. Indeed, I suppose he has even driven me away from the site too as, in the final analysis, my secondary reason for retiring is that I am sick of clearing up the mess created by vandals and Daft in particular before I can get on with positive editing.

If you want to retain Asquith's lies on your talk page then it's a matter for you and your conscience. I have had enough. I had had enough in January last year when you and a couple of others begged me to stay to help fight against the anti-CRIC element at AfD and wherever. I came back in September last year to help AA after he was attacked by Asquith. I stayed on to help TRM after he was attacked by Asquith. In the meantime, I tried to be positive and improve CRIC as I had done in the past. But, at the end of the day, you have the mighty Jimbo who says "anyone can edit" including Asquith and the likes of you who say that first Dweller and then I cannot remove Asquith's lies from your sacrosanct talk page.

Are you going to remove this post from your talk page or will you keep it there despite Asquith's inevitable screams to the contrary? After all, I am telling the truth. Asquith is a proven liar (see Jim Hardie's response to his "overtures") who has shown in numerous posts (e.g., How's your wife?) that he is quite sick (ask TRM about that) and some of his posts could be perceived as threats, depending on your perspective. Are you really happy that you are seen as a Daft sympathiser and that you have even colluded with him?

As for the so-called Dweller's Law, I think he should just agree with JH, who is undeniably the sagest member of CRIC.

And it's goodbye from him, without whom you would have no 18th or 19th century coverage and no category structure, not to mention histories of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc.

The hypocrisy on this site stinks. So, go on, delete this post and keep Asquith's lies where anyone viewing your precious talk page can see them. I have better things to do. Jack | talk page 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:ANI. Jack | talk page 00:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Response
I neither know, nor care, whether User:BlackJack and User:Jim Hardie are one and the same person. Or not. What I do know is that I try to treat all contributors, IPs or named editors, with civility, and to respect other people’s views even when I do not agree with them. The contribution above and the one on the administrators’ noticeboard early today make allegations about me which I really cannot be bothered to refute or confirm. However, they seem in my view not to offer that basic courtesy of civility, and that is disappointing and disagreeable. Johnlp (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When I saw BlackJack's post above I thought that it was deeply regrettable, as had been his deleting material from your talk page previously without consulting you. I said as much on BlackJack's talk page. I see that he has now called in the heavy artillery, and an administrator has deleted even more and permanently this time. Following the link given to Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, I can't see anything there that would justify it, and certainly not without consulting you first. The Deletion Policy seems to be aimed at articles, and doesn't really seem to have anything to say about talk pages. I am quite cross about this, but I don't really know anything about the admin side of Wikipedia (indeed I don't evehn know where I might find the administrators' noticeboard that you refer to) or how to get this overturned. Would you be willing to raise that matter on the cricket project's talk page, as I know that one or two project members are admins? Perhaps one of them could get something done about it? It seems to me that BlackJack has used the sort of tactics that he has - justifiably - complained about when they were used against himself. JH (talk page) 21:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And now having followed the link to AN1 and seen BlackJack's allegations against you there, I see that he wasn't given any support by the two people who replied, and that the debate was subsequently closed, so I'm puzzled why an admin should have then gone ahead and deleted the disputed content anyway. The allegation against you that you consort with trolls is simply laughable. JH (talk page) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only echo JH's comments. You have done nothing wrong, and yet been cast by BlackJack as a "bad person". I do disagree slightly with JH on the matter of getting the decision overturned; purely because I think we need to try and finally let this whole BlackJack/Daft thing be left behind us, and move on.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The most unfortunate thing is that a lot of perfectly valid and non-controversial discussions on this page seem also to have been lost in the process. I'm now wondering if my own talk page - and those of many more of us - might be at risk of similar action. How on earth is one supposed to detect whether some contribution to ones talk page identified only by an IP address is from a banned user or not? I would delete a post if it was abusive or vandalism, but I'm reluctant to do it because of possibly erroneous speculation about who the poster might be. JH (talk page) 22:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just had a quick look through the deleted revisions, and it doesn't look like any other conversations have been removed, so you don't need to worry about that.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 07:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's reassuring. I had thought that everything chronologically after the first post by the banned user had been deleted, since that's what View History seemed to suggest, with items being greyed out and struck through. But those items are actually still there. I'll let the matter drop now, as that's what Johnlp wants, but I'm still unhappy (1) that neither BlackJack nor the admin ever asked Johnlp whether he was willing to remove the objected-to conversations and (2) that the conversations were deleted within a matter of hours of an official complaint being made and therefore when Johnlp might well still have been unaware of the complaint's existence. JH (talk page) 09:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blackjack actually removed the postings. Johnip restored them.  Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what they post, it is a simple fact that banned editors are not allowed to edit here, and that's the only issue here. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

John
I see blackjack is back - as Old Lanky - see the numerous similarities and sudden, uncontrollable instinct to edit in a similar style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.235.21 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If our anonymous poster really believes that, he might be disabused by reading the item "Watchlists" within Archive 74 of the cricket project's talk page (I'm not up to working out what the correct Wikilink to that would be.) JH (talk page) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Who cares? Time for me to do some year-end filing. Johnlp (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)