User talk:Py0alb

Fielding positions
Hi - point is directly square of the crease on the off side, as is leg on the on side. That fielding position isn't point. Granted it isn't a conventional silly mid off either, but imho it is closer to the latter. Byt hy the way the diagram of fielding positions on that page is woefully incorrect. ElectricRay (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Help_desk
Having nothing better to do for the past fifteen minutes, I read the whole discussion and must say that I am impressed with the calm and mature attitude that Py0alb has displayed. I would say, however, that (1) this place is probably not the forum for his subject and (2) he has as much chance of changing WP policies and the attitude of obtuse editors as an ice cube on a hot griddle. Sometimes a WP:Wikibreak is helpful. This discussion was closed before I had a chance to post this. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes
I see that you were referring to Spin bowling, and that your requested edits were being disallowed through pending changes. There was quite a lengthy discussion about this on your IP talk page, so there's hardly any call to claim that you were being reverted without discussion. You were asked to provide a reference if you intended to redo the edit; why not simply comply? As was discussed in WP:HD, information needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. When a form of protection is in place on the article, a reference for any additions is necessary: when requesting any such edit, including semi- or fully-protected article edits, you must provide a source. In the amount of time you've spent arguing that everyone else must be wrong and that you're an expert, you could have simply found and provided a source for your information.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Py0alb, when you are not logged in and click edit at Spin bowling, this is displayed at top of the edit page in a blue box:
 * Note: Edits to this page are subject to review (help).
 * If you click the linked "help" then you get a page starting:
 * "Pending-changes protection" (PC protection) is a tool that is being tested on a limited number of articles during a two-month trial.
 * Special:ValidationStatistics currently shows that it only applies to 899 out of 3,555,545 article space pages (0.03%). It appears your whole experience and subsequent suggestion for a fundamental change of how Wikipedia should operate on all articles was based on a system only applying to 0.03% of articles, but your post gave us no way to determine this. You kept claiming that the specific page didn't matter but it would have been really helpful if you had revealed the page when people kept asking you for it. Your initial claim in and apparently the premise for your suggestion was: "Currently every single change that is made to improve a page requires completely unnecessarily rigorous referencing before that change is allowed". But this is false for more than 99% of Wikipedia articles (some unsourced edits may be reverted on other articles but certainly not always). Another time, please reveal what you are basing your claims and suggestions on, and don't assume a single experience has taught you everything relevant about a complex site with millions of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've undone your edit to spin bowling... Text like "one of the greatest" or "considered to be" is editorializing. We report on verifiable facts, not opinion.  I love that you're editing and know the rules can be comp,ex.  Have you considered the adoption program so that there's someone to help you navigate them?  Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * as one example, text like "considered one of the greatest bowlers of all time" would be editorializing. No source is cited.  Considered by whom?  Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a case where it's really important that anything that's posted to the page be corrected referenced. How is someone who comes in later to know that those words go with your reference?  There's a referencing style that needs to be followed.  I'd be happy to set you up with a user who can help you do that, but I'm unwilling to reintroduce that edit until the it's properly referenced, because it creates confusion for the reader.  Also, please note, I'm copying the talk on my Foundation account over to this personal account.  I was logged in on the wrong one.  Sorry about that!  - Philippe  14:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at the reference provided with some of the recent changes, and I've removed the statements which included weasel words, and moved the reference to the references section since it was not laid out as an inline citation. However, the page the URL directed to doesn't specifically give much relevant information that I can see, and it certainly doesn't seem to verify most of whta was added. The article is going to need some strong sources to support the added material (and in fact the existing material as well), since as it stands it's more or less completely unreferenced.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked on the cricket portal talk page for someone with more editing knowledge than me to assist in the renovation of this page. Py0alb (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply
You have deleted all the things which were not able to delete. So I done it, please be cool and its policy.--—just feel it (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Belated welcome
It seems no-one's yet extended you a proper welcome, neither before nor since you registered an account. So apologies for the delay, and here goes:


 * }

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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowling (cricket), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Slips and Bouncer (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) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cup-300x225.gif


A tag has been placed on File:Cup-300x225.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Cup-300x225.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cup-300x225.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indoor Cricket image
Hello. Unfortunately you seem to have misunderstood my deletion rationale. I wrote that there is a chance of someone having a free image at hand. However, that doesn't mean that I know where to get one. Apart from that, Stefan2 was right in that the previous image you uploaded would not have passed a fair use check. This is so for the following reasons: can you comment on the specific situation shown in that image and why said situation is worth of being described and pictured in a Wikipedia article? Placing a fair use picture in one of our articles requires that the image provides an aspect that cannot be conveyed by words alone or that the image itself is relevant to the article in question. Neither is the case here: we can easily describe a cricket match with words alone and the photo in question didn't show anything newsworthy that should have been covered in an encyclopedic article. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Its impossible to convey the nature of a sport as well in 10,000 words as it is in a single picture.

Here are the facts:

a) this picture is necessary

b) there are no other pictures freely available

c) you don't know nearly enough about cricket to be able to dispute either a) or b)

Probably the best thing for you to do now is to undelete the picture asap and apologise. Thank you in advance for doing this Py0alb (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely not how fair use works. The picture is replaceable in that anyone can go and take a photo of any random indoor cricket match and publish it under a free license. E.g. you could do that yourself. Therefore it is not suitable to put any non-free image into an article about the general nature of indoor cricket where there is already a free image to illustrate the article. I'm sorry but I can't undelete that non-free image. De728631 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already one free picture in Indoor cricket, namely File:Indoor cricket at Lords.jpg. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only one making mistakes here is you. I've explained the rules for fair use to you more than once and it is you who would like to have another image in the article. Hence it is you who has to do the research for suitable free media (as has also been explained to you by Gimli). See also the comment by JohnCD below. Seriously, you should drop this case now. Feel free to find a new free image but your current attitude is not very helpful. Please continue this discussion at WP:Deletion review if you feel the need for it but I won't answer to any further messages on my talk page. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, although I've said I wouldn't reply here any more, let me just state that this whole discussion – spread over several user talk pages and a deleted file talk – shows how you are trying to make a point that you have been wronged, which is not the case. You've been told by multiple editors that nothing was wrong with deleting the cricket image you took from that website and still you kept accusing me of making mistakes . So please drop the stick now and move on. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to apologise for acting according to the relevant guideline which you should have read before uploading the image. And Instead of asking me to further explain my deletion rationale, your first request to me was about replacing the image; if you so disagreed with the deletion why didn't you ask me for the reasoning in the first place? I, GimliDotNet and JohnCD have in fact repeatedly explained the fair use requirements to you. You, however, keep accusing experienced editors . I hate to say this but I'm now going to have this discussed at WP:ANI. Please feel free to comment over there. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility
WP:CIVIL is not optional. I suggest you read it, then check why your comments above fall way short of it. Comment on the issues at hand, not the editors involved and always try to assume good faith. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  05:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted because it failed to match the policy for non free images. This has been explained to you several times. I note you have not withdrawn the above attack, no the one on De's talk page dispute being asked to. If you continue down this route of misapplying policy and making attacks on editors then you're going to end up at WP:ANI GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  09:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're being disingenuous. The debate at File talk:Cup-300x225.gif includes reasons for the deletion, you have admitted reading the reason for speedy deletion on DE's talk page and he responded with clarification here. Just because you choose to disagree doesn't mean you haven't been informed of the deletion rationale. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  13:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy the file was deleted under was perfectly lucid, obvious and correct. The onus for inclusion of the file is on the person wanting to include it, not visa-versa. You just disagree with the policy - frankly that's though luck. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  13:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Cup-300x225.gif
I have deleted this talk page as the talk page of a deleted page. The file has been deleted, and the reasons explained to you several times; there is no point continuing the argument on the talk page. If you wish to contest the deletion further, the proper place is WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Indoor cricket disambiguation
Hello Py0alb, please visit the talk page for the UK indoor cricket article, I am eager to reach consensus with you (and/or any other interested editors) on the disambiguation issue. Have left my most recent thoughts on the talk page, I hope we can engage in a process that results in something that gets the job done.

in2itive (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of players
Could you point me in the direction of the discussion please? Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sending the discussion link. It raises some interesting points but I hardly think a three-year-old discussion between two (or maybe three) editors constitutes "general agreement". I'm of the view that a list of players is useful for a non-fan to understand the point of the article.  If all that is required is a sentence of description against each included player then I am quite willing to add that.  Such a point is raised in the discussion mentioned and it will help to mitigate against the inclusion of various editors' favourites. Similar problems occur in other lists around the wiki, and most of these problems can be resolved by discussing the appropriate inclusion criteria. Give me a few days to make the changes and we can consider this point again. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My aim is to be as objective as I can. I'll try to add something later today and include notes re criteria.  I will also attempt to include bowlers from as many Test teams as possible.  I'm thinking the list will only include about 5-10 players for each type of bowling. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added only six players for the Leg break article. Let me know what you think. I'll work on the Off break version after that. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've moved the Notable Players section to Leg spin as suggested. 22:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Major cricket
Your PROD was reverted and, as explained to you, the next step in the process is AfD. If you blank the article again you will be reported to ANI. Either take it to AfD, which is your prerogative, or leave the article alone. Also, do something about your attitude which breaches WP:CIVIL. I notice that you have been warned about this previously. Jack | talk page 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jack | talk page 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Major cricket (again)
Hi. I think you need to follow the correct procedures here, which is to take it to AfD, Prod having been contested. The article as it now stands is substantially different from the article that was deleted more than four years ago and should not therefore be simply deleted as a mere re-creation. It may be that the argument that prevailed last time – that this is not a term used outside WP and has been created as an administrative WP convenience – will apply again. But you have to give the community the chance to debate this with reference to the article as it stands currently, not with reference to some half-remembered previous article. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's see where the AfD leads. Johnlp (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination)
Hi, Py0alb. I'm going to tidy up your AFD page Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) so that it is in the more usual format for deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Major cricket - possible merge
Hi. Given the closure of Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Cricket
Hello Py0alb, I have started a discussion over on the cricket talk page re recent major edits. Your contribution would be appreciated. Cheers. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk page blanking
I understand that you're passionate about your position at, but please don't of editors who contribute arguments contrary to yours. I'm happy to exchange data and debate the methodology of our analysis as much as you like, but I feel bullied by some of the things you've said, that give the impression you're trying to discourage discussion and strongarm the RfC to a close. Ibadibam (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ibadibam, let me apologise. In the act of adding a comment I accidentally deleted a big chunk of text. I noticed this immediately and went to revert my change, but you beat me to it. You will notice that the chunk of text I clumsily deleted also included several of my own previous comments. Please don't feel bullied, although I am entirely certain that you are mistaken in your opinion in this case, I am a stickler for following protocol and respecting the views of other editors. Py0alb (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for your response, Py0alb. That makes me feel much more at ease about the discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to apologize to you for assuming the edit was ill-intentioned. That was very un-AGF of me. Ibadibam (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Truce
Hello. I'm willing to put our disagreements behind us if you are. Shall we move on and try to co-operate in future?

I made a handful of minor changes at cricket; have a look and see if you think it needs any more. Jack | talk page 13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Jack, I am, and have only ever been, interested in improving the cricket coverage on Wikipedia. You're the one posting aggressive attacks on other editors, giving "warnings" to fellow editors that you have no authority to give, and running to ANI to try to get editors banned whenever they disagree with you. With respect, you need to take a look at your own behavior here.


 * Your changes were fine. If you could stick to that kind of thing from now on, your presence here would be more positive than it currently is Py0alb (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hello again. Given the mail above (now deleted), you may be interested in this SPI and its lengthy archive. You probably haven't encountered this individual previously. He is subject to site-wide WP:BAN, not merely a WP:BLOCK, because of long-term abuse, disruption and harassment, targeting several members of WP:CRIC. Under the terms of WP:BAN, you should summarily remove his above input. I could do it myself but I won't on this occasion. The admin who deals with the SPI might delete the entry, however, so you need to be aware of the possibility.

Thanks for pointing out my off theory error, by the way. I was a bit off target there. All the best. Jack | talk page 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Back again. The IP 81.158.250.126 has now been blocked on the grounds that it is Daft who, as I say, is subject to site-wide WP:BAN. Under the terms of this rule, I'm removing all edits which have not already been reverted, so I've deleted the one on your page. I hope you don't mind but this is required by the site. If he contacts you again, or attacks any articles you are working on, the best thing to to do is WP:RBI and then quote WP:BAN if anyone queries you. Thanks again and sorry you have been inconvenienced. Jack | talk page 15:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If Daft becomes annoying for you, you can get a protection on your user and talk pages limiting access to auto-confirmed users. Daft's SPI archive will tell you a great deal of what he is about but basically he is a failed and frustrated writer who once briefly held an editorial role with the ACS. They sacked him for gross incompetence and he came onto WP with a grudge against anyone with an ACS connection. He is a minor nuisance whose childish drivel is easily reverted using tools like Twinkle and his IPs are easily blocked via AIV and SPI, again using Twinkle. He is not merely blocked from the site, but actually banned. He believes that the BlackJack, AssociateAffiliate, Johnlp, Harrias and TRM accounts, among several others, are all operated by the same person: I'll let you be the judge of that. If you want your page to be protected, best to ask User:Dweller who I'm sure will oblige as he has had long experience of dealing with Daft. Again, sorry you have been inconvenienced. Jack | talk page 13:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly
Hi Pyoalb. You will be pleased I am thinking that we have had the right result and hoping in future that the proposal will not be reiterating. I was very suspicious of other side. A London-based IP supporting a London-based American nominator and two others, not regular editors, using same turns of phrase. Also if you are looking at all four contributions histories you will be seeing a lot of modern film edits. Smelling a rat is the phrase I believe? I am writing here to thank you for all your help and wishing you happy editing. Thank you, Py0alb. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  13:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

One panini, two panini
You seem to be engaged in an edit war - again. I've restored the consensus version and opened discussion on the article talk page. You will note that the recent RfC came out in favour of panini for the singular. You are trying to extend this to paninis in the plural, falsely claiming consensus. I can see how a hasty or unschooled person might think that simply adding an "s" onto the end of every word forms a plural, but English includes thousands of words where this is not the case, especially guest words taken from other languages, such as graffiti, spaghetti, paparazzi etc. Please discuss before edit-warring. I note that you have made five reverts within a short space of time. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi "Pete", please don't leave unprovoked personal attacks and fictional allegations on my talk page again. Thanks. Py0alb (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have yet to do so. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem here? We're following procedure, discussing wordings and RfCs, and yet you cannot wait. You want a change to longstanding consensus wording, based on your controversial changes, and you want it right now, regardless of the views of others. Please follow process. If your views are agreeable to other editors, they will prevail. If your views aren't supported, we'll keep it as is. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop harassing me, thanks. I would appreciate it if you didn't write on my talk page again Py0alb (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI
Py0alb, please be mindful of WP:OUTING. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)