User talk:Smashedbandit

Apologies
I'm sorry, I was wrong when I reverted your edit on Zak Crawley - his second century had not been dealt with in the prose section of the article. I've now dealt with it and will have a think about the best way to perhaps include tables in the article - it's now getting to the stage where we probably need to be thinking about that a bit more.

If I were to include a table of centuries, which may be appropriate, I would do it differently, however. The forcing of table column widths is unnecessary and there's no need to use a template when we're sorting numbers. I also think the amount of data you're including is inappropriate. I'd go something along the lines of this (I've removed the references for talk page purposes):

There's an argument about the position of the date column, but the detail from the website the data comes from is, in my view, unnecessary - we can always direct people to that website if we think it's appropriate. By creating a simpler, narrower and easier to read table we're adding value much more consistently I think - rather than bloating pages. You'll note as well that this doesn't require the use of a very long key and avoids the inappropriate use of flags. I appreciate that tables like this exist in a number of places. My view is that they shouldn't and that there are a number of WP:MOS issues created - particularly wrt WP:MOSFLAGS. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the reply. The reason that I included that amount of data was because the information listed in the tables was often not discussed in the article. I think that what position and innings a century is scored is important enough information to be displaced. However I get your concern with the bloating of articles and the key is definitely too long. Smashedbandit (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The position point you make is interesting. I think that my main concern is that it's not information that a casual reader would necessarily understand. I'm not sure it's always "important" though - sometimes it is (say, a century from number 10 with the player scoring 99 of the 100 partnership with the number 11 (which I've seen happen btw...)), but I'm not sure that it's normally that important. It's the sort of thing that if it's important then we should really deal with it in prose I think. I'd say the innings is in most cases less important again - obviously a fourth innings chase when the chap at 8 scores a century in 86 balls - but, again, that's something I think we have to deal with in the prose of the article isn't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

List of centuries
Hi. Please see WP:CRICSTYLE and WP:NOTSTATS with regards to not including these tables in articles, and this recent discussion at WT:CRIC too. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you could also review WP:OLINK and MOS:FLAGS. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Fleming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMI Stadium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Rassie van der Dussen
Hi. Please stop edit-warring at this article. Per WP:BRD, you should really have started a discussion about his infobox. I've done this for you. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Making wrong edits continously.
What makes you think Temba Bavuma is a middle-order batsman when we clearly bats at the top order for South Africa? At least make legitimate edits rather than spreading your own made up thoughts. Your knowledge of cricket itself is questionable. Yadplayz (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The portions listed on wikipedia go based off cricinfo which lists him as a middle order batsmen. Smashedbandit (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

And that isn't practical. Cricinfo lists Mosaddek hossain as just a middle order batter despite him clearly being an allrounder and Soumya Sarkar as a middle order batter which is hilarious considering he always was an opener and only batted in the middle order a few times a year ago just for experimental purposes. Bavuma opens in T20Is, bats at #3 in ODIs and #4 in tests. Clearly a top-order batter. The reason why he still is listed as a middle-order batter is because Cricinfo still hasn't updated his batting position. He used to be purely a middle-order batter in the past which has changed now. Yadplayz (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You've been here five minutes, if you have an issue with how things are done here take it up in the WikiProject Cricket talk discussion. Smashedbandit (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been here for 3 years. Getting frustrated continuously over my edits won't be helping you. Yadplayz (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverting edits
don't bother reverting any edits if you aren't gonna do it properly Gorgon Slayer (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Smashedbandit (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverts
You can't revert more than once. You need to start a WP:BRD as another editor has already done. I'm resetting the double reverts and will report you for edit warring if you do not comply with BRD. If you doubt the WP:IPL people's actions re infoboxes, take it up with them. Bc Jvs  UTC 12:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Just an fyi since you're editing a lot of these at the moment, there's a discussion about including the teams here. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Usman Khawaja
ESPNcricinfo says 14 100s under the stats tab. Overview tab is not correct JK Nair (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No it does not it stills says 13 because the match has not ended. You have no even updated the full statistics. Wait until the end of the match to update them. Smashedbandit (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. Cool! 👍🏽 JK Nair (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 New Zealand general election
The photo of Christopher Luxon is not artifical and it has not been modified or edited. The blue background is included in the photo supplied by the National Party just like how the white background is included in the photo supplied by the Labour Party. The cropped version of these photos are also included in the links below. They are supplied directly by the National Party with permission and are used on nearly every National Party MPs' Wikipedia articles.

See:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/2023 list candidate photos
 * c:Category:National Party candidates for 2023 New Zealand general election

If you remove the Christopher Luxon photo, then you might as well remove the Chris Hipkins photo as it is also a candidate photo supplied directly from the Labour Party. Same with the Green Party candidate photos. They are supplied directly from the Green Party. The photograph of Luxon and all of the other party leaders can be found on the links above.

Please do not make any unnecessary reverts if you don't know the full story behind the edits you are reverting.

DDMS123 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

July 2024
Hi Smashedbandit! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2024 United Kingdom general election several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zach Merrett. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  11:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Party for Freedom. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Euroscepticism
Please stop removing Euroscepticism unilaterally from ideology sections of parties. There was a discussion started on whether it should be removed and consensus overruling the standard wasn't reached. Please discuss it on pro-Europeanism's talk page instead of vandalizing articles. Zlad! (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Ditto that, you really need to stop. Michalis1994 (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have 7 reverts in a single day on 1 article. You broke the 3 revert rule on many more. You need to be banned! Zlad! (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a ticking timebomb now. Michalis1994 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have reached 8! Zlad! (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unstoppable! Proper rampage. Michalis1994 (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Block needs to be placed fast and hard on this editor. This has broken all the rules. Zlad! (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)