User talk:BlackJack/Archive 5
Welcome back[edit]
From your recent user page and user talk page edits, I assume you are back, at least for now. Welcome back. ww2censor 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delighted to get you back ! While Cz claims that it is not just for experts, the impression that I have always received from browsing through Cz and its forum is that they look down upon amateurs and non-experts. Tintin 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am not very active at the moment but may return in a few weeks. Tintin 15:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Did this because it is not available anywhere online. Tintin 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is a small book - about 140 pages - and is meant for the serious reader. Unlike Guha, it does not make very easy reading. Please check your mail. Tintin 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
BG! You're back![edit]
Ooh, I'm pleased. --Dweller 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you either need to alter your introductory sentence, and perhaps the article's title, or else omit the coverafe of the tours of the country in 2005-6. At the moment there's an inconsistency. Oh, and welcome back! JH (talk page) 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Have a look[edit]
I've left a further reply on WT:CRIC for you to have a look at. Thank you. Bobo. 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverted edits[edit]
I undid 4 of your edits: 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4. You said in the edit summaries of each of those that you were "redirect"ing them, but you just blanked them, and didn't apply any redirects. I am not sure where you wanted to redirect them, so if you still do, go ahead and do it. Just thought I would let you know. - Rjd0060 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just came across these also: 5 and 6. - Rjd0060 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem.- Rjd0060 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey[edit]
You OK? --Dweller 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've been working on helping get Charlie Macartney to FA and working on some Norwich articles. I've got one at FLC and I'm getting another ready to go there (although I can't find an RS for the 10 people added in 2006). --Dweller 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice article. Being my usual pedantic self, it seems to me that the three references to cricket abroad, whilst interesting, don't beloing in an article about English cricket. Also, if you are listing all f-c matches for 1811-1815, perhaps you should explicitly state that there were too many in 1801 to 1810 to list (assuming that to be the case). JH (talk page) 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
More pedantry from me![edit]
A minor point concerning your "Further Reading" books that appear in many of your articles. My understanding is that, when Altham's "A History of Cricket" was first published in 1926, it was in a single volume, and only in a later edition (the 1962 one?) was it split into two. After all, in 1926 a first volume extending till 1914 wouldn't have left much for volume 2! So giving a publication date of 1926 but referring to Volume 1 is rather misleading. Since later editions are likely to have included some corrections and additions, there's a case for always referencing the most recent edition (1962 in hardback - I think the 4th edition - with a paperback version in 1968). The whole work I believe had its authors specified as Altham and Swanton, but I believe that volume 1 was almost entirely Altham's work, volume 2 almost entirely Swanton's. JH (talk page) 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that's sensible. I hadn't known about the 1947 edition. I wonder why the 1948 edition was published only a year later. JH (talk page) 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I decided that it was high time that I had "A History of Cricket" on my bookshelves, so have just bought both volumes of the 1962 edition. I've only had time for a quick skim so far, but confess myself a little disappointed. Altham doesn't strike me as that good a writer. Also, it might have been more accurate to call it "A History of English Cricket". There seems to be little about events in other countries. And even within England, there seem to be some surprising omissions. Nothing on London County, apparently, or on Philadelphia's tours of England. Bart King isn't even mentioned, if the index is to be believed. JH (talk page) 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page link to History of cricket in India from 1985-86 to 2000 rather than 1970-1 to 1985. --Jpeeling 10:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
philately orgs[edit]
Hi blackJack -- you started the Category:Philatelic associations and societies. I've been doing basic cleanup & standardization of organization categories, and most of them are "Category:X organizations". That would be a simpler & shorter name & more standardized category; do you have any objections to renaming PA&S to Category:Philatelic organizations? --Lquilter 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi BlackJack - Good timing! I did make the proposal, but I proposed "Philately organizations" -- if you have a good reason for "Philatelic organizations" or other thoughts, please do weigh in at the 12/28 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar[edit]
|
The AFD Barnstar | |
| For dedication to WP:AFD, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. --Sharkface217 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
Resolved[edit]
I investigated the matter at AN/I and resolved to block the editor over various breaches of WP policy. Unfortunately reviews only happen when people are around, and it being the week after New Year's I think it was in part simply your posts and those of AlbertMW were slow to get attention from an actual administrator amongst a sea of others. At the time you posted them I was off happily creating Former Local Government Areas of Victoria so didn't even notice the request. Orderinchaos 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Richard blanked his own talk page under his username, which he's within his rights to do (the block log tells the story to any admin anyway, so it's immaterial). As for the IP contributions, as long as he keeps it to talk pages, doesn't resort to blatant insults of his opponents etc then I'm not inclined to enforce. But the option is always there to do so (and another admin might disagree with me and enforce the block anyway). Orderinchaos 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sandbox[edit]
WikiProject Cricket[edit]
|
--Jpeeling (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: The earliest biographical information about Scott is provided by Arthur Haygarth [1], who describes Scott as a "very successful batsman indeed for the Hambledon Club, for several seasons". Scott? I was tempted simply to replace the two occurrences by "Robinson", but then wondered whether the whole paragraph had perhaps strayed from another article about some other cricketer of the name of Scott and so needed to be deleted. JH (talk page) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Major cricket[edit]
I changed the definition from limited overs to List A cricket. What do you think? —Moondyne 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good. We may be straying into WP:OR territory here, but I'm happy to leave it for now. —Moondyne 14:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability criteria[edit]
Just wondering, wouldn't it be best to discuss changing the WP:Cricket notability criteria on the talk page before making what is a rather substantial change to them? I'm not saying that I disagree with them as such, though I do have some quibbles with them, but this does seem to be the sort of thing which some sort of consensus needs to be reached on, especially when it's been changed to what seems to be your personal point of view. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've no problem with the scope section you've changed, just the notability criteria. I've already made one tweak by eliminating the distinction you made for ODI's that don't involve full members. Fair enough that we decide what a "major cricket" match is, but the definition is your point of view, not one which has been reached on by a consensus, even amongst cricket statisticians. I fail to see how a player who played one Single Wicket match in the early 18th century could possibly be considered notable. I appreciate that Single Wicket was once the dominant form of cricket and that some players are notable, but I suspect we'd have a hard time convincing anyone that such a player met the primary notability criteria for sports people of "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis."
- In my opinion, it helps if we have an easy to understand definition of who is and isn't notable, and a cut-off point of one first-class, List A or official Twenty20 match, plus a note that someone who hasn't played one of those matches is not automatically non-notable, satisfies that just fine. I understand that there is some debate over what should and shouldn't be considered first-class, or when first-class cricket starts, but the most important "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Using the ACS list on CricketArchive (which, if you are who I think you are, I know you don't approve of) is easily verifiable on that front, unlike the Wisden list which to my knowledge has never been published. Andrew nixon (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The most important of these "many other schools" was unquestionably Harrow... At around this time one might make a good case for Rugby School which, under Thomas Arnold, seems to have done much to foster the idea of "muscular Christianity" that was to become such a watchword of the Victorians. JH (talk page) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
William Denison[edit]
I didn't know about his sovccer connections. When I saw the article, it seemed like a good idea to look him up in Lemmon's book, which didn't say anything about his soccer. While doing so, I discovered that none other than William Ward was in the chair for the meeting that set up Surrey, Ponsonby having another commitment on that date, and that the seconder of the motion that a Surrey club should be formed was Nicholas Felix. JH (talk page) 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of J Wyatt (Essex cricketer)[edit]
A tag has been placed on J Wyatt (Essex cricketer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CastAStone//(talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been searching on the names of those players who were members of thr nobility, to see if Wikipedia has any more information on them. I came up with the following:
- Sir Robert Paston is mentioned in the Paston Letters artcle, which gives his dates as 1631-1683. He was a Member of Parliament from 1661 to 1673, and was created Earl of Yarmouth in 1679. Following the Earl of Yarmouth link, we find: Earls of Yarmouth, First Creation (1679): Robert Paston, 1st Earl of Yarmouth (May 29, 1631 - March 8, 1683); Royal Society Original Fellow 20/05/1663; had been Viscount Yarmouth since 1673.
- Earl of Sussex gives: Earls of Sussex, Fourth Creation (1674): Thomas Lennard, 1st Earl of Sussex (d.1715). That doesn't seem to match your name for him of Thomas Dacre, but I think it must be the same man.
- There's some information on Sir John Pelham within Thomas Pelham, 1st Baron Pelham, who was his son.
I hope that some of that is useful. JH (talk page) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I subsequently did a Google search on Sir Robert Paston, and he seems to have been a very interesting character. He is mentioned by Pepys, and he collaborated with two fellow members of the Royal Society in an attempt to find a formula for the "red elixir" which was reputed to turn base metals into gold! JH (talk page) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't resist writing an article for Sir Robert Paston. I couldn't find any evidence that he was actually a cricketer, merely that he mentioned cricket in a letter. JH (talk page) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. I knew that the Peerage WP has been very active, so thought that I night turn up something, if it was obly dates of birth and death, but was surprised do discover what an interesting life Paston must have led. JH (talk page) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Your note[edit]
I'm pleased things have calmed down and that you are staying under this name, which does not have the baggage that has accumulated elsewhere. You know that my view has always been that our coverage of early cricket would be nothing without you (however irritating some of your other habits may be!). I'll do nothing on the matters where I have a few qualms unless they become an issue again, which I hope they won't if we're all agreed that matters external to Wikipedia should stay external. Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look at your revision in detail yet, but I do think that it would be better to retain the old first sentence at the very beginning, as it would state up-front what the article is about, ie This article seeks to explain the key differences in alternative versions of English first-class cricket statistics. At the moment, the article goes straight into the nitty gritty. Of course, it may be that I've looked too soon and you are about to do some further work on it. JH (talk page) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- In addition, I'm not too sure about the statement of first-class cricket in North America beginning in 1880 and ending in 1913. CricketArchive (and presumably the ACS) has the first first-class match in North America in 1878, [1] and first-class cricket has since been played in the USA in 2004, and in Canada in 1951 and from 2004 onwards. It should probably be changed slightly to reflect this. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello[edit]
Wild stab in the dark... did I once affectionately refer to you as "belligerent gnome"? --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:English cricketers of 1701 to 1760[edit]
Template:English cricketers of 1701 to 1760 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Moondyne 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:English cricketers of 1761 to 1786[edit]
Template:English cricketers of 1761 to 1786 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Moondyne 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)