This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Nice tidy page for once! I thought you were away till tomorrow night but I see you've been very busy on here this afternoon so you're obviously home early. I tried phoning you just now. Hope you get sorted this week. By the way, I have offered to pick up a few of Einar's history articles though they will be high level only. -- GeorgeWilliams 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Great to see you back again Jack. If there is a bit of a problem in the future, do feel free to contact an admin like myself. I'm happy to simply move any deleted bits and pieces into your userspace so you can prepare them in the meantime, since a non admin can't see deleted contents. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

People like you are rare. You have done so much unsung (frequently misunderstood) work on Wikipedia. Your contributions are missed. Come back soon. Yours hypocritically (I'm on Wikibreak!) -- Dweller 11:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, the result of [1] was KEEP!

Common sense has finally prevailed.

Precedent set? -- GeorgeWilliams 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reversions on the Indian tour page references. And I really do appreciate your viewpoint: I just don't happen to agree with all of it! On stubs and their minimum length, BTW, I suppose my long-term overall-aim position would be that every article should be long enough to cover all the relevant points, and that stubs would therefore be the equivalent of an intro or a summary paragraph, of the kind that one has at the top of main articles before diving off into the subheadings and the detail. That's obviously idealistic, but I do think any stub should cover the main gist of why the subject is noteworthy, and should include a few salient facts and perhaps some "see also" references that can be discarded once the article is expanded to include information from "real" references. Anyway, as you may have gathered, my particular beef at present is that there are too few people adding content and too many trying to organise and corral and nitpick. So I shall now go off and add some more content... somewhere. :) Johnlp 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your offer of help re Yorkshire Players. It'd be great if you could look at some of the ones I've done on the Yorkshire CCC players list ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yorkshire_CCC_players) and make sure the format is ok. I kept putting 'Glamorgan' and 'Surrey' etc and they redirect to the page about the county, rather than the county cricket team, so I'll have to go back and sort those out myself. If you know of any little titbits of information to flesh things out that would make it more interesting too. I'm also a bit confused about John Brown senior and junior in that list, as cricket archive and cricinfo don't seem to square. Maybe it was just too late when I looked. If you could do them it would avoid me making any schoolboy errors. Thanks. Nick mallory 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

Hello Jack, can you activate your email please? I would like to send you something. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for noticing the Murali page, although do note that a certain B Lee is now filling up with celebrity cruft and lots of "firepower and hostility" in more ways than one. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the revised ratings are looking very good. I have quibbles over very few of them. A few suggestions, that I shan't be offended if you disagree with. Since Neville Cardus is (I believe correctly) rated high, then I think that A.A. Thomson and Alan Gibson should only be one level further down, and hence be mid rather than low (Gibson's The Cricket Captains of England seems to be referenced very frequently in Wiki articles). I would also suggest that Amar Singh should be mid rather than low. Amar Singh is still regarded by some as the best quick bowler that India has ever had, and if Javagal Srinath is mid then I think that Singh merits the same ranking. I was going to mention Peter Cat and Bill Lawry as well, but I see that you have already altered their ratings to the ones that I was going to suggest. JH ( talk page) 10:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that Alan Gibson still needs to be restored to mid. JH ( talk page) 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my 19th century project is on the back burner at present. I hadn't fully appreciated just what a big project it would be. Also it was complicated by finding one or more of your history articles that I hadn't been aware of, which made me wonder if I what I was doing wouldn't largely duplicate what was already there. What I have so far can be found at User:Jhall1/drafts. The incomplete draft of the article otself is followed by reams of stuff copied and pasted from elsewhere, from which I was hoping to extract bits to put in the article. JH ( talk page) 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help. It's so long since I looked at it, that the problem will be getting up to speed again. Perhaps I can manage to put in the session of 3 or 4 hours next weekend that it really needs in order to be whipped into some sort of shape. After I've done that, then I'd be grateful if you'd review it. I wish I'd been a bit more organised, as I can't remember now which source that very long list of year by year info came from. JH ( talk page) 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Belligerent Gnome Award I, Dweller, make you the first (and probably only) recipient of the Belligerent Gnome Award for your, erm belligerent gnoming, which irritates some people some of the time, but is exceedingly valuable to the project. Dweller 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Evesham Cricket Club Ground has been tagged as "low" importance whereas Chain Wire Club Ground has been tagged as "bottom". Both grounds have staged only a single f-c game and two or three Second XI fixtures, so shouldn't Evesham also be "bottom"? Loganberry ( Talk) 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through the American grounds recently and giving them fair assessments. I appreciate your work on the project.-- Eva ^{b d} 13:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any non-white players in English first class cricket before this Anglo Indian who played for Cambridge in 1880 ? Tintin 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I found Pereira's name in an article Indians in English county and university cricket by Mohandas Menon. I can't remember off the top of the head what it said about his ancestry except that it called him the first Indian to play fcc. I'll check and reply back here. Tintin 09:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The book only says something like that it is not well-known that Pereira is the first Indian to play fcc in England, and gives his DoB/D and PoB/D and mentions his only fcc match. It doesn't even say that he is an Anglo-Indian (I must have assumed it), but Pereira is not an unusual name in India, probably because of inter-marriages. Tintin 06:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the context of James Aylward's 167, don't we have any information available on the number of playing hours per day in the 18th century ? Tintin 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I have to say that I disagree with your tagging of many of the English seasons as being A-class, since the guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Assessment seems to tell us that the article should be on the cusp of a viable FAC candidacy. I don't think these articles meet that standard, since FACs in this age require inline citations, and also need to be longer than three paragraphs, which is the length of some of the articles. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that he says on his main cricket page: Information on this site may be used in other published material on condition that my authorship is clearly acknowledged. But in spite of that, he seems to bear a grudge against Wikipedia, which is sad, for at the bottom of his Bibliography page he says: NB: I wish to make absolutely clear that none of my information has come from the website called Wikipedia. On the contrary, virtually everything you may read in Wikipedia about cricket up to the end of the 18th century has been directly copied from this work. You are advised to use this original version for your research as it is free of errors introduced to the material on Wikipedia by its "editors" and "administrators". I strongly recommend readers not to use Wikipedia in any circumstances. It's rather sad that he feels that way. I was wondering about contacting him at the email address that he gives, but I don't suppose that it would do any good. His claim of direct copying hardly seems consistent with his other claim that errors have been introduced. JH ( talk page) 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you take a look here, re this edit, are you sure that he was called Gilly (since been edited to Gilby) ? I have read about him being addressed as Willie but not Gilly. Tintin 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore this. It has been resolved. Tintin 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless I replied on 26 May. Will bear it in mind as I can't recall where I read about him being called Gilly. Have got Eric Midwinter's book to read so I'll see it that helps. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Belligerent Gnome. Please see the posts I've just made at WT:CRIC. I'd particularly welcome your wisdom on this one, even (especially?) if you think the idea stinks. -- Dweller 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on 26 May. I think it's a great idea. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Wicket-keeping (cricket), by 84.66.17.239, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Wicket-keeping (cricket) has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. ( CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Wicket-keeping (cricket), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Wicket-keeping (cricket) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. -- Android Mouse Bot 2 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was redundant. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:West Indian cricket seasons from 1864-65 to 1889-90, by 84.66.17.239, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:West Indian cricket seasons from 1864-65 to 1889-90 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. ( CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:West Indian cricket seasons from 1864-65 to 1889-90, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:West Indian cricket seasons from 1864-65 to 1889-90 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. -- Android Mouse Bot 2 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was redundant. I see George has sorted out the one stray article that was left behind. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a discussion about your site. What do you think of placing a notice on Lads to Lord's that Wikipedia has permission to lift your material, which it already has done in any event? And welcome home. -- GeorgeWilliams 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for your help there, George. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack, in respect of this, I posted an entry [2] to WP:WWA. — Moondyne 12:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about my edits there, see User talk:Jhall1#Re: Vintcent van der Bijl of another example where I've made such a mistake. Was generally trying to just get a general archiving of all those with Unknown class/importance going, but not knowing the context of the player does kind of hinder in such situations. And just so you know, the page I normally link to in edit summaries as such (it's too long in that specific one, however) is the one where you overhauled the system. :p Thanks. AllynJ 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Henry Blofeld read out an email this afternoon from a chap with your name, commenting on Blofeld's description of umpire Billy Bowden's eccentric gait. You? Or a doppelgänger? Johnlp 18:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on East African cricket team in England in 1972, by Benon ( talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because East African cricket team in England in 1972 is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting East African cricket team in England in 1972, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate East African cricket team in England in 1972 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. -- Android Mouse Bot 2 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am departing for the time being as per the wikibreak notice above. I shall be doing the same as I did in the spring and summer of 2006. It will take several weeks, indeed a few months. As happened last year, I simply won't have time for Wikipedia editing. I'll be back in October. All the best until then. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Back again on an occasional basis. Just tidying up loose ends for now but may decide to expand some of the 18th century material over the summer. Depends on other work. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack, You asked at User:P64 in March whether I am interested in getting involved in Sport history again. Yes but it seems that our schedules do not mesh. The academic year here in North America consumed me entirely but I will again do some work here during the summer, as 'P64' if I can recover login information for that user.

By October my time here will be extremely limited or nil. -P64

My plans still being somewhat fluid, I'll keep you in mind. All the best. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there will still be a few things for you to do when you get back! Enjoy the summer. Johnlp 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you be reading mails ? Tintin 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will, but not on an everyday basis. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you should look in again soon, see the result of [3] which was no consensus and therefore keep! I have copied the list of these tours and will try to put Test Match summaries into them over the coming weeks. Best wishes. -- GeorgeWilliams 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, surprising, George. I expected them to get zapped. Thanks to you and the others who have been adding content. Re our conversation, I'll take the LOI point up on the project page but I've been thinking it about it again this morning and I believe your suggestion is right. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are listed as a participant in the Philately WikiProject. Today I have created an inactive list consisting of those participants who have not made any philatelic edits for more than six months. I was going to use a 3 month cut off point but felt generous. You are not one of those editors, so I have not moved you and you remain as an active participant. If you are still active on Wikipedia but are inactive in philately please let us know by moving yourself to the inactive list. However, we really need more active participants for all philatelic articles. The Philately Portal has been running for some time and I am doing occasional updates, Postage stamps of Ireland is a candidate for featured article (that would be the first philatelic article), and several of the redlinks have been filled but we need more activity so if you are around please participate. Thanks for the work you have done in the past even if you have not done anything recently. Cheers ww2censor 01:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again, ww2censor. I think it would be best to declare me inactive as it will be many months before I contribute again, though I fully intend to do so. Please don't hesitate to write to me here if you have any questions or you need support in any issues that arise. Best wishes. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you are involved with Cricket to a big extent, so I will move you to the inactive list for now. Hopefully you will return to active philatelic editing soon as we really need more contributors. Cheers & thanks ww2censor 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The one I was thinking of was started by The Cricketer in the 1970s, as a statistical supplement that could be bought or subscribed to independently of the magazine, and I'm not aware of a Rowland Bowen connection. However I seem to have been mistaken in thinking that Robert Brooke was the editor, though he was statistician and obituarist for The Cricketer as of 2003, and may still be. JH ( talk page) 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

...small booklet, wasn't it? That's the one. I probably still have one or two editions tucked away somewhere, but finding them would be another matter. I've just finished expanding Robert Brooke, if you'd like to take a look.

You might care to take a look at this article, as it seems to me to have some dubious history in it, notably in the introductory paragraph. Even as early as the late 18th century, there were professional cricketers, weren't there? As you know more about those early days than I do, I'll leave any corrections to you. JH ( talk page) 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wondered if I could tempt you back from your wikibreak with the news that we're taking the Don to FA. Your gnoming would be highly useful. You could always interpret "next year" using academic years, if that helps... the old one's just finished, so arguably the new one's begun... -- Dweller 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yay! -- Dweller 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

...for someone claiming to be inactive. Heaven help us if you were to decide to come back from your wikibreak. You'd probably finish the whole project by teatime. ;-) Johnlp 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll not take this amiss, but I am interested to know what the justification is for changing the references on an article to which, according to the article history, you've made no contribution. I ask because I've just had flagged up on my watchlist a change you made to List of Somerset CCC players. I don't have any problem with you adding Wisden to the references, but you've deleted (or at least changed) a reference that was presumably added by the person who created the original list, and which presumably reflects the range of references they actually used. I don't feel strongly enough to undo your change, but I am inclined to think it's a bit high-handed of you. BTW, whatever happened to your long wikibreak? You seem busier than ever! Johnlp 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jack. When you explain it, it makes eminent sense. Johnlp 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Having completed my housekeeping exercise on the tour and season cricket articles (see WT:CRIC), I feel I have reached my limit and have nothing else to offer. It is up to WP:CRIC to take things forward. I have many other interests and projects that have lately been neglected. It is time to burn the bridge and walk away. So long! -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Don't forget the door is always open to you. Good luck. The Rambling Man 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bums.

What am I going to do when I next need a Belligerent Gnome? -- Dweller 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)