I honestly think that WP:CITEVAR is wikt:more honored in the breach.
Of course there are reasons for it. I arrived here in 2003, and everything needed to be hammered out. Asking for some stability in referencing styles, of which there are many, would cut out some of the flip-flopping editing wars. That was two decades ago, and I suppose the idea that it might lead referencing into a dead-end ruled by cryogenics wasn't at the front of people's minds.
There are always trade-offs here. I don't often get into big debates, but typically when I do it is with those who take a one-sided view, favouring one aspect of a trade-off. I think it has rightly been pointed out to you that de minimis can apply.
I have noticed also that you are not careful about the point made in WP:EDITING where it says "be particularly cautious about removing sourced content", amplified in the nutshell there. You just aren't, and you need to follow good practice in that matter.
Adds up to "not a good look". You make a practice of standing on rights when it comes to cosmetic changes, but you remove referenced content that others think should be there, summarily. Please be more generally helpful, in a broad-minded way. WP:PRESERVE, to my mind, is more mission-critical for us than CITEVAR. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi - Hope you are doing well. I don't know if you have reviewer rights, but wondered if you could help with Draft:2024 ACC Women's Premier Cup? An editor created this in draft space a while back (or maybe it was moved there), but I think it is good enough for the mainspace now. I had already created 2024 ACC Women's Premier Cup as a temporary redirect to Associate international cricket in 2023–24, so I cannot move the editor's draft to mainspace (without changing its title, then adjusting the existing redirect to that). I understand from the editor that it has been awaiting review for some time. Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks. Ps: Looking forward to another season on despair at Canterbury! Bs1jac ( talk) 14:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Long conversation collapsed
|
---|
Blue Square Thing. There is an issue concerning you that I must bring to your attention. Forgive me, but my colleagues and I thought you had quit the site after seeing the mail from Charles above and I wrote to him for advice. As you have returned, I can now raise the issue with yourself as was our original intention. On 18 January, I came across this edit summary which mentions The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (the ACS) in an unfavourable light. A few of us discussed this and are agreed that your remarks are untrue and could damage the reputation of the ACS which does NOT "discredit" people who write about cricket. As far as the work in question is concerned, it was serialised (albeit under an alternative title) across several issues of The Cricket Statistician in 2005/06. The ACS is unlikely, we think, to publish anything that is inaccurate or badly written, and a serialisation of someone's work must be a seal of approval. Basically, the complaint about your remarks, which you repeated in fifteen other summaries on the same day, is that you make the ACS appear to be some kind of oracular entity that routinely condemns anyone and anything it does not like. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ACS is not the Daily Mail or any other tabloid. If someone submits a piece of work that is below standard, they are let down gently and encouraged to keep trying, a practice that you personally should adopt on this site. Given my long-term systems experience, including internet work, I did not expect Charles to be able to remove your edit summaries without going to a great deal of inconvenience and we have agreed to let the matter rest. It is good, of course, that Charles as one of the site's longest-serving sysops is aware of your attitude and behaviour in respect of matters like WP:PRESERVE, which is editing policy, and the minor guidelines like the cite/date variations. Perhaps now that he has raised these matters, you will in turn raise your own standards and stop writing edit summaries that are at best annoying and at worst insulting. I see that you claim above to be the victim of harrassment but, on face value, it seems you have been the recipient of criticism rather than any kind of victim. On the other hand, it has been said that you are a serial offender in terms of WP:GRAVEDANCING, which is probably the worst form of harrassment there is. I could produce a list of your transgressions that would seriously breach the site's length guidelines, but I will concentrate on a gentleman called Pat Cummins who, as you know, is one of the world's greatest cricketers. I would invite you to review all of the edits in Mr Cummins' article between 16 and 18 February 2022. Your comment about crore as "a form of counting things that no one outside India has the foggiest about" is not only untrue but also an insult to all Indian people, especially The Hindu newspaper which was the reliable source for the information. As was pointed out to you at the time, the source reported the fee paid to Mr Cummins as crore and did not mention Australian dollars, so your replacement of crore with a $A conversion breached both WP:PRESERVE and WP:OR. Your notion that no one outside India knows about crore is challenged, shall we say, by the undeniable fact that people all over the world know exactly what it is. Elsewhere in your tirade about the Pat Cummins article, you claimed to have improved the quality of the writing but you introduced a set of laughable errors including a complete misspelling of Kolkata. Errors like that do not improve the "flow" of a narrative; rather, they impede the flow. You also made the somewhat hypocritical claim that you had found "the ref that some idiot removed". Your breaches of WP:PRESERVE have involved the removal of countless valid refs and it is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to call someone an "idiot" when that person was acting in good faith but may have made a mistake, especially if they were a new editor. I was a little surprised to see Charles' comments about the citation and dating variations, but he is absolutely right. You seem to think these guidelines are of paramount importance and yet there are many examples of you breaching them yourself. I daresay I have breached them too since I discovered the MOS:NUM script that resets date formats but I would never make an issue of something so trivial if anyone reverted. You have a similar approach to infoboxes in that you will amend variables in those but completely miss errors in other parts of the article that are arguably higher priority. Then there is the inclusion of CricketArchive in External Links. You frequently make a point of removing that on the grounds of ELNO#6 but, while I accept that you are technically correct, wouldn't it make more sense to move the CA reference into the narrative? It is, after all, a direct source to the most salient points of a biography in that it verifies the fact that the person concerned is or was a first-class cricketer. I spotted a few of these only yesterday and I restored the CA references in the lead after the introductory sentence(s) where it is actually useful for WP:V purposes. My ACS friends have no wish to take matters further and I would rather work on improving articles and categories so I suggest we draw a line under this, but it is to be hoped you will take notice of Charles and improve upon what is certainly, as he says, "not a good look" to become, as he also says, "more generally helpful in a broad-minded way". Batagur baska ( talk) 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
|
I have gone through the cricinfo website and I did not find any instance of a player taking 10 wickets in a limited overs game at any level (Odis, T20IS, List A or Domestic T20S) can you please let me know which game are you referring to when you say that a player has taken 10 wickets in an associate game? 042 rahul ( talk) 05:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Greetings. I have reverted your deletion of the medal table on Rahul Dravid; it is not new that coaches have their medals added. In other sports as well as in cricket ( Gary Kirsten). I have also left an edit note in the page’s history. You are requested not to remove them again. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 10:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Jos Buttler has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the
reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
As you participated in a GA re-assessment for this article in 2018, I thought you may be interested to know about this section GAR.
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 14:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Batagur baska has taken me up on the offer I made to support dispute resolution, with respect to your conduct. My idea is email mediation, which is a format rather than a process. The two parties communicate, not directly, but through the mediator.
The point is for the mediator to clarify exactly what is at issue between the parties. It would be good, therefore, if you could email me from my User talk page. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)