User talk:BlackJack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Courtkittie 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Cricket stubs

Hi - I note with some alarm that you have created a fairly large number of cricket stub subtypes without any proposal or debate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Several of them are far too small to be at an acceptable threshold for separate categories. All of the new stub types are listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to comment there on any reasons why these new types should not be taken for upmerging or deletion to WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How pathetic that a few new stub categories should be "noted with some alarm". What sort of pretentious crap is that?

Anyone with any common sense should be able to see that the work I have done on the stub categories is to enable the cricket project to move forward by recognising the scale of the task it faces in developing its 5600+ stubs. Once again, I find that Wikipedia works against itself because of pedantic individuals who cannot see the big picture and are too wound up with their own procedural obsessions to understand that the purpose of contribution by genuine editors is to provide information for the readers.

I have for several months wondered if I should put all of my cricket material into my own website and this latest piece of petty, pedantic, blinkered crap has crystallised things and made my mind up for me. I have threatened to quit Wikipedia in the past and changed my mind. I have been studying my personal material this morning and I have decided that to work alone with the purpose of creating my own site is by far my best option, especially in terms of the personal satisfaction it will provide. I would encourage other genuine contributors to do likewise. This time I will not change my mind and this message is my last contribution to Wikipedia. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BlackJack the whole project cricket wants you to contribute man. Please come back! We need contributors like you or there would be no project cricket. Wikipedia needs contributors like you to make things even. You just have to deal with it and move forward, if people like you leave than all these articles would just be garbage and there wont be any quality cricket articles left. Hopefully you will comeback--Thugchildz

Okay, let's take your points one at a time, shall we?

How pathetic that a few new stub categories should be "noted with some alarm". What sort of pretentious crap is that?

When it comes to trying to keep stub categories and templates under control, the creation of one unproposed stub template is bad. Two can be reasonably distressing, but to suddenly find several is indeed p[retty alarming. I'm sorry if you find what I wrote to be "pretentious crap", but it's just the way I write. I can't do anything about that.

Anyone with any common sense should be able to see that the work I have done on the stub categories is to enable the cricket project to move forward by recognising the scale of the task it faces in developing its 5600+ stubs. Once again, I find that Wikipedia works against itself because of pedantic individuals who cannot see the big picture and are too wound up with their own procedural obsessions to understand that the purpose of contribution by genuine editors is to provide information for the readers.

Stub categories are not designed to be ogf benefit to readers. they are designed to be of benefit to editors and as such they have different requirements. You can create as many general permanent categories as you like, but in order for stub types to work to their optimum, several criteria have been deliberately set up.

I have for several months wondered if I should put all of my cricket material into my own website and this latest piece of petty, pedantic, blinkered crap has crystallised things and made my mind up for me. I have threatened to quit Wikipedia in the past and changed my mind. I have been studying my personal material this morning and I have decided that to work alone with the purpose of creating my own site is by far my best option, especially in terms of the personal satisfaction it will provide. I would encourage other genuine contributors to do likewise. This time I will not change my mind and this message is my last contribution to Wikipedia.

That is a shame - your work on cricket articles is of great benefit to Wikipedia. Also, from my unsertalk page:

Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.

Please read WP:BOLD - read in partticular the bit which says that it applies to articles but not to categories or templates. Please also note the template at the top of Category:Cricket stubs and the information listed on WP:STUB. The main problems (plural) are with the names of one category and two templates, and the size of the categories - none of them are at the standard 60 stubs needed to split and one is at a fairly shocking eleven stubs. prior to this, they were in one category with some 160 stubs - well within the standard accepted size for stub categories. See below for reasons why these sizes are used.

I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.

Actually, ISTR it was begun by me - I'm pretty sure I was the one who started the cricket bio-stub organisation.

By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).

Exactly, and that is the reason for stub sorting in general.Without stub sorting, all stubs would be in one large category of several hundred thousand articles. This is clearly not suitable, and, in fact, over a long period it has become clear that stub categories with more than about 600 articles and less than about 60 articles are of little use to editors. Any more than 600, and int becomes too difficult to wade through all the articles to find the ones an editor may be able to edit. Any fewer than 60, and an edito has to search a far larger number of categories for articles, a task which not only slows editors down but is disheartening for many editors. From the stub sorting point of view, 60 articles as a minum is also useful, as the number of stub categories is already closing in on 4000 - lowering the threshold number would make an already busy system too cumbersome for any stub sorters to keep track of. Allowances are made for one base-level stub category for wikiprojects (a reduction in the threshold is considered appropriate in this case), but not for a plethora of different stub categories for any one project.

This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.

It matters for the reasons listed above. A stub category that small is useless - and even discouraging - for editors, and sets a precedent which could see the demise of stub sorting as a whole if it were to become the norm. I certainly do not think "all stubs should be expanded now" It would be nice if some were, but it certainly is nothing to do with the reason why I pointed out the problems with what you have done.

Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term.

That is exactly what I want to happen.

What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.

The big picture, as I have pointed out above, is problems for all stub types across the whole of Wikipedia if there is no threshold.

I absolutely refuse to visit WP:WSS/D or whatever it's called. If you are so pedantic that you must interfere in this project to suit your own blinkered view of the way that information is created and categorised for the benefit of the readers, then you will no doubt go ahead and do whatever you are going to do anyway and I will just be wasting valuable time getting involved.

I have no objection to you creating permcats for the benefit of readers. But, as I pointed out, stub categories are not designed for the benefit of readers they re for the benefit of editors.

I seem to have been free of this sort of political interference for a few months lately but, sure enough, three times in one week, here we go again. Frankly, I really don't know why I bother.

You bother because you care about cricket and you care about Wikipedia. You bother because you have information that you want to share with others. You bother because overall you see Wikipedia as a good thing, even though occasionally you run into other people working on Wikipedia with views different to you. It is for these reasons that I hope you reconsider your decision to leave - you have a lot of valuable things to add to Wikipedia, both in terms of your writing and also your organising. It is worth noting though that, if you have had people complain about what you are doing three times in one week, chances are you are doing something which is affecting the work of other editors. Wikipedia is not anarchy - it has set rules and guidelines. Working within them means that in doing your editing you are not harming the work of others. Your stub categories and templates could well harm the work of many other editors. I can understand why you have made them, but please understand why they are not necessarily the best way to have gone about things. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your leaving

Heck. What a huge loss. I'm gutted. --Dweller 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I too am sorry to see you go, although I can't say I blame you after the response your hard work recieved.

A thought that has just occurred to me is that, if you do decide to put your effort into a personal cricket site, you could consider your own cricket based wiki (Cricipedia?). Perhaps this would allow you to retain some of the advantages of Wikipedia whilst avoiding it's problems? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BlackJack, please do not be disheartened. The cricket writers on Wikipedia value your input immensely, even though we probably don't tell youso often enough.

On the short series articles, if they are deleted, there are plenty of admins around who can undelete them whem someone wants to expand them beyond a one line summary (and, as discussed on WT:CRIC, it is possible to write a few lines on any series with very little effort, so hopefully we can co-ordinate some community effort in this respect).

On the stubs, again, I am sorry that you have rubbed up against one of the little Wikipedia satrapies (I was not aware that the stub people ruled with a rod of iron, but there you are). Your organisation of the stubs has been very welcome - would it be such a hardship to put the 33 Cricket administration stubs, 12 Cricket media stubs and 31 Cricket terminology stubs back as just plain "cricket stub"s? I would not worry too much about the naming issues - the stub people can sort them out.

The important thing is writing articles, something that you have done in spades and which we need more of. Please don't concern yourself too much about the plumbing underneath Wikipedia, or let yourself get upset by the people who chastise you for doing what you think best. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are still cardinal priniples. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Philatelic community will also miss you and we really really need some active participants because there are so few who make decent contributions. While your philatelic contributions have not been as large as your cricket work, and you have not been turned off by us, we hope, maybe you will consider bowling an occasional over on the stamps, not the stumps. Excuse the pun but it seemed to good to pass up. Cheers and good luck in whatever decision you make. ww2censor 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1882-83 New Zealand cricket season

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article 1882-83 New Zealand cricket season, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Addhoc 13:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Stamps

Hey you are into stamp collecting? I am currently selling off my entire collection as it takes up too much room!! I have added some stamps to Postage stamps of Abu Dhabi -it would be great if the entire philately of the world could be covered on wikipedia with an article for each year of issue by country with images of them all and commentery. What do you think? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

HEY what are doing mate. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE!!!! DOn't let the views of a few individuals get you down -beleive me the majoirty of people in this world beleive you are doing a terrific job for wikipedia!!!!!! Please read this and reconsider your leaving - show that you are stronger than this -what will it take to convince you you are an exceelent wikipedian!!!? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand cricket team in England in 1927

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article New Zealand cricket team in England in 1927, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Addhoc 15:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Idiots, Meddlers and Do-Gooders

Hello, Jack. I don't know if you will read this given your current opinion of Wikipedia.

I have just read and enjoyed a book by Jeremy Clarkson in which he comments upon the state of the world and in his foreword he says something to the effect that "the world is a great place except that the idiots, meddlers and do-gooders spoil it for the rest of us". He could just as easily be talking about Wikipedia from what I have observed thus far, although I've only been using it a short while. Like Mr Clarkson, you are quite right in your observations as Wikipedia certainly has several members it would be better off without.

I think, however, that although you are spot on in your analysis of the situation, you have chosen the wrong solution. You should stay and fight these "knowalls who understand nothing" from within and continue to contribute: remember your point about providing information for the readers.

My main areas of interest are the Viking period (hence my username) and the general history of sport, especially how it fits into the contexts of social and historical development. I enjoy a good game of cricket (loved watching Ireland v Pakistan yestersay) and I'm very much aware that cricket is the "daddy" where professional team sport is concerned.

Your work on Wikipedia (and elsewhere, given that it is obvious to me who you are) is tremendous. Indeed, I seriously believe you should have your own article on here, especially in the light of your most recent publication which I've been browsing this past week.

If you do read this, or if someone who knows you should read it and will talk to you about it, please come back to Wikipedia. Remember that it is estimated to be the second most used site on the internet after Google and therefore you have a massive audience before you.

All the best and don't let the idiots, the meddlers and the do-gooders get you down. --Einar 10:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From Lads to Lord's

Jack, I propose to include the e-book From Lads to Lord's – The History of Cricket: 1300 – 1787 in List of works by cricket historians and writers and to reference it in all the cricket history articles and biographies up to 1787 that are based on it.

Do you have anything to say about my proposal?

This is of course a devious ploy to get you back on here. ;-)

--GeorgeWilliams 15:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can it be true...

... that you are back? If so, that's very good news. Johnlp 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My response: HEY what are doing mate. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE!!!! DOn't let the views of a few individuals get you down -beleive me the majoirty of people in this world beleive you are doing a terrific job for wikipedia!!!!!! Please read this and reconsider your leaving - show that you are stronger than this -what will it take to convince you you are an exceelent wikipedian!!!? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see how much you leaving the project affected me. I hate to see quality and respectable people mistreated. I have always thought your work was tops so was quite surpised when you left!! Great to have you back I hope everybody realizes how much Cricket has dried up on wikipedia since you left! I also am too busy with film and setting up two big projects WikiProject:Film biography and Wikiproject Tibet but it would be great to have articles like I said. I bow down to you. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Jack, it really is good that you have returned. May I propose that we use Category talk:History of sports as a forum to discuss sports history and perhaps get a project under way? I must go now but should be back on here tomorrow evening with luck. Welcome back. --Einar 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome once again. I am going through a fairly inactive phase myself, which will probably continue for a couple of weeks. Tintin 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And welcome back from me as well. JH (talk page) 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1850-1883 Australian cricket seasons

Hello. You recently created multiple articles about Australian cricket seasons from 1850 to 1883. I thought you should be aware of a recent AFD discussion on the articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1850-51 Australian cricket season. The consensus in that discussion was to delete 124 articles that contained no content beyond "The 1850-51 Australian cricket season took place in late 1850 and early 1851" and the like. I do not believe the articles you have created fall under this criticism (and therefore the consensus reached at AFD), but you should probably be aware of it if you are going to work on the articles or create articles for other years. You may wish to check with the closing admin, User:Gnangarra, about the issue. Cheers, Black Falcon 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted all except the 1882-83 series as that has expanded beyond what was discussed in the AfD, the other articles were just a recreation of what was previously there. All of these article can ultimately be recreated but please create and expanded the articles. Where recreation of the stubs occurs they will be speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted articles. Gnangarra 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The AfD discussion was commenced by members of wikiproject cricket, they recommended that all the stubs get deleted. It was agreed in the AfD that by deleteing the stubs it would encourage editors to recreate with expanded articles, as stubs they are subject to AfD consensus to delete and WP:CSD#G4 applies. When I closed the discussion I indicated that I would happily restore any articles that were erroronously listed for deletion. Alternatively if you wish to just recreate them as stubs you need to go via WP:DRV but I would also suggest that you discuss this other interested editors at WikiProject Cricket. Gnangarra 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're back?

I'm delighted. I hope you'll be pleased to note the recent addition of a number of cricket-related FAs to those already in existence. We have a terrific WikiProject and it's great you're back to play your exceptionally valuable (and valued) rôle. --Dweller 16:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think BlackJack's return was a brief one - see the message at WT:CRIC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Here's a brief pointer (should Jack be visiting his page) to a note I've appended to the discussion at WT:CRIC. In short, using the sandbox would offer a way around the new problem. Perhaps you could reconsider, Jack: your knowledge and energy are valued. Johnlp 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Indian cricket team in England in 1974

An editor has nominated Indian cricket team in England in 1974, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian cricket team in England in 1974 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)