KestevenBullet

Your post on my talk page

Thank you for the note on my talk page. Because you seem to have somewhat mobile accounts on WP, I'll post here but copy it back to my talk page so the record remains intact. I do not allow other people to edit my own comments on my talk page, and nor do I edit theirs.

Sorry in any case for slow response: I am in a particularly difficult work period at present and have little time for WP.

I don't think your reservations on the source should be dismissed out of hand, but I do think that they have to relate to material that actually appears within the pages of WP. My impression, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, is that From Lads to Lord's is cited on WP as support material only for articles of a statistical or factual kind and, as you yourself say, as a statistical record of early cricket it is not in (much) dispute. The more contentious commentary material within From Lads to Lord's does not seem to me to be anywhere cited in support of a WP article that makes similar tendentious statements, and if it were I'm sure that far more people than just the WP cricket community would be weighing in to offer their views. My own knowledge of some of the material you have written on my talk page (a couple of published books on the industrial revolution, in fact, though I try to hide that here, where my interest is primarily cricket) is enough to know that the interpretation offered is, shall we say, individual. If that material was being cited, then I would join you in calling for its removal: but I can't see that it is cited anywhere.

The broader issue, which will hopefully be resolved by disinterested parties at WP:RS, is whether a source cited for one set of data where the reliability is not questioned ought to be discarded because of unreliability in other areas. My view is that we might well discard an awful lot of pretty good source material if we were to interpret this harshly, including virtually everybody's memoirs or autobiographies; but also that we shouldn't allow a fairly liberal regime to enable falsehoods or misleading information to be propagated in WP's pages. Fortunately, the RS folk will decide on this case.

Meanwhile, my invitation remains: put up some material where WP has dubious content because of From Lads to Lord's, or wait for the RS ruling. And if you have material yourself that can help us improve the WP site as a whole, then please join us under a permanent name and make your contributions. You'll I think find that most people here are welcoming to those who want to make a real contribution; but less friendly to those who snipe from the sides without making the commitment to try to help improve matters. Johnlp (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Frindall

I think that a separate article "Variations in Test Match Statistics" would be justified. I don't think that it matters if it's small. And you could add something on the 1970 England v RoW series, which the TCCB promoted as Tests at the time and which for a number of years thereafter Wisden and some other authorities accepted as Tests. I don't think that such material belongs in the "Variations in First-class Cricket Statistics" article, as the f-c status of the matches involved is not in question. JH (talk page) 08:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tests

If you mean that you don't know how to create an article, then if you just type the desired name of the article into the Search box and press Go, it should tell you that the article does not exist and give you the option of creating it. If you have any trouble with that, then get back to me. JH (talk page) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Contentious

One of the maxims of WP is to be bold (WP:BOLD). If you see material that you know is wrong, then change it so that it is correct and referenced! Cricketarchive and cricinfo are widely cited throughout the Cricket Project pages and are universally accepted (where there is a divergence between the two, Cricketarchive tends to be believed more, but maybe that's my prejudice). If the list of 18th century County Champions is unsubstantiated by other sources, it would seem to me to be right to remove that information wherever it occurs. With the biogs of players who appeared in doubtful matches, amend the copy to say which matches are considered "major" and which not (again using references such as Cricketarchive); if this means some players are then of dubious notability, you can put them up for deletion or you can just leave them. If they were "prominent but not quite prominent enough", then you might take a fairly relaxed view of retaining them, assuming the material in the articles is correct (after all, WP is not paper - not constrained by available space). Where there is correct material that references BJ's work, then it would not seem to me reasonable to remove that or to change the reference unless there is a pressing need, such as the work is no available.

The point about all of this is that no one "owns" any of the articles: not BJ, not you, not me. That's one of the joys of WP and also one of the hazards. When we write things here, we basically give up our rights, and copy contributed by experts can be amended by people with no qualifications at all. Fortunately, there are lots of people patrolling the pages and the updates, so vandalism and unconstructive additions tend not to last too long. But the basic premise remains: if you see something wrong, change it. Happy editing! Johnlp (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again.

Hello again. I just wanted to get in contact (and I'm not trying to "out" you. I'm not interested in SP stuff.) I noticed that you have created an article (and it's about time, given the depth of knowledge you show!). As far as the references go, there is a way of making them all show up in the same way and look a bit better. It tells you here and here; I've used these a lot. As far as that article goes, what about some of the C19th Tests, such as those in South Africa? They are worth a mention. I'm not sure about the name of the article, as there is no real variation in Test statistics, but I know what you mean; Tests which really shouldn't be called that, or Tests which weren't Tests at the time. Don't know what you could call it though. If you are going to keep editing and adding content yourself, please get in touch with me, and there may be things we could work on together, as I have said before. Few other people show much interest in pre-war stuff (and don't worry, C18th century cricket isn't my thing). Finally, do you know of any good sources of info on George Macaulay. I recently worked on his article (and managed to get it up to GA class), and find him interesting. I've used Bowes, plus the Yorkshire histories. Do you know anything else? This isn't for the article (as it might drift into OR) but I'm researching him myself for my own interest. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Variations in Test Cricket Statistics

Hi Mark. Not a bad article which has potential and you are right to separate it from its first-class equivalent. However, the title should be Variations in Test cricket statistics according to site conventions (see WP:MOS). In addition, one of its categories (though this is nothing to do with you) should be category:First-class cricket with the hyphen, but I wouldn't bother trying to change that unless you have a very thick skin.

Your work since you adopted your new ID is quite good and only a few tweaks have been necessary. I strongly recommend that you heed all the advice that both Johnlp and JH give you as they are experienced and respected editors. Keep it up. --86.138.10.255 (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

Do you have a source to back up your edit? Also, you removed the first instance of Parkinsons name, but left him in for the next line. Regards, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit summary: reverted errors - Parkinson never played for Yorks II and Bird was at Leicester by then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. First, there is no need for any exclamation marks. Second, Bird and Boycott both played for Yorkshire 2nd XI in 1959 so Bird was not "at Leicester by then". However, I don't think Parkinson did ever make the official 2nd XI so I suspect the problem with the quoted incident is that it took place in a game played by a Yorkshire Colts team against a non-county team, perhaps a Yorkshire club or regional side. Interestingly, Bill Foord is said to have been the bowler but he gave up playing for Yorkshire in the early fifties so that reinforces the point that it was a non-county match. I suggest a review of the source to try and establish what the match actually was. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

When I get aq hold of McKinstry again I'll double check it, but in the mean time I've reverted the change per WP:BLP. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled on this discussion. The club that Parkinson, Bird and Boycott all played for together is Barnsley. See Bird's profile on Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have used the above link, however, KestevenBullet, you need to read WP:CITE and understand it before you continue editing, and be less combative in your edit summaries. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And again you only removed half of the sentence. Check your edits before you save them. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page that "To (sic) many edits appear without fairly straightforward things being checked". Given the scale of WP:CRIC, and taking a real world view, I would have thought it is inevitable that some errors will occur, and surely the mature and sensible approach to these inevitable errors is to correct them as we find them with the minimum of fuss and without exclamation marks going off into the wide blue yonder.

A second point is that the relevant paragraph of the Boycott article made no sense whatsoever as you left it and two of us have had to rectify it. This is not acceptable. If you are going to make an issue about other people's errors, the least you can do is make sure that you correct the error so that the text remains within a readable context. Otherwise you are simply replacing a minor error with a major one.

Finally, you say on my discussion page that "CA gives all the facts". Does it really? You surprise me as I hadn't noticed that it is completely error-free. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Millers

Clearly there were two Millers as they played alongside each other in one match. I think it is entirely possible that Miller of Caterham was Richard as he later played for Surrey. Haygarth is very sure that Joseph was the Kent man and we have to assume that he "got it from somewhere" though at this point in time it is difficult to understand where. Have you any additional published sources that give more information or offer any useful views? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Miller's birth registration

Do you know the date on this document as that would be very useful? Thanks.

I used to live in East Kent in the 1980s and I'm sure there was a Dover club at that time, probably playing at the Crabble ground, but according to Dover Athletic's site the ground was redeveloped in the 1990s and early 2000s so I guess the cricket club moved on or packed up after that. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Sutcliffe

Hi. I noticed that you made a couple of useful corrections to the old version of this article while I was restructuring it. Since then a mass of new content has been added and I wonder if you would care to review it and let us know of any points arising? If you see any typos and the like, just correct those as you find them. Probably best to raise any questions on the article's talk page so that we're not to-ing and fro-ing. Any additional sources you can cite would be especially useful. Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests!

Hi. Just wondered if you know of any good sources on Hutton becoming England captain in '52. All I have really is the fairly mediocre but solid biography by Howat. Is his autobiography (the one from the 50s presumably being the best) worth getting hold of? The article is progressing painfully slowly, but I'm getting there! Also, do you have any good info on Norman Yardley? I'm completely reworking his article in my sandbox. My info is sparse, although I've some good stuff in Appleyard's biography. Also curious about his role in the Boycott stuff, which doesn't seem to be mentioned much anywhere. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Variations

"Also it was publish by the ACS in it's journal. It did not reflect the ACS view"

If the ACS published it then it is a verifiable citation that can be used on WP. You are very fond of demanding how people know something, so how do you know that this was not an "ACS view" when it was published on their site? What you really mean, as usual, is that you and your little clique do not agree with it and therefore it is wrong. In case you haven't noticed, it is very rare that the ACS is cited on WP and the reasons for that are partly their relative obscurity and partly the fact that very few people have any interest in the "ACS view".

You have been told before to "put up or shut up" and that advice still applies. If you have anything useful or significant to "put up", then do so and lets see if it is any good.

Oh, and by the way, your English needs improvement: "publish" is present tense and "it's" means "it is". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Bore

Hi, it may not have been your intention, but you seem to have removed the references and categories from this article. Are you sure he's not a cricketer? ϢereSpielChequers 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

List of cricket grounds in England and Wales

Those grounds are on there! They're listed within the relevant county for which they are in; Cleethorpes for example is archived under Lincolnshire, Wardown Park under Bedfordshire, the Welsh ones under Welsh counties - all of these are listed under the Minor Counties section. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How's that?

See the final paragraph of the "Career statistics" section in Jack Hobbs and let me know what you think. I cannot cite the search result as it is a temporary workspace only so I've taken the approach of specifying the relevant parameters and citing the search input screen. Since I can't show the readers the results, the only thing to do is show them how to achieve the results. In technical terms, the output is unavailable so give them the input and the means of processing. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

2012 Under-19 World Cup

I technically can't say as the information is currently under a media embargo, but let's just say that it's in a country that is very close to Argentina in an alphabetical list of countries. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Billy Beldham

Can you please be more precise with this source: "Billy Beldham Keith Warsop ACS 2009 p.2"? It doesn't mean much in that form unless "Billy Beldham" is the title. Is it one of the "Famous Cricketers" series, for example? The reference needs clarification and formatting per accepted standards (i.e., with commas, etc.). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour

Not that it is any business of yours, but I've written to Roger Heavens to see if Ian's book is still available. For your information, Ian's name is Maun and I had correspondence with him several years ago when we were both researching the Artillery Ground. He was cordial (unlike you) and helpful (ditto). I freely admit I was no help to him, other than to give him encouragement, because I had only questions and he had the answers. I did not know he had finished and published his book so I suppose I must be grateful to you for the information, even though it arrived by means of your usual playground taunt.

As for telling me to "behave like a historian", I am waiting until I see Ian's book so that I can analyse it and decide what should go into Wikipedia and, indeed, onto my own site. And, by the way, I am an expert in analysis, though I would not be so immodest as to label myself a "distinguished expert", like some people evidently do. I am a professional analyst who is well paid for it and I even manage other analysts working for one of the most successful companies in the country on applications which are key to that success. In other words, my colleagues and I are highly productive in difficult times and are in the vanguard of the drive towards national recovery. We do not dabble in whatever gets dabbled in at provincial universities nowadays. As a professional analyst, I gather my facts before I act and I certainly do not take the word of people like you. I realise that reads like a breach of WP:AGF but your record on here through your numerous userids and IPs, culminating in your disgraceful behaviour last month, exempts you from any assumption of good faith because you have repeatedly shown there is none.

Like AssociateAffiliate, Moondyne, Mattinbgn and everyone else who has had to put up with your childish, spiteful and unacceptable behaviour on this site, I am now absolutely fed up. I only returned to the site a month ago and the first thing I found is that you have again been sending nasty incoherent invectives to people whose "crime" is apparently to have worked on WP:CRIC. That is why AssociateAffiliate reopened the never-ending Daft SPI which blocked the IP addresses you were using in September. They didn't close this userid because it had been inactive but, now that you are using it again to make rude, confrontational posts and perform careless edits to suit your own WP:POINT, the SPI has been reopened to try again and get this account closed. You are allowed to comment at SPI if you wish: you know where it is.

If the SPI decides to close your account, any edits or postings you produce in future will be deleted with the edit summary "rv troll" as per Moondyne's prompt and wise action last month. If the admins decide to give you another chance and keep your account open, I suggest you behave like a reasonable adult and accept that other people have ideas and practices very different to yours, especially when on this site they are acting in accordance with the site's standards. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Variations in Test cricket statistics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Variations in Test cricket statistics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variations in Test cricket statistics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Jack | ^{talk page} 16:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)