User talk:Boca Jóvenes/Archive 1

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.

I'm pretty sure the image of Compton is not PD either, though a few people try to argue otherwise. Australian images are only PD in the US if they were published before 1946, and that one wasn't. The final image (from 1931) would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1974 FA Charity Shield you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article 1974 FA Charity Shield you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1974 FA Charity Shield for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article 1974 FA Charity Shield you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1974 FA Charity Shield for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

On 4 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1974 FA Charity Shield, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Billy Bremner and Kevin Keegan were sent off for fighting in the 1974 FA Charity Shield, an attempt was made to charge them with breach of the peace? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1974 FA Charity Shield. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1974 FA Charity Shield), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your post here. Do you have physical copies of the books you mentioned? If so, would you be prepared to look at some other articles in this group and compare them with those texts? That could be very helpful in understanding whether or not there really is a large-scale problem here. I've understood that you'd prefer not to get involved in administrative stuff, but ... well, I thought I'd ask anyway. If you find (as of course I hope you will not) three more instances of direct copying (of, say, a sentence or long half-sentence in length), I'll have to open an investigation. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. I'm happy to help with serious issues like COPYVIO or BLP so no problem. The only one of this article's source books I own personally is As It Was by Fred Trueman, which the 1962–63 articles use only lightly (albeit misleadingly as I mentioned re Fred's back injury). My contacts have the Moyes and Titmus books, but none of us have access to the Swanton one at present. The problems with 1962–63 Ashes series and the now-deleted MCC tour of Australia in 1962–63 are very similar, especially copying and close paraphrasing of content in the Johnny Moyes book. Fred Titmus' book was a much greater problem in the "MCC tour" article than in the "Ashes series" where it is only cited occasionally, but again with close paraphrasing.

I'll find some likely looking sentences or paragraphs in some of the related articles and we can then check them out. It will make it easier for us if you are happy with single sentence examples, so thanks for that. Please leave it with me for now and I'll ping you later on when we've done some checking. Best wishes. BoJó | talk UTC 09:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Justlettersandnumbers. I've looked at MCC tour of Australia in 1970–71 and got a bit of feedback from one of my friends who has the Richard Whitington book.

There are not many references in this article but I could check the John Snow one (ref #3) immediately. The information that he was no-balled 15 times by Ron Joseph is true and the citation is fair enough. However, John Snow is still alive and, per BLP, the article should NOT be saying that he was "notorious for not playing his best in unimportant matches". I remember John Snow very well and he was one of the most competitive cricketers you could imagine: indeed, a formidable opponent. That sentence is a blatant breach of BLP. It is POV too because it is unverifiable.

We again have the "Swanton not available" problem but he is only used twice. The article's main source is Richard Whitington's Captains Outrageous? We've checked some of those citations and we are seeing the same pattern of copying with the odd word or phrase amended or omitted; or the word order swapped around a bit. As before, not absolutely verbatim but very close paraphrasing. I cannot see any justification for the quote about Basil D'Oliveira ahead of the 18–21 December match against South Australia. Yes, Dolly was a brilliant player and a lovely man but I think this is a misuse of Richard's words. It is copyvio in quote's clothing. It would be the easiest thing in the world to summarise Richard's view in an objective summary of the match. As for the summary, it looks like OR and is probably a prosification of the scorecard data.

I don't have Richard's book myself but I understand the last sentence of the Queensland Country vs MCC section is a straight copy (ref #6), being especially conspicuous with its mentions of a storm over the mountains and Dolly's innings "illuminated by lightning". There's also a question about ref #1 although the "hard, well-prepared and exceptionally good" bit has been enclosed in quote marks. The original says: W. G. Grace played here 97 years ago when it was an open space covered with stones, but now the pitch is hard, well-prepared and exceptionally good. This is a good example, I think, of how a sentence is copied verbatim and then minimally adapted, but it remains very close paraphrasing.

I'll look at a few more but what we can see here does indicate a widespread problem. To be fair, these articles were all written about ten to twelve years ago and I don't know if the site had different policies and guidelines at that time, though I'd imagine we have always been keen on preventing copyvio. The editor has returned after the first copyvio issue was raised yesterday but has now declared himself "retired". BoJó | talk UTC 10:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:English cricket biography, 1720s birth stubs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely fine, Liz. There were only two stubs in it. One was in the wrong place and I've expanded the other so it's no longer a stub. Also, I've shifted the controlling template to the parent category. I can't see any further use for the category and it should go. Thanks very much. BoJó | talk UTC 09:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to List of English cricket people to 1787. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, Arjayay. Thanks for removing it. BoJó | talk UTC 14:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1744 English cricket season into Edward Aburrow Sr. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, and my apologies. I know attribution is important if you do a merge or a split but never thought about it for a copy. Please leave it with me and I'll sort things out. Thanks again. BoJó | talk UTC 05:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I've sorted it now, using WP:RIA. Could you please check? Again, my apologies and thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 06:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's well. done. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please stop these edits you are doing with the edit summary "failed SIGCOV; redirected as WP:ATD". Within less than 24 hours you have redirected nearly 200 cricket biographies on this basis, including in some cases as many as eight in the space of a minute. What steps are you actually taking to determine that no WP:SIGCOV exists for these articles? Jevansen (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The articles I've been redirecting are all bare stubs which attempt to prosify statistics found in an unreliable online database. I am using WP:ATD-R (see also WP:BLAR) to preserve the page histories so that the articles can be restored if someone finds non-database SIGCOV. I'm aware of an ongoing initiative to remove bare stubs of this type following RFCs earlier this year and I'm trying to help. I think ATD is preferable to AFD which is, I'm sure, where these will eventually go otherwise. As for more information, I've checked Wisden for coverage of people in this category and there is next to nothing except for the sort of bare stats presented by the online database. There are many Eastern Province players (e.g., Eddie Barlow, Colin Bland) who are notable and they are unaffected. A typical example of the bare stubs is Siviwe Gidana which had only 49 words (293 bytes) in three short sentences which prosified statistics that may or may not be correct. I've just looked in the Wisden and Playfair annuals I own and the player is not mentioned in any way except as a name in a scorecard. Online, there is nothing except stats and one or two things like this which is routine coverage of a local club match that is hardly notable.

I'll stop if you insist but I think all of these will eventually find their way to AFD and I would have thought ATD is the better way to go. BoJó | talk UTC 11:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the irony of this, it's probably a good idea to make sure that someone's actually looked for sources. And then to actually deal with the list that's being redirected to - a note needs adding to each player you redirect really, or the list changing somehow to summarise careers. Certainly right now there are a bunch of circular redirects, which are absolutely unhelpful. Maybe deal with those in alphabetical batches - but you know this.

But just going, "Lugnuts stub so..." is about the worst way of dealing with this. If they end up at AFD then fine. You know very well that redirect is a reasonable argument at AFD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, all right, leave it with me. Taken WP:BOLD a step too far, I suppose. The problem is, as you've seen today with Graham Kemp, that the delete calls at AFD will outnumber the redirect calls, even though you have policy on your side. The score at Kemp is 6–2 and it only needs a closer who ignores policy to delete it. I've always taken a proactive view of issues like this and I still think it would be better to ATD before AFD begins. Obviously, AWB isn't ideal and an odd one like Baptiste can slip through the net if it is a bare stub with only one citation. I'll go through them all and restore them. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 14:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that call, but you do need to check first. Baptiste was, I hope, a simple mistake. Grahame Cruickshanks was too rapid - there's an obvious hook. Just check them - they don't all need reverting I'm sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm well on with it now and I think I was too impulsive. Baptiste, as I said, slipped through because it was a bare stub, though his name should have rung a bell. I'll carry on and restore them all. Hopefully, the inevitable AFD campaign will not be an onslaught. With so few people involved in cricket articles now, it will be very difficult to deal with a mass deletion event. Thanks again. BoJó | talk UTC 15:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And now because of this, the articles you have redirected and un-redirected all need to be reviewed in the October 2022 NPP backlog drive. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, we all learn something new every day, don't we? None of us are perfect and these things happen. Perhaps if we didn't have RFCs that completely change goalposts, they might not happen. BoJó | talk UTC 15:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

All those un-redirected articles are a waste of the October 2022 NPP backlog drive participants' time. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you've already made your WP:POINT. I have agreed with Jevansen and BST that I made a mistake and I am in the process of rectifying it. Since I am very good at learning from my mistakes, you may rest assured that I won't do the same thing again. Do you learn from your mistakes, too? BoJó | talk UTC 15:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

All now restored. Apologies for being over-impulsive but we do need to think how we will deal with the expected AFD drive. Thanks to Sammyrice, Jevansen and Blue Square Thing for your help and sorry I have wasted your time. BoJó | talk UTC 16:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No big deal, thanks for taking our comments on board. This is of course all to be discussed soon as part of the Arbitration Committee/RFC where I'm sure your input would be welcome. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Boca Jóvenes, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Devonian Wombat, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, H. Terry, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Terry.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Devonian Wombat}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edward Aburrow Sr you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Billy Beldham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Edward Aburrow Sr you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Edward Aburrow Sr for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Billy Beldham you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Billy Beldham for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Billy Beldham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Billy Beldham for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Edward Aburrow Sr you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward Aburrow Sr for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The article G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The article G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Will Palmer (cricketer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Will Palmer (cricketer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Will Palmer (cricketer) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Will Palmer (cricketer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Will Palmer (cricketer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. Presumably, copied from 1810 English cricket season. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. My apologies as I should have done that. The content has been copied but it will be amended by merging the information into a narrative for the much wider period of 1801 to 1825. I'll make a small edit and use the attribution text for that. Thanks and all the best. BoJó | talk UTC 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a small thing, but I think we owe it to the original editors to make sure we attribute their contributions. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For salvaging some decade-old contributions that might otherwise have been lost, just about doubling the length of George Alexander (Australian cricketer) in the process. Thanks! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Tamzin. That's very kind. It was an interesting case. All the best. BcJvs

Downgrading the importance of this article from High to Mid doesn't seem very PC. :) I think that, as it's arguably the most important article dealing with women's cricket, it should have been kept at High. (As I'm off on my holiday in about an hour, I probably won't see any reply.) JH (talk page) 10:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JH. Well, first, I hope you have a holiday to remember. It will be great to escape from all the wind, rain and political chaos for a time.

I've been trying to create some order in the importance ratings because there was so much in there which had just been dumped and clearly didn't belong. I decided to include anything which is a valid cricketing term that isn't of top importance (e.g., types of dismissal) and then I included all Test match venues. With people, the difficult one, I've kept the big six or so from the Wisden list, plus major world record holders and then at least one player from each of the main Test nations. I thought about keeping the histories but decided to set them aside for now and moved about 500-plus items, mostly people, into mid; and a dozen or so of the sillier ones into low. I'm more than happy to restore any now in mid that other editors think should be high and I'm thinking that maybe all the designated histories should go back but I'll just check some of the shorter period ones first. Certainly, the ladies should have a greater presence and I've promoted about ten of the best-known women cricketers like Rachael Heyhoe-Flint, Cathryn Fitzpatrick and the three Taylors. I'll be doing more on this today. One thing I want to do is expand articles that are in the sub-category Category:Stub-Class cricket articles of High-importance. There are about 40, nearly all Test grounds. All the top importance articles are starts at least so that's good.

Anyway, you have a great holiday. Hope all goes well. Best wishes. BcJvs | talk UTC 10:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boca Jóvenes, thanks for reviewing Zoom!. I'd better let you know that folks get a bit nervous when a review, specially from a new editor, passes with no itemized comments. Even if they're only minor, people feel happier when a review is visibly engaging with the reviewed article, so maybe you could check it over and see if you want to say anything about it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Chiswick Chap. I should have included a criteria template earlier to show that all the checks have been ticked. I've done that now and confirmed that this article meets all of them. It's a very good article and, to be honest, there's not much else I can add. Well done and all the best. BcJvs | talk UTC 13:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

A decision needs to be made on whether or not to split Cardiff Arms Park - To split or not to split. There are two options which have been agreed. SethWhales ^talk 16:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Seth. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll join the discussion. BcJvs | talk UTC 21:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Thomas Chambers (cricket patron) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 18#Thomas Chambers (cricket patron) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 05:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard Newland (cricketer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The article Richard Newland (cricketer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard Newland (cricketer) for comments about the article, and Talk:Richard Newland (cricketer)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please change the color of the "talk" portion of your custom signature. The bright yellow is unreadable against a white background, and poses accessibility issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, not a problem. I'll do it next time I'm on the laptop at home. Thanks. BcJvs | talk UTC 16:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Hope this is okay. BcJvs UTC 22:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

On 12 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Newland (cricketer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Richard Newland is cricket's earliest-known left-handed batter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Newland (cricketer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Newland (cricketer)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Amakuru. I'm very pleased that this article has gained recognition because Newland was one of the greatest cricketers of his time, probably the 1740s equivalent of Ben Stokes, and yet we know so little about him. All the best. BcJvs UTC 17:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

On 7 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Vernon's loss against the Parsis cricket team was seen as "a blow to the prestige of the Empire"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, G. F. Vernon's XI cricket team in Ceylon and India in 1889–90), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to Onegreatjoke for nominating this and to Amakuru. I enjoyed working on the article. BcJvs UTC 17:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

How many articles have you edit today? Just from the articles that I follow, it must run to 30 or more, which suggests that the total must be a lot larger still. I confess I haven't tried to compare the old and new versions of more than a handful. JH (talk page) 18:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JH. Welcome back and hope you really enjoyed the cruise. I've been using AWB for simple cleanups so each one is very quick. It improves formatting and makes minor corrections. It's most useful for highlighting bigger problems, although it can't fix them by itself. Looks like it did over 300 today. It's been very cold while you were away but it should warm up next week, we hope. BcJvs UTC 18:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a very enjoyable cruise. I returned home on 9th December, in time to catch most of the coldest weather. I do like cold weather, but this has rather taken it to extremes. I missed the first Test other than getting frequent score and news updates on my Smartphone over Wi-fi, which was annoying as was the price that P&O charge for it. JH (talk page) 19:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

England are certainly doing well. Harry Brook looks a great prospect. We've sailed with P&O a few times and they certainly try to offset the duty free. I remember once we nearly missed a boat in Hull because of delays on the M62. We were starving so I decided to get us a beefburger each. When they asked for the money, I immediately said: "How much!?" I'm glad you had a good time. BcJvs UTC 21:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

G'day mate, hope you're going well. I noticed that you've been adding a bunch of cricket players' future IPL teams to their infoboxes with the edit summary "valid info needed by readers; also consensus at WP:IPL". It was my understanding that players' teams should only be added to the infobox if they've already played a game for them (it says in the documentation for the infobox "Only include clubs that the player has actually played for." Could you point me to the consensus at WP:IPL? I tried to find a discussion in the IPL project talk page archives but I couldn't. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OliveYouBean. I'm fine, thanks, and hope you are too. There is this piece in the current IPL talk page which, although it's just two IPs talking, hasn't actually been opposed. That may well be because it already complies with the project's mission statement of being "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Indian Premier League". Then, in practice, there is the large number of editors who do add the auction teams to the infoboxes. While I can see your point that Sam Curran, for example, hasn't yet played for the Punjab Kings, I think the most important consideration is the needs of the reader who will want to see at a glance which team Sam is going to play for. If the infobox has no team, we would be misinforming the reader who might reasonably think that Sam has, like Pat Cummins, opted out of IPL 2023.

The other side of the coin is that I'm not aware of any consensus which bars listing of future teams, as long as the deal has been confirmed, of course, and is not speculation as often occurs in football. If Sam Curran should decide not to take part in IPL 2023 then the Kings must be removed from his infobox, but for as long as he is known to be a Kings player I believe we have a duty to the readers to give them that information.

I'm happy to discuss this further, if you wish. It might be an idea to raise it at WT:IPL as it is that project which has a vested interest in IPL coverage. I don't think this can be decided by WP:CRIC, as their interest is indirect, except it would be polite to let them know. Anyway, best wishes for Christmas. BcJvs UTC 12:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I think I will raise it at WT:IPL and mention it at WT:CRIC. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I'll put WP:IPL on watch. Thanks again and all the best. BcJvs UTC 12:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello there,

I see that you reverted my edit to 1774 English cricket season. If the page was correct before, does it still need copyediting and is it still in use? If not, I will remove the associated templates.

Thank you. ContributeToTheWiki (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, yourself. Hope you are okay. The templates can be removed now although I'll still be working on the article, mainly to convert the table into narrative. Thanks for your help and all the best. BcJvs UTC 14:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Boca Jóvenes,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Abishe. That's really kind. We just settled for a quiet drink or two (or three) at midnight but it was very enjoyable. Let's see what 2023 brings. I hope you had a good New Year yourself and I wish you all the best in 2023. Thanks again. BcJvs UTC 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:No Great Shaker per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlackJack. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 13:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boca Jóvenes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Girth Summit, your message says the account "has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse". Please show me when, where and how this account has been used abusively. I would say it has been used constructively for the creation of several good articles, rescuing many other articles which needed repair, etc., etc. Can you really afford to lose editors who perform 12k edits with results like those? BcJvs UTC 13:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, we can afford to lose editors who are unwilling to follow our policies, such as WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked on multiple accounts already - you can't just keep moving back and forth between different accounts each time one gets blocked, and expect us to turn a blind eye to it because you have made lots of constructive edits. Another CU will review the block. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Surely the important thing is to build the encyclopaedia for the benefit of the readers? I think you should block User:Spike 'em for WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, given his incompetence and long-term failure to contribute anything that is actually useful. Maybe you should reconsider his WP:SPI candidacy too – there have been suspicions in the past and there's no smoke without fire. BcJvs UTC 14:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the important thing is to build a collaborative atmosphere that makes people want to contribute and build the project. And stopping calling us Shirley. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If you weren't such a dick on BST's talk page then I wouldn't have raised this. Spike 'em (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And as I said on my talk page, if you just get on with article creation / improvement then I won't get involved. It was clear who you were since August, but it is also clear that the comments on the talk page are you as well. This account made a long post about the benefits of logged-out editing before going silent 6 years ago, so if you continue to be abusive then I'll continue reporting you. Spike 'em (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Spike 'em, the BS thing deserves everything he gets. I suggest you trawl through his edit summaries and then tell me if he shouldn't have been blocked long ago for persistent breaches of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN (especially anything at all to do with Kent cricket), WP:NEWBIE and so on. That's before you get into the articles and consider WP:PRESERVE, WP:CIR, WP:RS, the works. How many articles has he significantly improved? Never mind FA, GA, B-class, C-class. The answer is none. None at all. The only times he has improved something is when he has managed to successfully correct a typo or has tried to add a source – though usually only a database – I say tried because he can't do it right. He is a rude, arrogant, overbearing individual (no prizes for guessing he is, or was, a schoolteacher) who thinks he is God's gift to cricket research and writing. How many new editors have been driven away by his condescending attitude? And what makes that worse is when you compare their edit with his because, invariably, theirs is right or better or both.

I don't understand your problem because you are not one of these sysop clowns who haven't the first idea about administration or management. Why try to do their pointless job for them? As I said above, the object of editing this site is to build an encyclopaedia and that means writing good articles – not only those that are FA- or GA-reviewed, but also good B/C-class articles, good start-class articles and even good stub-class articles. Articles which are as correct and as reliably sourced as we can make them, articles which are readable, articles which provide our readers with useful information.

The problem with Wikipedia has always been this "anyone can edit" ethos which, like communism, is fine in theory. Trouble is, in the real world, it generally doesn't work. There have been many good editors using the site who have made significant contributions to projects of all kinds. They write a good article and next day they see in their watchlist that some imbecile has wrecked it. So what do they do? Some, understandably, vote with their feet. Others stay and fight it out and some of them let their frustration boil over so they end up being blocked. Meanwhile, people like the BS thing manage to keep their heads down and become WP:UNBLOCKABLE despite all the damage they do to articles and recruitment.

You wonder why I have retaliated against the BS thing in recent months? You say, with some justification I'll grant you: If you weren't such a dick on BST's talk page then I wouldn't have raised this. Okay, that's fair comment but you are forgetting there are too sides. Look at the top of this page and see my resolve to avoid discussions unless they directly concern articles (I include AFD in that, btw). So, I was more than happy to "just get on with article creation / improvement", as you said, and there was no problem between us on the occasions like the recent IPL thing when we needed to communicate. Correct?

So, you were happy to let sleeping dogs lie? Fine. I accept that. Now, I suggest you read Talk:Edward Aburrow Sr/GA1 and [1]. It seemed to me that someone else was not prepared to let Fido sleep and, as I was spending a lot of time repairing articles that had been damaged by that same person, I reacted. Would you just have let him carry on making insinuations like that against you? Why didn't he have the courage or the common decency to do what you have done and go to SPI? Proper channels and all that. Do you really think someone like that should be defended?

By the way, I recall you needing my help when you first joined and I did provide that help. I would also remind you that your problems with Daft were not my doing – he tried to claim you were me and I was you and we were both AA/TRM/Lugnuts and everyone else besides.

So, I'll leave you to it. I won't log in as BcJvs again and, actually, I think I'll take a break from Wikipedia. I have a blog which I last updated a few days before Christmas so I'm going to work on that for a while.

Oh, and a Happy New Year, Dick. From Dick. BcJvs UTC 15:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, just looking at your home pages, I noticed a sarcastic comment about us returning from our trip to the US sooner than scheduled. In fact, we had to fly home only a week after we arrived there because we received news that a close family member had become seriously ill with COVID. Fortunately, she recovered. We'll try the US again sometime this year. You don't have to believe that, of course, and frankly I couldn't care less. Just hope you never find yourself in the same situation. BcJvs UTC 17:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't normally respond to talk page rants from users that I've blocked, but I will make an exception here. I am a sysop, and I'm sure I've done a few clownish things, but I was was autopatrolled before my RfA, I've written my own share of good and featured articles (most of them written from stratch), and I have been given two four awards: in short, I think I've got a reasonable handle on the experience of creating content here. I've seen people change stuff I wrote in ways that I disagreed with, and I've gotten into a few modestly heated disagreements over content. What I've never been tempted to do, however, is to create an alternative account to try to pretend to be someone else, or to troll someone's talk page while I'm logged out. You can't sit there on your high horse, impugning someone else's courage and pointing the finger at everyone else, when you have done stuff like that. I don't know whether you're a good editor otherwise - I haven't read your articles - but until such time as you acknowledge your behavioural issues, you're unlikely to convince anyone here that you are a net positive to this project. I hope you enjoy writing your blog, and I'll wish you a happy new year, but the only way you will be welcome back here is to get your original account unblocked - until then, the clown squad will continue to block your socks as they are discovered. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, that's me told, then. If you are as good a sysop as you claim, do an investigation of edits and summaries by Blue Square Thing and see if I am wrong about all the WP:THIS, WP:THAT and WP:THEOTHER I listed above. You are probably aware of an essay called WP:UNBLOCKABLE and it would not surprise me at all if he was the inspiration for it. The longer you allow people like that to wreck articles and drive newbies away, this site is heading for inevitable demise. I notice Mr Wales is begging for money and has even resorted to asking all IP readers for the price of a cup of coffee. Last year, the Arbcom lot banned Lugnuts because he created too many stubs, most of them cricket articles, but Lugnuts was actually a good editor who got his facts right and wrote well. He could also be very helpful to newbies. Blue Square Thing does the exact opposite and is a liability – a net negative, using your term. You check his "contributions" and you'll see what I mean. That's it. I'm gone now. Happy New Year to you too. BcJvs UTC 17:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't claimed to be a good sysop. I've claimed to be a sysop who knows what it's like to be a regular editor, and who knows a fair bit about writing decent content. I think I'm entitled to say that about myself, but whatever - I just wanted you to understand that I'm not just some jumped-up arsehole with a block button who cares little for content.

It's funny that you should bring Lugnuts up; he and I were on good terms. He was persistently hounded by a couple of different LTAs, and I frequently dealt with his reports, both at SPI and to stuff he sent me by email. The people who were harassing him would create numerous socks to mess about with his articles, or to leave inane comments on his talkpage, and they engaged in LOUTSOCK trolling on his talk to the extent that it had to be semi-protected numerous times. It's experiences like his which have made me take such a dim view of LOUTSOCK crap - regardless of who is doing it and whom it is being done to - it's a cowardly, spiteful thing to do to anyone. You're wrong about the reason why Lugnuts got banned, by the way. I'm sorry he's banned, and I wish it had worked out differently, but 'because he created too many stubs' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

UNBLOCKABLE - yes, obviously I'm aware of it, but I don't see BST in that light. I'm not afraid of blocking people with a high edit count, or who have lots of friends. I'm not, however, going to act on a report of misconduct made by a sock of a blocked user, who has themselves engaged in LOUTSOCK trolling. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that I just noticed your comment above about your family member - I'm very sorry to learn that, and you have my sympathies. I lost a family member to covid myself, early in the pandemic. He and his wife were in their eighties, and they both got it; he died, she survived, and had to mourn him alone during the lockdown. Awful. I'm glad that your family member pulled through, and hope that you and yours are all well now. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ridgeway (Sussex cricketer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13 § Ridgeway (Sussex cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tom Peake and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13 § Tom Peake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect James Bryant (Kent cricketer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13 § James Bryant (Kent cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect John Cutbush (cricketer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13 § John Cutbush (cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Boca Jóvenes! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)