| Revision as of 22:27, 26 February 2014 editDweller (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Oversighters, Administrators55,876 edits →Luke Patel: BLP← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:00, 27 February 2014 edit undoCeredigionLawCentre (talk | contribs)2 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
| Yes, well that says it all, doesn't it? This site absolutely stinks. Hang you heads in shame if you have any. Obviously not. ] (]) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC) | Yes, well that says it all, doesn't it? This site absolutely stinks. Hang you heads in shame if you have any. Obviously not. ] (]) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Ok, thanks for popping by, as I've said all along, if AA wants to be considered to be unblocked, he can easily appeal via Arbcom. Cheers. ] (]) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) | :Ok, thanks for popping by, as I've said all along, if AA wants to be considered to be unblocked, he can easily appeal via Arbcom. Cheers. ] (]) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ==A Legal Point == | |||
| If a person makea quantifiable and attributable remarks of a slanderous or libelous(in this case) nature they areplacingthemsel ves, potentially, in a position where another person could justifiably go to law. Remember that sites such as WP, like facebook or twitter, are not shielded from the normal precepts of law especially, when the full identity of the person producing the potentially actionable offences is known, and particular if that of the potential or alleging victim is known to the alleged abuser. Amusing quips, badly phrased arguments or heated words are one thing, directed remarks the smear a persons reputation are of course something else.] (]) 10:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:00, 27 February 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
 | Cricket Project‑class | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
 | If you want to request for a batting graph for any cricketer, please do so at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Graphs/Requests. |
|
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Please see this at WP:ANI
Notice for CRIC members:
Please discuss there, not here. HCCC14 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just passing this way. Interesting fight between two sockpuppets ! Tintin 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- But sadly with an innocent user getting caught in the crossfire. JH (talk page) 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/ICC Women's World Twenty20
Dear Cricket experts: Right now the article in mainspace is a redirect. Should this topic have its own article, and is this one acceptable or at least worth improving? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Anne! That's great catch - far too good to simply delete.
- At present there are articles for
- ICC World Twenty20 is an overview of the men's tournaments
- The "ICC Women's World Twenty20" started off as duplicate of 2012 ICC Women's World Twenty20 then ended up a redirect to ICC World Twenty20.
- The AfC looks like a great replacement to me.
- Any thoughts, folks?
- --Shirt58 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- By editing it you have delayed its deletion for six months. If you feel that the references are adequate I can see about getting it into mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the draft article and decided that it (just barely) passes - based on the good reputation of the Cricinfo website. BTW some of the existing reference URLs need to be updated from cricinfo.com to espncricinfo.com. I have requested deletion of the existing redirect per {{db-move}} so that the draft can be moved to ICC Women's World Twenty20. Once it has arrived I trust the capable members of this WikiProject to get it into shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've moved it to article space and tweaked it a bit, it was out of date and needed further references, but up to someone else keen enough to polish it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- It should stay in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, not just as a silly little redirect to the Men's World Twenty20 Itz arka (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks to all of your help it is now at ICC Women's World Twenty20. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to be a fork of the ICC World Twenty20 article which contains both men's and women's records. Hack (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have completed the forking by stripping the Women's competition statistics from ICC World Twenty20. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Still seems a bit misleading. The ICC are treating this as one tournament with men's and women's competitions. Hack (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have completed the forking by stripping the Women's competition statistics from ICC World Twenty20. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to be a fork of the ICC World Twenty20 article which contains both men's and women's records. Hack (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks to all of your help it is now at ICC Women's World Twenty20. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- It should stay in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, not just as a silly little redirect to the Men's World Twenty20 Itz arka (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful names in Eng U19
Just saw this match played today and thought others might enjoy seeing an England side containing a Tattersall, Rhodes and Hammond among others. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which countries are they originally from? Pete from somewhere Her Maj is still head of state, aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cricinfo can be used to look up these sorts of things. You can just click through from their names on the scorecard I linked to. Oddly, they were all born in a country where Her Maj is still head of state, aka England. Incidentally, we have an article on the magnificently-named Will Rhodes, but both Jonathan Tattersall and Miles Hammond are redlinks and they're both notable . --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Merge English t20 articles
Can we merge Twenty20 Cup and Friends Life t20? I can't see the rationale for its retention and we'll have yet another copycat article with the introduction of the t20 Blast. mgSH 22:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- The main article might be merged, but every single season should have it's own article. Itz arka (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. What's the process for this? mgSH 00:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
All-rounder's double
I notice that an IP editor changed Template:ODI All-rounders from the 1500 run/150 wicket double to a 3000 run/150 wicket double. I have no significant objection to this - it prunes the template down - but I thought it should be discussed here. I guess all-rounder doubles traditionally have the runs at 10x the wickets. The more common double is 1000 run/100 wickets, but that would seem to be unwieldy. The 2000 run/200 wicket double seems just right for ODIs - it covers twelve players. StAnselm (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose the argument for the 3000 runs/150 wickets criterion would be that it is more "balanced", in the sense that the runs and the wickets components are roughly equally hard to achieve. (At least, that would be the case in f-c and Test cricket. I haven't checked to see if it is as true in ODI cricket.) JH (talk page) 10:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Peter Willey
This article is in a poor state. This bloke played a load of f-c cricket, a decent number of Tests and then umpired similarly and we comment mostly about his ugly stance and his silly name. Both notable aspects of his life and career, but a tad WP:UNDUE. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dweller, the only response I can muster for this is {{sofixit}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can't. I'm transfixed by his weird stance and funny name. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're not alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can't. I'm transfixed by his weird stance and funny name. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Mushfiqur Rahim/GA2
This article was nominated by a new user and it was passed by another account which seems to be the nominator himself. —Vensatry (Ping) 14:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for brining this to the project's attention Vensatry. Hopefully just a case of an over enthusiastic new editor. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion
You guys need to be aware of these templates being proposed for deletion or merger:
- Template:Infobox non Test cricket team
- Template:Infobox first-class cricket team
- Template:Infobox BPL team
- Template:Infobox ProCricket Team
- Template:Infobox women's national cricket team
- Template:Infobox Test team
- Each redundant to Template:Infobox cricket team
- Redundant to Template:Infobox cricket season
- Unused in article space, used in a single sandbox
- Unused in article space
- Redundant to Template:Infobox cricket ground
Refer to template discussion page. 109.146.0.219 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
International tour articles to 1914
To conclude my activities here, I've done a review of the project's tour articles up to 1914 and included my findings in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles which you can also access via the to-do section above. There are many tour articles needing creation, still more needing expansion – a good objective for anyone interested in the history of international cricket. Quite a lot of tours to South Africa and New Zealand appear to have articles but in fact they are redirects to historical summaries of the two countries. Have fun. HCCC14 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Some Users are Always Deleting the notable T20 Centuries
I have been seeing for some times that whenever I am updating the list of the T20 centuries for some players, some users are deleting it or reverting it. It's actually take times to collect those data and put it up on Wiki. It needs some time consuming work. But how harsh people are that they delete it within a second without acknowledging the uploader's hard work or even appreciating it. Theose lists include some of the centuries from IPL, CLT20, Big Bash, Ram Slam T20. Those are not international of course, but notable. These are really popular competitions. So if I add those centuries along with the international t20 centuries, then where is the problem of some people? I can't understand. Some of them argue that these are domestic competition and not too necessary to add here. But how can you rate the domestic t20s with the domestic tests and ODs? Domestic T20s are really popular these days and they even sometimes drag more crowd and TRP and also media attention than some of the international matches. So how can just be so stereotype and remove everything related with T20s? It's Misplaced Pages. If tomorrow Chris Gayle scores a century in IPL or Quinton De Kock scores a century in CLT20, people will have a look at their Wiki-page the next day (you can check their page view stats just after they scored their domestic hundreds in T20s). And if people don't find that definite fact about them, they won't rely on Misplaced Pages anymore. It's some of the stereotype users for whom Misplaced Pages always go down. What's your problem if there are facts added here which are worth of their existence here? Check the news and the Misplaced Pages views have been down by a certain level in its English version from 2012 to 2013. If some of the users continue to do it, it will be down to further in the future. Hope you people understand it and won't be pulling the legs of those much needed stuffs in Misplaced Pages. Itz arka (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Luke Patel
Would someone please investigate the strange edits at this article. The latest edit is in this diff. Is the image added the subject of the article? Obviously the jokes added are inappropriate, but is any of the added text valid or is it just blatant vandalism? Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure it counts as vandalism: just looks like someone's having a bit of fun. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia, of course, but pretty harmless. I've now reverted but kept the pic. Johnlp (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the "jokes" were BLP breaches. I take a dim view of this. --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Shameful
This project is a disgrace. The remaining members should hang their heads in shame over the AA issue given their refusal to help him following the appalling long-term provocation he endured before finally snapping and getting blocked indefinitely, by one of the site's typically incompetent admins, for his understandable retaliation. Of course, his retaliation did not sit easily with pro-Daft editor Johnlp who insists on his "divine right" to have Daft's offensive crap on his talk page and so his accolyte, the "admin" Harrias who "knows what he is talking about", is drafted in to block AA while Daft goes merrily on his way despite the farcical WP:BAN order placed on him.
Words like "hypocrisy" and "incompetence" easily spring to mind. This was originally supposed to be a project designed to inform readers about cricket. It started well but has descended into a morass of double standards and now it absolutely stinks. I am utterly disgusted and have no respect whatsoever for anyone who is pleased to call himself a member of something so appalling. Shame on you all. HCCC14 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- If AA wants to be unblocked, he can always ask for it. He knows that. Why do you feel it necessary to do this on his behalf? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't you understand that a stalemate has arisen and someone else needs to get involved to do something about it? The incompetent admin concerend insists on an apology and AA rightly refuses to apologise for retaliating against long-term provocation. If said admin had used common sense he would have blocked AA for a week to cool things down, given him some words of advice and taken up the fight against the real offender. But, oh no, we have an indefinite block and the victim is turned into the criminal. It all reads like something out of New Labour. Harrias is not fit to be an admin and should resign immediately for the way he has completely fouled up this case. It is absolutely disgusting and an affront to natural justice. HCCC14 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, if AA wants to be unblocked, he can ask for it. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss, particularly not here at the cricket project, this project has nothing to do with editors being blocked, outings etc. Please stop forum shopping, it may end with your account being blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't you understand that a stalemate has arisen and someone else needs to get involved to do something about it? The incompetent admin concerend insists on an apology and AA rightly refuses to apologise for retaliating against long-term provocation. If said admin had used common sense he would have blocked AA for a week to cool things down, given him some words of advice and taken up the fight against the real offender. But, oh no, we have an indefinite block and the victim is turned into the criminal. It all reads like something out of New Labour. Harrias is not fit to be an admin and should resign immediately for the way he has completely fouled up this case. It is absolutely disgusting and an affront to natural justice. HCCC14 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well that says it all, doesn't it? This site absolutely stinks. Hang you heads in shame if you have any. Obviously not. HCCC14 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for popping by, as I've said all along, if AA wants to be considered to be unblocked, he can easily appeal via Arbcom. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A Legal Point
If a person makea quantifiable and attributable remarks of a slanderous or libelous(in this case) nature they areplacingthemsel ves, potentially, in a position where another person could justifiably go to law. Remember that sites such as WP, like facebook or twitter, are not shielded from the normal precepts of law especially, when the full identity of the person producing the potentially actionable offences is known, and particular if that of the potential or alleging victim is known to the alleged abuser. Amusing quips, badly phrased arguments or heated words are one thing, directed remarks the smear a persons reputation are of course something else.CeredigionLawCentre (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Categories: