User talk:Robertson-Glasgow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Now that you are here, I hope you will begin to contribute to cricket articles :-) Tintin (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My forthcoming contribution...

Yes, Tintin, based on our findings over on Usenet, I'm putting together a reconstruction of the 1882 Ashes match. --Robertson-Glasgow 11:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grace & Spofforth

WG made also sorts of financial demands when he toured Australia and made himself very unpopular there. I remember reading about that somewhere but I don't personally own any books about WG so I can't check it out. You would be best to ask for help on [1]. All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, mate, Robertson-Glasgow 11:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Hello again. I noticed that your signature shows up as a red link. I don't know if you are aware but you can create a user page in which you may add info about yourself or the articles you are working on or links to useful features in Wikipedia. There is plenty of help and advice available if you want to set up a user page but it isn't obligatory. Best wishes. --BlackJack | talk page 09:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get around to that when I need something to do. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 11:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Robertson-Glasgow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I hope you find some of the above links useful. You may also want to look in on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Cashman's Spofforth Biography

Yes I do (I was coincidentally having a browse of it again a couple of days ago). I'll get it out tonight. Regards — Moondyne 01:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. I wait with bated breath. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi R-G. Sorry for the delay but I've got it now (I had a small family crisis last night and with all the commotion I confess it slipped my mind!). If you could email me - use the "E-mail this user" button on the left (on my user page), I'll reply by email with a .pdf attachment. It'll be a scan of the whole chapter on the 1882 tour (~10 pages). It's about 9pm here now so it won't be until tomorrow morning Perth time (ie. in 12 hours). Regards. — Moondyne 12:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Its on its way! — Moondyne 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Cashman should have an article too ! Tintin (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that I could help with that. There's a fair amount of biographical information about him on the web. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 07:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Cashman's got a fair body of work now and he does make a good read. Remember to quote some reviews of his work by others so he meets notability criteria - see WP:BIO. — Moondyne 13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Studd book

On the newsgroup uk.sport.cricket, someone called Cicero is offering a copy of Grubb's book C.T. Studd Cricketer and Pioneer free to a good home. I thought that you might be interested. JH 11:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, John. Your message in one of the other groups alerted me to this and I've taken full advantage. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thornton extract. Tintin 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Do you need anything else, mate? I'm always generous when it comes to cricket and its illustrious history. Robertson-Glasgow 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't yet have an article on Thornton. So may be we should do one on him ? Tintin 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. I've got a definitive article on him by Gerald Brodribb, as well as Thornton's "Talk" with A.W. Pullin. Unfortunately, I am uncertain as to how I am supposed to set up an article, and I have very little time to read the instructions on how to do so. If you could open a page for Thornton, I would gladly do the rest when I have the time. Robertson-Glasgow 08:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your books on WikiProject Cricket/Library

Hello, Albinomonkey. I was browsing through the list of books that you own on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Library and wondered if you might have a look through them for information on Spofforth and the 1882 Test Match for me. Thanks, Robertson-Glasgow 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem I'll have a look through them tomorrow morning - is it his work in that specific match you are solely interested in, or Spofforth in general? – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, just that match, please. Thanks a lot, mate. Robertson-Glasgow 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There is quite a bit in the books I have on that match, I've got the best parts about Spofforth's contributions here – if there's anything else you're after just ask.
Australian Cricket: The Game and the Players
“ Much of Spofforth's fame hangs on his performance in the Ashes Test at The Oval in 1882, when he took 7 for 46 and 7 for 44, causing the famous epitaph for English cricket in the Sporting Times. He bowled his last 11 overs for two runs and four wickets. He was carried shoulder-high from the field, having told the Australian team in the dressing room that they could prevent England scoring the 84 [sic] needed to win. A turning point in Australia's seven runs win was Spofforth's advice to captain Murdoch after Lucas and Lyttleton had played 12 maidens in succession. Bannerman deliberately misfielded a hit from Lyttleton, allowing Spofforth to get a go at him and after two more maidens Spofforths knocked down Lyttleton's stumps. ”
“ Requiring 85 to win, England reached 4 for 65. "Suddenly a new phase came over the innings," wrote C.P. Moody. "The batsmen could not get the ball past fieldsmen. Spofforth was bowling the most remarkable break-backs at tremendous pace; Boyle, from the other end, maintained a perfect length; Blackham with matchless skill took every ball that passed the batsmen ... every fieldsman strained his nerves to the utmost. A dozen successive maidens were sent down. Something of the spirit of the struggle pervaded the thousands of spectators, and their oppressive silence was punctuated by a mighty shoutl when Lyttleton broke the spell with a single." The single had been pre-arranged because Spofforth wanted a bowl at Lyttleton. Four more maidens followed and then Spofforth bowled Lyttleton. It was 5 for 66, with 19 needed. On the way to this historic win Spofforth bowled 10 maidens in his last 11 overs and took four wickets for two runs off his last seven balls. ”
200 Seasons of Australian Cricket
“ At the change of innings with England needing just 85, the question was, could they? Spofforth made his declaration: 'This thing can be done". He had them at 2/15 early, but at 2/51 with W.G. and George Ulyett hitting strongly things looked less than promising. Spofforth got Ulyett and then Harry Boyle bowled Grace – and it was 4/53. Then it seems England lost confidence – Spofforth and Boyle bowled 12 successive maidens, until a bit of gamesmanship let Lyttleton score a run, changing the bowler's targets. Spofforth then bowled 11 overs for 2 runs and four wickets. Tom Harn said, 'I observed the incoming batsmen. They had ashen faces and parched lips.' Spofforth's off-cutters on a seaming pitch were all but unplayable. Giffen said every one of them would have hit the stumps had a bat not intervened. ”
“ [Neville Cardus: ] Now I was behind his arm; I could see his superb break-back. And he bowled mainly medium pace at this time. With each off-break I could see his right hand, at the end of the swing over, finish near the left side, 'cutting' under the ball. Sometimes his arm went straight over and continued straight down in the follow-through – and then the batsmen had to tackle fierce topspin. There was the sense of the inimical in his aspect now. He seemed taller than he was half an hour ago, the right arm more sinuous. There was no excitement in him he was ... cold-blooded. ”
Hope they help... if there's anything else you need, just let me know. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for helping me out with that, Albinomonkey; it really is much appreciated, and I will put it to good use in the relevant Wikipedia articles. I would be extra-grateful, though, if you would cite the page numbers of the books from which those quotations came and see if that C.P. Moody fellow is quoted any further in Australian Cricket. What you reproduced there was the first from him about this match that I have ever read, and I would be interested to see if he has more to say.
Also, would you mind seeing if there is any information on the following two points of interest in that match? Firstly, do your sources have anything to say about C.T. Studd's supposed nervousness in waiting to go out to bat - if A.N. Hornby is quoted on that, it would be quite brilliant - and, secondly, what about something on the controversial run-out of Sammy Jones by W.G. Grace (of special interest being umpire Thoms's rejoinder to the Doctor's appeal)? I am probably getting a trifle greedy in asking this of you, but a million thanks nonetheless. Robertson-Glasgow 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it slipped my mind to add the page numbers, they are (in order of the quotes above): p946, pp371-372, p55 and p57. There is a little further from Moody (p.372 of Australian Cricket: The Game and the Players):
“ "Now Boyle's perinacious accuracy was rewarded," Moody wrote in his Australian Cricket and Cricketers. "Off the first ball of his over Barnes was caught off the glove by Murdoch at point. Edmund Peate, last man in, swished the first ball to lef for two, flukily played the next one, tried to hit the last ball of the over, but missed, and it bowled him. The game was won by seven runs." ”
The bibliography of this book lists a couple of books by Moody if you would be so interested as to search for them: Australian Cricket and Cricketers (Adelaide, 1894) and Cricket Album of Noted Australian Cricketers (Adelaide, 1905).
No quote from Hornby about Studd, but there is this from E.Peate (p372 again):
“ When Peate was criticised for not giving his partner C.T.Studd a chance to score the runs, he said, "Mr Studd was so nervous I did not feel I could trust him to score the runs." ”
I think the alleged death in the crowd and the man chewing through his umbrella are mentioned in our article, but my book also says that "the scorer's hand trembled so that he wrote Peate's name as "Geese"" (p372), if that's of any interest at all.
Both books mention the contentious run out:
AC:Game and Players (p.371):
“ When play resumed after lunch Murdoch scored a single to the legside, and Jones grounded his bat inside the crease and then went back along the pitch to pat down a bump. W.G. Grace at once broke down the wicket and Jones was given out. Grace was within his rights, but his lack of sportsmanship annoyed the Australians, who were all out for 122. ”
(p. 560):
“ Jones is remembered for his unusual dismissal at The Oval in 1882 in the Test that began the Ashes legend. He was a fairly innocent 21-year-old, batting well with Billy Murdoch, who took a single to leg. After the run had been completed Jones went down the pitch to pat down a divot and the wily W.G.Grace threw down his stumps. Umpire Robert Thoms ruled him run out, a decision which intensified the Australians' desire to win the match. ”
200 Seasons (p 55):
“ While he [Murdoch] was batting with Sam Jones, Murdoch turned a ball, and the players ran through for one. Then Jones wandered out of his crease thinking the ball was dead, and W.G. promptly took of the bails and appealed. Umpire Thoms said: 'As you claim it, Sir! Out!' Murdoch protested – but to no avail. The Australian dressing room was incensed at this bit of 'sport', and it fired their will to win. ”
Hope that's helpful. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I really cannot thank you enough, and I am more than willing to return the favour if needs be; my cricket library is almost 700-books strong, so I should think that, if there is anything about which you would like to know, I would be able to help you. Nevertheless, many thanks once again, sir. Robertson-Glasgow 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altham

Many thanks for your helpful contributions. JH (talk page) 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WG

His family called him "Gilby"

Is this true ? There was a famous occasion when Martha Grace admonished him after he got out, "Willie, Willie, haven't I told you over and over how to play that stroke ?". Tintin 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a fact tag just in case you take too long to come back. Feel free to remove it if you are certain about it. Tintin 16:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks okay now. Tintin 14:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hit for six

CK Nayudu apparently hit a 150 yard six in the Madras Presidency Match in 1921. Does Hit for Six say anything about it, specifically, does Brodribb agree with the distance ? Tintin 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. My source says that the hit was easily above 150 yards from the batting crease. So I'll have to go with that even if it may not be entirely accurate. Tintin 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Those damned dots"

As somebody once famously said. I believe that it's usual in American English to put full stops in abbreviations such as "MCG", but it's not usual in British English. Personally, I think that "MCG" looks much better than "M.C.G.", but YMMV (or Y.M.M.V.). :) JH (talk page) 09:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. JH (talk page) 12:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Griffith (cricketer)

Following our discussion on rsc, the first draft of the article is now up. Please feel free to expand it with anything you feel is appropriate. JH (talk page) 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at it. JH (talk page) 08:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at it now. Thanks for your hard work. It's now a very substantial article. A few points:
  • Do we have a more reliable source for the "Lion Hitter" apellation than the seemingly not altogether reliable memory of one man?
  • You must have a second source for the 1861-2 paragraph, as there's now more there than seemed to be in the one that I unearthed. That second source ought to be cited.
  • After both of our efforts at chopping the article about, I'm not sure that all the footnotes are still in the right place in the text. (BTW, I think that the Wiki convention is that they should only be placed at the end of a paragraph, not in the middle of one.One solution might be to break the text into smaller paragraphs.)
  • You're a romanticist in the Cardus tradition, :) but that doesn't always sit easily in an encyclopaedia article. I've toned down or snipped a few of the more florid bits, but it's still a bit POV in places.

JH (talk page) 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck with the exams! JH (talk page) 12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boundless Odium?

Never! I think that it's a great intro; it just belongs in the Origins of the Cold War article. Besides, there's a more serious issue: where did you get this essay? If you wrote it, it needs a lot of sourcing. If you didn't write it, we need to hear from the author...and sources. :-) Hires an editor 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WG

RG, just adding a tag won't help. Only admins can protect or semiprotect a page and they have an extra button (invisible to ordinary editors) for that. The tag is added just as a notice. Leave a note in WT:CRIC if you want to protect it. Tintin 06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tintin is correct. I've given it a 14 day semi-protection (established users only can now edit it) to see if things calm down a bit. —Moondyne 10:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at October Revolution. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Andrew_pmk | Talk 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to October Revolution seems overly pro-Communist to me. For example, in the introduction to October Revolution, you added the text "led by the brilliant Leon Trotsky", which is rather biased towards the Communists. Remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. Please revise it so that it is not biased. Andrew_pmk | Talk 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that use of the word "brilliant" to describe Leon Trotsky implies a bias, intentional or not. I don't think that it is appropriate to call leaders of coups d'état "brilliant" in Wikipedia, even if you think that they are. Andrew_pmk | Talk 20:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I did revert back to your edit, and removed the word "brilliant", later on. Sorry I jumped the gun a little. Andrew_pmk | Talk 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dickens

Hi... You do know that shillings and shillings both produce the same effect, in terms of linkage, and that the latter is the one more commonly used (if only to reduce article size and/or readability)? It just seemed that some of your last edits to the Charles Dickens article seemed worthless! Stephenb (Talk) 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Barker

He now has an article. :) JH (talk page) 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. JH (talk page) 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Many would dub that a preposterous understatement." That doesn't seem very encyclopaedic in tone, especially the "preposterous". And the "many would dub" might be called "weasel words" by the unsympathetic. JH (talk page) 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of apartheid template removal

I wasn't vandalizing the article at all (although I'm not precisely sure what article you are refering to, because I removed the template {{Allegations of apartheid}} from a number of articles). I was closing this TfD discussion and removing the templates that were to be deleted. This it not vandalism, but calling me a pathetic low-life could be considered by some to be a personal attack. It is certainly uncivil. If you have any questions regarding my TfD closure however, I would be glad to address them. Regards, IronGargoyle 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As is made patently obvious by a quick and simple gander at the comment that I left you, I did not, as you state, call you a pathetic low-life (although there's every chance); rather, I gave you advise on what to do "If you're [… a] pathetic low-life". Hair-splitting aside, though, here's a link which may just serve to refresh your ailing memory:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa_in_the_Apartheid_era&curid=2200527&diff=154783115&oldid=154742441. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertson-Glasgow (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you are looking at the wrong edit diff. Here is the edit that I made. The text removal was made by 87.78.66.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) in the next edit (which you cite). Either way, it's probably better not to even call vandals "pathetic low-lifes" (i.e., don't feed the trolls). Best, IronGargoyle 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DGB

Do you have the Don Bradman and Alan Kippax pages on your watchlist ? They have undergone substantial changes in the recent past (and Bradman has spawned off half a dozen offsprings) which you should be interested in. Tintin 08:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The usual stuff. The content, language, whether anything significant is missing etc. DGB is under peer review and Kippax, FAC. Tintin 12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Good work you're doing around cricket articles - glad to have you. No doubt you got your name because you're really "RC". (that joke is (c) Dweller, 2007). Wondered if you'd like to take a look at the thread at WT:CRIC headed "Cricket". --Dweller 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries... I just mean I'll create an exact copy of it at somewhere like User:Dweller/Cricket and we can work on it there... before moving it back into the "mainspace" at Cricket. Tintin was worried about reworking such an important article while it's "live". --Dweller 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why...

I could ask you the same question, why did you make the edit? I have requested a PR for the article in an effort to prepare it for FA. Split inifinitives are a matter of personal choice, as is writing in active voice: these are your personal preferences to change them, not errors of syntax. How does it help to randomly edit only the first section of the article, then leave the rest - specifically, why change the n-dashes in the season dates when that style is followed throughout the article. As it originally stood, the article was way too long, so I worked hard to cut it right back, tighten the prose and give it consistency and flow, but it still needs checking for: cn tags, accuracy of refs, perhaps more reduction in the amount of copy, work on the stats section and so forth. Phanto282 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressive tantrum!!

Phanto282 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC) and don't call me Frankly. Phanto282 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanto282 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Little context in Corporation for public deposits

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Corporation for public deposits, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Corporation for public deposits is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Corporation for public deposits, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kortright

I had understood that the 6 byes story was apochryphal. His last f-c game was in 1907, and I think at that date for a six the ball still had to be hit (or not hit!) out of the ground. JH (talk page) 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose one could say something like "It has been claimed, probably apochryphally,...". It would be nice to be able to cite somewhere where the story is recounted, though. As for the beamer story, I hadn't heard that one. I find it hard to believe that a beamer passing the batsman at head high, or even a bit higher, could reach the stands without bouncing. JH (talk page) 09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
According to User:Johnlp: There is a citation for the Wallingford incident on page 15 of a 1983 book called The Cricketer Book of Cricket Disasters and Bizarre Records, edited by Christopher Martin-Jenkins and published by Century Publishing (ISBN 07126 0191 0). I have to say that I don't believe it's possible, but on the basis that Wikipedia is about things that are verifiable, not necessarily things that are true... JH (talk page) 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A History of Cricket

I decided that it was high time that I had this on my bookshelves, so have just bought both volumes of the 1962 edition. I've only had time for a quick skim so far, but confess myself a little disappointed. Altham doesn't strike me as that good a writer. Also, it might have been more accurate to call it "A History of English Cricket". There seems to be little about events in other countries. And even within England, there seem to be some surprising omissions. Nothing on London County, apparently, or on Philadelphia's tours of England. Bart King isn't even mentioned, if the index is to be believed. JH (talk page) 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my ignorance of Harry East is total. I'll be interested to hear anything that you can unearth about him. JH (talk page) 09:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Lovely quote. Thanks! JH (talk page) 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Chappell

Hello crusoe, I have just nominated this article for FA, I would appreciate any comments you have. Cheers Phanto282 09:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Freeman

Sometimes it can be surprisingly difficult to tell if a player already has an article, because there are so many possble permutations: Fred Bloggs, F Bloggs, F.Bloggs, F. Bloggs, Fred Bloggs (cricketer) etc. I tend to check under the most likely Categories to see if the player appears there. JH (talk page) 09:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Craig (The Surrey Poet)

I thought that you might be interested in what I've just managed to dig up in connection with this article. The pre-WW1 writer E.W. Hornung, who wrote the well-known books about Raffles, the gentleman-burglar and fine cricketer, set a chapter of one of them at Lord's, and the text is available online. The link in the second entry in the Notes section of the Craig aricle will take you to it. And should you want to download and read the whole novel, it's available on Project Gutenberg JH (talk page) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary comments

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. RedSpruce (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of what I am doing is simply prose-embroidering for the purposes of easy reading. As I dip in and out with such regularity, edit summaries become somewhat tedious. I shall try in future to tick the "minor edit" box, though. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote from Help:Edit summary: "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline." (Emphasis in original.) Entering (or pasting) something like "Stylistic copy edits" is not prohibitively tedious.
Note also that the "minor edit" check box is for "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc." So you are now in violation of this guideline as well. Using these guidelines is a matter of simple courtesy to other editors. Please abide by them. RedSpruce (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
How is what I have done in violation of the "minor edit" guideline? Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Any edit that might, so some reader, change the meaning or emphasis of part of an article shouldn't be flagged as a minor edit. Most of the edits you've started flagging as "minor" are therefor not minor.
It's also completely unnecessary to save your edits as often as you do. If you're making several small edits in a single section, make them all at once and then save. Use the Show preview button if that helps. This way you won't overwhelm the article history page with an endless series of tiny edits, and you'll also reduce the task (which you seem to find so painful) of typing or pasting in an edit summary comment.
And since I brought this issue to your attention, you've made a huge number edits, still without summary comments. I would suggest that if you can't edit Wikipedia without being a jerk, don't edit it at all.
RedSpruce (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
For reasons that I am loath to attribute to intellectual failing (unless it is on your part), I cannot see how my edits have changed emphasis or meaning. Before elucidating, however, you should make a careful perusal of the official stance:
"A check to a minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
My edits fulfil all of the above criteria. Certainly, it did not occur to me that they could ever be the subject of dispute. But then, it never occurred to me that some sorry folk could be so damn insistent on disputing things. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The main issue here is that, contrary to WP guidelines, you don't use edit summary comments. You proposed that checking the "minor edit" checkbox was a valid alternative. It isn't. Quit being so damn insistent on disputing things and just obey the damn rules: Use edit summary comments.
And while your at it, use some common sense and consolidate your small edits so that you don't fill an article history page with a huge series of trivial edits. RedSpruce (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Although you have failed once again to explain adequately what is wrong with what I have done, I shall let it slide and make an effort summarise all of my edits in future. Now go away. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A little help for you, then. I have put the important parts in boldface:

Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).
Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" would be nice even then.
In addition to a summary of the change itself, the summary field may also contain an explanation of the change; note that if the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted. To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".

Hope that helps your understanding. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japan, et al

In a recent edit to the page Japan, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I "may keep 'characterized'"? Thank you, but as you are not in charge of anything nor are in the slightest position of authority -- legal, political, assigned, or even moral -- you're in no position to be giving permission for anything. --Calton | Talk 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Kindly lose the pedantic hat, take a chill-pill or umpteen, and calm the deuce down, china.
You first, sport. "Mr. Kettle? It's Mr. Pot on Line 4; he says you're black." See also previous comment re: your lack of authority -- note the inclusion of the adjective "moral".
Enjoyable though being pompous and caustic is (especially when you're being pompous and caustic behind the internet-accorded cloak of anonymity)...
See previous comment, boyo.
...it is completely unnecessary in this instance -- much like my edits, apparently.
First part false, second part true, Buckwheat. See below.
Quite why you feel the need to label my every edit "pointless" or, bemusingly, "wrong" simply because it does little to change the overall complexion of an article is beyond me. It is arguable, in fact, that reverting a pointless edit is as pointless as the edit itself.
Given that reverting pointless edits restores the status quo ante, removes the reward for the bad behavior1, and serves to discourage further pointless editing by making clear that nothing is gained...yeah, I'd say that reverting pointless edits is, in fact, the very opposite of pointlessness.
A further information page for your edification is offered, guy.
--Calton | Talk 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
1Or should that be "behaviour"?
Christ, you're insufferable. Thanking me for this page is not enough: you actually have to READ it. It's not very long really, so in between your bouts of merriment, you can take the time, as well as to all of the other policy pages people have been pointing you to.
Ah, so you want to discourage me?
From making pointless, trivial, and policy-violating edits? Of course. Given that you like doing so and all it does is create extra work cleaning up after you, I'd say it's a time-saver, overall, to stop you doing so in the first place. Of course, wasting other people's time actually be your goal, so maybe attempting to discourage you would be taken by you as a sign of success. --Calton | Talk 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manual of Style

I notice you are going around do a lot of minor changes to some articles. Unfortunately most of these changes are against the manual of style. Century isn't capitalised, altering scores in articles to text instead of digits, and changing the version of English used in articles once established isn't done. Please read the MOS before making any more such changes. Many thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced additions

Wikipedia relies on information that can be verified and prohibits original research and editors' opinions. See WP:V and WP:OR. If you add new material to articles, please add references showing the source where you got the information. See WP:RS. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything in particular for which you need a reference? Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because I have deleted the unreferenced new material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored your contribution and provided a link to an Internet source for the material. Thanks for your contributions and best wishes with your editing. :) Cleo123 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] Isaac Hodgson

I confess to never having heard of him. For the period, his average of 15.8 strikes me as pretty mediocre. For every generation of players, there's always been some old guy to say that the previous generation was better, so I wouldn't be inclined to take too much notice of the Yorkshire Post. JH (talk page) 09:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the standard of the teams that the All-England XI faced was not always very high. There were a lot of cheap wickets to be had, as Clarke's own remarkable figures indicvate. Anyway, to summarise: you reckon that Hodgson was better thajn Peate was better than Peel was better than Rhodes. :) JH (talk page) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for misunderstanding. I had originslly missed your link to East's article, but have now read the piece. There's a lot of interesting stuff there, though I can't say that I much care for East's writing style. It's interesting that Clarke didn't feel that Hodgson's merits as a bowler outweighed his deficiencies as batsman and fielder. My feeling is that if Hodgson had really been as good a bowler as claimed, Clarke would have wanted him playing for his own side. JH (talk page) 10:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that you've already done some work on the article. His dates of birth and death ought to be in, and the stuff about the other Isaac Hodgson ought to be hived off into a seoarate article, with just a standard dab message at the start of the xcricketer's article. As to East's prose, he strikes me as striving too obviously to mimic Cardus, and to never use a short word if he can find a long one. JH (talk page) 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've now added some relevant categories and hived off the other Isaac Hodgson. At the start of the cricketer's article I've put in a dablink of the sort that I mentioned. (dab = disambiguation) JH (talk page) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Laker

of whom greybeards said, "You can hear the ball bounce as he lets it go." Did you really mean to put "bounce"? It doesn't seem to make much sense in the context of the bowler releasing the ball. JH (talk page) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ranji Hordern

According to Palmer's Wiki article, he bowled off-breaks rather than leg-breaks. It seems that Cooper did bowl leg-breaks. What I think one could say about Hordern, is that he was the first successful Australian googly bowler. JH (talk page) 08:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about the methods of many early bowlers. Note that I said above that Hordern was the first successful Australian googly bowler, not the first successful leggie. Anyone prior to Bosanquet was presumably not bowling the googly. As an aside, I think it was the improvement in pitches from about the 1890s onwards that made wrist-spinners more common. When pitches were poor, finger-spinners would be at least as penetrative as wrist-spinners, with the advantage of generally being more economical. JH (talk page) 09:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you may have mentioned that before. However I suspect that it's more likely that Palmer mixed wrist-spun leggies with finger-spun offies. If batsmen weren't then in the habit of watching the bowler's hand, this may have had a similar impact to a mix of leg-breaks and googlies. JH (talk page) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Palmer and Bosanquet were playing only some 20 years apart, which isn't a lot. Lots of people must have seen both. Did nobody apart from Hawke suggest that Bosanquet hadn't done anything new? People like Grace and Murdoch, for instance, who probably played with/against both? And there seem to have been no doubts in Australia, where they Christened the googly the Bosie rather than the Joey. Surely they would have claimed it for one of their own if at all feasible? It would be a bit like people today forgetting that Sarfraz had pioneered reverse swing twenty years ago or so. JH (talk page) 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you find my position annoying, but I think you need more than Lord Hawke's opinion to establish your case. It just doesn't seem plausible to me that no-one apart from Hawke would have said that Bosanquet hadn't originated the googly if Palmer had done so not that many years before. JH (talk page) 07:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) JH (talk page) 09:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Dennis

Hello R-G. I've just come across this article via the 1800 season review. It is very good and provides a lot of information but there no references. Could you please provide external sources and a bibliography? Or some of the dreaded inline citations that this site now demands?

Also, who was JF Sutton and what books did he write?

Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I found Sutton via Google and it seems he is noted for one book in particular which is Nottingham Cricket Matches from 1771 to 1853, published in 1853. I can't find the name of the publisher, however, though it might be on the Notts CCC site which is down at the moment. If you quote Sutton in other articles, could you please make a full reference to this book. I'll add it to Dennis. Thanks again. --BlackJack | talk page 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I added Sutton's cricket book to List of works by cricket historians and writers. His entry is only half a dozen or so below your namesake! Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the only work I have by A-C is his account of 1742 - 1751 in "Cricket magazine". I haven't reached the 19th century yet in my collection! Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 09:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Barratt

I don't know if you've seen the article on Ted Barratt which I've just written. Given the period and that he was a slow left-arm bowler, I thought that it might interest you. JH (talk page) 18:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 :) JH (talk page) 09:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your excellent additions. JH (talk page) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that between us we have now have a reasonably complete portrait of Barratt. ...in fact, why not draw my attention to them all? Well, there's a complete list on my User page. Francis Lacey and Frederick Toone are good candidates for expansion. JH (talk page) 08:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Pistorius: Primary school

Hi, you recently edited "Oscar Pistorius" to add that he attended Constantia Kloof Primary School. Do you have a reference to a published source for this? Otherwise, the information may have to be removed for being unreferenced, which would be a pity. If you'd like to discuss the matter further, let's do so on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not have any reference for Oscar's attending CKPS, I know for a fact that he did, because I went there with him. His recollections, alas, are not as fond as mine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2005/04/27/sophil27.xml. Please respond back at my talk page. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspected that was the case. Unfortunately, the fact that you went to school with him is not independently verifiable. Can you cite a source in another language (e.g., Afrikaans) , or a printed source? An old school annual or magazine is better than nothing. Also, any chance of an old photograph of Pistorius as a child that you could license to Wikipedia? :-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Hall

Glasgow-bhai, can you please add a citation for this. Tintin 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Found a Hawke comment that the Yorkshire team of the time had ten drunks and a church parson, but no hint that there were no parsons before him. Tintin 02:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)