User talk:Blue Square Thing/Archive 9

Jhye!

Hi BST - hope you are well. Sorry about that, I saw 5/45 on his CI profile, and didn't spot that is his match figures. D'oh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What an odd pair of figures - I didn't notice the 5/45 at all. I did initially assume that there edit was someone being a twat though! Hope you're good - I just got out of isolation after a slightly unpleasant bout of the covid. I don't recommend it :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of information on page of Peter Nevill

Please refrain from continually removing officially verified information from the page of Peter Nevill (cricketer). This is pertaining to the incorrect removal of 'bowling style = right-arm off break' as this information has been sourced from an official site operated by the governing body for cricket in Australia (cricket.com.au) and is verified by Cricket Australia itself. Gillyboy04 (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

He doesn't bowl. It doesn't really matter what his action is, he doesn't bowl so we're adding something that's not in any way significant for this article. The approach of removing bowling actions for players who don't bowl - particularly wicket-keepers - was agreed ages and ages ago - in fact, I think it was specifically done on the Nevill article at that point. I don't remember exactly when, but the consensus was that this was a reasonable thing to do. I'll look on the history and see if I can find the specific point, although iirc it was discussed either at the cricket project or on someone's talk page. 3 or 4 experience editors were involved in that consensus. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. While you personally may believe that this information is not significant, others would disagree as the more information that we have about an individual the better. This especially applies in this case as the information I added was information that could be found on other websites, one even being an official website for Cricket Australia. While you raise a decent argument and provide a reasonable explanation, I believe that if what you say is true about the discussions that you say occurred in the past then I believe the time is right for a) the same editors - if they are still active - to re-evaluate this decison or b) the power of choosing what information can be included should be taken away by editors and handed over to a moderator who can have control over what freedoms and abilities editors have. Gillyboy04 (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Take it to the cricket project talk page and see if you can get a consensus there. That's more how things work here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Shoaib Akhtar

I just corrected this article and saw the history of the page. I saw that you have reverted such improvement before too. I think you will revert me too since I did the same edit.

Can I ask why? See Fast bowling#Top five fast bowlers. Akhtar is still the fastest bowler. Also see this article. 223.236.113.22 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The statement you are changing is definitive - you’re saying he IS the fastest ever. That’s impossible to say without much more documentation. What about bowlers who bowled before speed guns? How reliable was that speed gun? (so many are juiced) etc. Leave it as it is for the lead. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

But that is your opinion. If we go by your logic then we will never find anything 'definitive'... not even that the printing press was invented in Germany.

If you really want to rely on this opinion of yours then you need to CITE the reliable sources that dispute the fact that Akhtar is the fastest bowler. Are there any? 223.236.113.22 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that we need to be able to source such statements. If we caveat them then we can be more certain. Did, for example, you read the source that is being used? And notice the massive caveats on it? I’m not sure we should even be saying what we are saying, let alone stating that he is the fastest ever - faster than anyone who never had a speed gun used on them? There are bowlers who might raise more than an eyebrow at that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Haven't read the one which is being used on the article. this source seems more accurate. It says: "Since speedmeasuring devices were introduced at international cricket matches in 1998, Pakistan's Shoaib Akhtar has the record for the fastest bowl at 161 kph".

I think it should be rewritten here with this source and moved away from the lead. What do you think? 223.236.113.22 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The specific speed could certainly come out of the lead, sure. The problem is that all of this is "since speed guns" - which effectively means in international cricket since 1975 at the earliest and since '98 realistically. How would Duncan Spencer, for example come out of that? Given that Richards would have faced Thomson in his prime - and Thomson was clocked at 99 mph+. It's really difficult to say "is thee fastest" in those circumstances. Give it a try and we'll see what we get. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright I made the edit here. 223.236.113.22 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahmedabad IPL Franchise

I saw that there is no article on the Ahmedabad IPL Franchise, so can you please create it. The naming of the franchise will be revealed very soon .Thank You and have a nice day. Cricket Fan 7 (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No. The Lucknow one shouldn't have been created yet either. There are draft articles for both - at something like Draft:Ahmedabad IPL team I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ok sir Lucknow Supergiants article is already created but not the Ahmedabad one so after its named can ypu you help me create that article. Thanks Cricket Fan 7 (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, there's a draft article. Use that. The Lucknow one should not have been created either. Be patient. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I will wait Cricket Fan 7 (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential image copyvio

Hi - regarding the thread you started at User talk:MrBlueSky747, I wanted to let you know that I've just blocked that account as a sock of Anonymous427, who was already indef blocked for image copyvios. A close look at any uploads might be warranted; image copyright stuff isn't really my area of expertise, thought you might want to look at it. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Cheers - thought it looked like an obvs copyvio - uploaded to commons under another name as well I note - here's another commons image for my reference, but feel free to look a little further if you fancy it. This one is BlueSky's work at Commons - do we follow the block through on there as well? It made it on to the main page btw - and he took this to the edit filter. I'll have a look through the various edits on here and there and see what's going on. Both feel like a copyvio. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's cross-wiki, they can be reported on meta for global lock. Do you know how to do that? If not, ping me if you're confident these are copyvio and I'll do it. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 12:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Perosonally I'm confident, but I can't prove it yet - it's all a little circumstantial rather than a smoking gun. I'll see what I can turn up though and let you know if I can get anything that would hold up. Btw, on the block note you mention Shooting Spirit 007, but I think you came to the conclusion it wasn't that user? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

hmm - the block notice must have come about because I used a script, and the SPI hadn't been moved when I made the block (if was originally filed under that master). I'll fix the note later when I'm not on mobile, thanks for pointing it out. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Blue sqaure thing

Please stop messing around CLT20 it is Qaulified not Semi-finals i know both are the same but it said and written as Qaulified i hope you understand and don't edit according to you it wrong we try to put and give correct information so please. Thanks Divyakaran Singh Joshi (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that writing "qualified" makes it look like the team qualified for the group stage. They progressed beyond that. In this context, just writing qualified won't make sense to any reader who isn't aware that it means something else - the word simply doesn't mean that to 99.9% of the english speaking population I'm afraid. We can't just write qualified. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries and talk page comments

Good morning, User:Blue Square Thing. I hope you are well and, after I have seen a post above, you are fully recovered from Covid. I am a doctor and have avoided this illness for two years until now when I am currently in isolation myself, but thankfully it is like bad cold and hopefully will be no worse than that. I do not edit Wikipedia often and not at all in last two years because of being so busy. I am editing a little bit now to pass time and you may recall I posted a few things onto Pat Cummins article this week. Also, I raised a question about Talk:Shreyas Iyer which you answered for me, and thank you again for that.

I was very surprised by errors you made at Pat Cummins article and you referring to User:Jaspreetsingh6 as 'some idiot'. Out of curiosity, I looked through your contributions and I have to say I was disappointed and somewhat offended to see [1] this response to IP editor who insulted you. I am from Kolkata myself, although I have lived and worked in England for eleven years, and I cannot excuse you saying that you like to 'to piss of sad little biys from west bengal' (sic). I am, I hope, wise enough and experienced enough to realise that you wrote this in heat of the moment after name-calling on your own talk page, but some people in today's climate might construe your comment as racism. This is especially so when I also see two edit summaries at Pat Cummins article where you describe Kolkata Knight Riders as a 'crappy' franchise and you deride a valid shorthand term like IPL 2015 (which is used by this site for redirection) as something that 'no one outside India has the foggiest about'. Again, comments like these could be construed as prejudicial. Even if you are badly provoked, you should follow advice we are given in NHS to say nothing, end discussion and report incident (and, naturally, remove offending post).

Although this part is none of my business, I do not believe it is wise to threaten another editor with police. The law can be unpredictable and other parties could claim you provoked them. The case could then, potentially, invoke implications for Wikipedia as publisher and rebound on site. Do please to be careful with edit summaries and talk page comments. Thank you. 79.73.24.191 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Being a fellow editor from West Bengal, I am feeling insulted. This kind of adamant behavior is really not expected from a veteran user like you. The issue may be raised at the hornet's nest that is WP:ANI!

All okay?

Noticed you have blanked and deleted your userpage. Hope is all well. StickyWicket (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just about to ask the same thing. I could have sworn your userpage was blue and not red before! Take care. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather odd. Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper 23:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Was going to drop you an email, but you don't have that preference setup. Hope all is OK and you're just enjoying the real world before the domestic season starts in England. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all three of you - appreciate the notes. You're pretty much right, I really need a break and the sun is out. I don't know how long I'll be but the start of the season is a good benchmark in my mind, although I may pop by before then, it depends. Just came back to post the finished 1861 to 1870 list - AA you might want to go through and double check perhaps. Hope you're all well. The userpages needed clearing out for lots of different reasons - I'm sure you can imagine or figure it out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear you're OK. Yes - enjoy that rare British treat of the sun while you can! Take care. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey BST, why are you not responding to the string of issues raised against you? Is the timing of your taking break from Wikipedia and the complaint against you a mere co-incidence? I really didn't know that you are so cow-hearted that you would bow down to us, to the issues by ceasing to editing in Wikipedia rather than by taking part in the discussion like an audacious. Shame on you.

Michri michri (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: BST is taking a break from the world of Wikipedia for the time being. Also, please keep your "comments" to yourself as part of WP:NPA. Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper 21:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

BST: take your time, but just in case you didn't notice, the idiot above has been blocked (though given their history I guess they'll be back soon). Best wishes. Spike 'em (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice to hear you're okay. That "my dear" clown has been blocked. StickyWicket (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)