User talk:Monsta666

Edit Summary & Previews[edit]

Please describe your edits with the Edit Summary box. It is located just above the Save button you use. This makes it easier to understand edits when reading the page's History of edits. Also, please use the Show preview button to enable you to combine edits and reduce the number of Saves that you do. This avoids bulking out the edit History with lots of small edits. The Show preview button is located just to the right of the Save button that you use. Thanks. Hu 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden trophy[edit]

{{helpme}} I want to know what i need to do to improve my article to GA status.Monsta666 23:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have an Wikipedia:Peer Review or look over Good articles. Miranda 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the 1964 Wisden will have a picture of it. Unfortunately the picture is likely to be copyright, but it may be possible to provide a description of the trophy. Added later: Just had a look and surprisingly, though it's mentioned, there is no photo or description. Maybe there was a photo in the 1963 edition, which unfortunately I don't have. You might find a photo on either the ICC or Lord's website. JH (talk page) 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am terribly sorry, but im being held up in editing by a "Break Wikipedia" game, so i will do it by Wednesday, of maybe get another reviewer on the case, again i apologise Chaza93 review 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have got Bernstein2291 on the case, should he accept, i am extremely sorry, family problems too (Nans Moved on) Chaza93 review 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anyone whom I know or any online site that might help substantially. But I'll have a look in my big cricket encyclopaedia, Barclay's World of Cricket, to see if that has anything useful. BTW, is it GA or FA that you are going for? It seems a bit confused, as I've seen references to both. JH (talk page) 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a (not very large or very clear) picture taken at Georgetown, Guyana in April, 1968, showing Colin Cowdrey and Garyy Sobers with the Trophy. Unfortunately the photo is copyright, but I can expand the description of the Trophy. JH (talk page) 18:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just managed to find an online photo, using Google, the second photo in article. And here's another. Incidentally, I think part of the inspiration for the trophy was the Frank Worrell trophy, instituted following the 1960-1 Australia - West Indies series for those two sides to play for, though I can't provide a citation that it was the inspiration. JH (talk page) 18:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are probably copywrited but thanks anyways. I will dig around for the Worrell trophy connection Monsta666 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a large photo of it in the 1963 Wisden and one might hazard a description from it. But I can see nothing about its material or its manufacture (the picture, naturally, is black and white). There are a couple of other places I can look but I am about to disappear for a few days and may not have time beforehand. Johnlp 22:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Islands national cricket team[edit]

I'll work on a table ASAP. As for the records section, as the Cayman Islands have not played any ODI or ICC Trophy games, the only records I could add would be first-class and List A records, which would involve a lot of original research to obtain, so I think we should skip that. Andrew nixon 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, they HAVE played a game, just not in a form of the game that sites tend to keep records for. Andrew nixon 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table added, hows it looking? Andrew nixon 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden Trophy[edit]

Hi. Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. I was just overwhelmed by the lead section, which included so much material that was extraneous to the needs of a lead. Don't mean to be patronising, but have you read WP:LEAD? I basically chopped a bunch of stuff out of it and then just dumped it in the history section, where it needed to be spread around, if you know what I mean. There was too much work for a quick look - I had been under the impression that all it needed was a quick copyedit. Is that helpful? You might find this article useful (User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates). I know it's about FA, which is stricter than GA, but a lot of the principles apply to both. --Dweller 10:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click here --Dweller 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find time this evening to give it a copyedit myself. JH (talk page) 08:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. I've concentrated on the English, and haven't made any real changes to the content. I hope that it's been helpful. JH (talk page) 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Added Trueman's performance have also expanded Sobers' series ,69, four captains, 91 and 94 series. Do you know of any notable feats that are not included in the article?" One thing that comes to mind is that John Murray's century in The Oval Test in 1966 merits a mention, as his partnership with Graveney was instrumental in turning the match round. Also Holford's partnership with Sobers at Lord's, which saved the match. I think West Indies were only 9 runs ahead with 5 second innings wickets down when they came together. The 1967-8 series could do with expanding, the Second Test having a remarkable turn-round after England had seemed on the point of winning before the riot, and the Fifth Test having a very exciting last day wherein England narrowly salvaged a draw after having seemed sure to lose when they slumped to forty-odd for five. Of course, when separate articles have been written on these series - or have been expanded from their current stubs - it may be possible to cut the descriptions down once more. JH (talk page) 08:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GA review for Wisden Trophy[edit]

Hi Monsta,

My impression of JH's suggestion was that he'd leave the on-line reference to the CricInfo/Wisden article, but add details on the actual hard copy Almanack that contained the informations (ISBN, publish date, page number, etc). JH has just posted on the article's talk page, so he may well be addressing this now! Regards, Carre 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it could be done using the cite template, but what I've done in some articles that I've worked on is something like this: <ref>[http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/228431.html Obituary in ''Wisden Cricketers' Almanack'', 1957 edition]</ref>. That's for a footnote. For an entry in the References section it would be the same without the enclosing ref tags. One could add ISBN and page numbers if one wanted to. JH (talk page) 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an awkward one - my personal preference for good quality articles is to combine <ref> , {{harv}} (and variants) and {{citation}} templates, which would make it pretty simple. It would, however, be incredibly arrogant for me to impose my own preference on you. I don't know enough about the {{cite}} templates to be sure, since I've never used them... but could you not combine two cites within a single <ref>, one for the online, one for the hard copy? Carre 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example: <ref>{{cite web|blah blah blah}}; for hard copy {{ cite book|isbn|page|nar de nar}}</ref>. Does that work? Carre 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the page numbers are essential, since anyone looking at the contents list of the Wisden in question could easily find the article. However I have the relevant Wisdens, so here are the page number details:

1963 series, 1964 Wisden, pp269-315
1966 series, 1967 Wisden, pp279-320
1967-8 series, 1969 Wisden, pp812-835
1969 series, 1970 Wisden, pp289-315
1973 series, 1974 Wisden, pp327-354
1973-4 series, 1975 Wisden, pp908-929
1976 series, 1977 Wisden, pp306-348
1980 series, 1981, Wisden, pp312-346
1980-1 series, 1982 Wisden, pp907-926
1984 series, 1985 Wisden, pp279-307
1985-6 series, 1987 Wisden, pp904-926
1988 series, 1989 Wisden, pp280-311
1989-90 series, 1991 Wisden, pp967-988
1991 series, 1992 Wisden, pp293-328
1993-4 series, 1995 Wisden, pp988-1011
1995 series, 1996 Wisden, pp339-384
1997-8 series, 1999 Wisden, pp1021-1052
2000 series, 2001 Wisden, pp421-454
2003-4 series, 2005 Wisden, pp1012-1043
2004 series, 2005 Wisden, pp466-491
2007 series will be in 2008 Wisden

These are page numbers from the hardback edition. I think the softback edition has the same pagination, but I can't be 100% sure. For each tour, the Wisden article contains a report on the tour, Test and f-c averages, scorecards and reports for all tour matches. JH (talk page) 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting the article to GA! :) JH (talk page) 09:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wisden Trophy records[edit]

You've dome some good work here, I left a few comments on how to make it even better. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL Main page proposal[edit]

You nominated a current WP:FLC. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alicia001.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Alicia001.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedit request[edit]

On 5 August 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Wisden Trophy. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sergeant Stekkin1.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sergeant Stekkin1.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Master Sergeant Oreld.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Master Sergeant Oreld.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Master Sergeant Machs1.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Master Sergeant Machs1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]