User talk:Blue Square Thing/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi mate, sorry if I’ve put this in the wrong place.

I hope you’ve been well.

Can you explain why you’ve reverted my edits on Australian Cricketer Ricky Ponting? As it is factual that Ricky Ponting is coaching the Australian Cricket team with Justin Langer. I don’t want to start a edit war but just asking why it was reverted.

Talk Soon 60.227.37.73 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not the wrong, place - although try to create a new section (link at the top)! I just think the article is already super long. I don't think either of those details really adds anything very much to the article if I'm honest. They just aren't that important. It's not a massive deal I suppose, but we'd be better off taking stuff out of the article if I'm honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, it is a pretty long article but I disagree, if you have Mike Pence you say Vice President under Donald Trump don’t you? We’ll agree to disagree.

Enjoy your holidays 60.227.37.73 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

sorry wikipedia's is always suggesting I edit or purge I will refrain from any thing other than reading. So sorry thank you for not getting mean. happy holidays. Frenchie777 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this editing wikipedia thing, can you explain why you reverted my edits on Brett Lee where I stated only Muralitharan took more wickets than Lee from 2000-2009? They were facts and I also put in the reference. Cksherlock1 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cksherlock1: Of course - it's something I was going to come back to on the article talk page, but here is fine for now (my dinner got in the way...). I think the problem is where the edits have gone in the article. The lead section - the bit above the first sub heading and contents box - is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. It's the headlines. For me, the stuff you were adding was too detailed and specific for that section the article. The content itself might belong in sections 2.3 and 2.6 I think - have a look and see what you think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I understand now. I'll look into section 2.3 and 2.6 to find a spot where I can put that part in. Thanks a lot for the input. Cksherlock1 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Give it a go and someone will come along and tweak anything that's not quite right. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Now can u help me with understanding the risks associated with it. I suppose the matches, Runs and wickets don't come under those risks. Related to the talk about your comments on my talk page. Mr.High.duh (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mate,

Wasnt my edit essentially the same level of detail as the discussion above of the year before's international cricket??? I mentioned his 2 significant scores and not much else. This seems fair in an encyclopedia. If my edit was wrong, it seems the whole page is. — Preceding

Hi. I'd imagine that the article needs a lot of the detail taken out of it then. In about 2017 someone went around adding a tonne of day to day detail to every England cricketer who was playing at that point. Which is a problem.

We're really looking for more of a summary style. Adam Gilchrist is the example I tend to point towards - a featured article fwiw. Take a look there and tell me what you think we do to Pope's article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've changed my edit, hope its better now. We really just need massive updating on international cricketers.

That's much better - thanks. Fancy having a go at the rest of the article at some point?! At some point in the future, of course, even that level of detail might be too much, but not for Pope in terms of his current career. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll try and add some stuff at that level for some more minor England players soon. Where do you find good cricket stats, like lists of scores?

@

Danielkuhrt: CricInfo is a good bet - although I would try to use match reports more than scorecards if I needed to source anything. The BBC might also be worth a look. His CricInfo profile has his international matches list - you need to use the Statsguru Test analysis button underneath the stats. Blue Square Thing (talk

) 10:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi BST. Hope you are well. You might be interested in this discussion at ANI about this editor. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Comedy gold there. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As you have reverted edits of contributors who have updated stats during matches I thought I'd reach out. I have also been doing this but don't know for sure whether there is a consensus for this. I am currently in discussion with Edwin of Northumbria who has updated stats at List of Test cricket records during matches. I had a quick look at the Wikiproject:Cricket and couldn't see anything there. It would be good if NOT updating stats during matches is a consensus rule. If you can point me in the right direction or give me your view that would be appreciated. Robynthehode (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The issue that I have is the updating of players infobox stats during a match. In general when these are updated they are done so partially (perhaps missing catches or wickets) and are done so in a way which requires original research to be done (for example, calculating a batting average). I argue that this is likely to lead to errors and omissions. For example, I reverted some edits of Joe Root this morning I think which had only updated his batting stats, despite him taking wickets in the match. Part of the problem is that other people might then come along and do the same maths themselves - and add more runs or more wickets. And pretty soon we end up with something that's utterly bollocked up.

In the case of the article you linked, it's possible that there are citations for the record which was being updated - for example, when Sean Dickson hit his triple hundred a few years ago, there were plenty of sources to make it valid to mention it in the article and in the list of KCCC records article, but not to update the infobox stats.

In terms of where to look for a consensus, that's a good question. The cricket project is rather lapse on coming up with any form of style guide which might include this, so the best response is

WP:OR. Blue Square Thing (talk

) 14:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid it's a "thing" on Wikipedia to occasionally target some foreign sportsman or sportswoman who appears in British/US low MOS sports sources with the basic 26 letter font for a name trim. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's slightly odd isn't it. Given that we're redirecting anyway, we may as well use the proper name. We'll see what happens I guess - I only noticed it as he's on my watchlist having spent a season at my club. Feel free to throw similar ones my way if it'll help. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Anachronistic 328, I recently observe that u removed all of content i add about James Pattinson and give a Stupid reason for the same. My content was backed by source and Pattinson is fastest among current Australian Fast bowlers behind Starc he was timed at 150 kph, Is is Fast-Medium, I am readding the content, Kindly dont remove with your Personal Commentary.Anachronistic 328 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We go with what the sources say - and they say fast-medium. Try not Using gratuitous Capital letters On Odd words as well. It might give the impression that you don't know what you're on about. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi BST, hope you are doing well. I need your view regarding fifer tables. I have tried to summarize Ntini's fifers on his bio in the form of a condensed table, check here. Please review and share your feedback, if any. Thanks and happy editing. Störm (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: I don't think I'd bother with the home and away splits. If it's a really significant difference then I think it would probably be best to discuss that in prose. That will make the table even more usable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not hard. You've broken any number of Wiki-rules by removing well-written, well-sourced information against all common sense. What are you gatekeeping? Historic racism mustn't be mentioned, while you're on duty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A86:7B00:89A7:7F23:BB75:927B (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean sourced from a blog? That's unreliable - see

WP:CV

.

Beyond that, you're simply adding fluff to what we already had - by all means add a sentence about it possibly originating with Leyland, but we don't need stuff like "The anecdotal (and apocryphal) version", which is obvious POV thrown in as well.

As for the historical racism, well, I suggest you take a look at the page history and see what I've added or removed from the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

And we don't use curly quotes - see

MOS:CURLY. Blue Square Thing (talk

) 14:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: replies to a user using at least two IP addresses, using blogs and direct copyvios to push POV at Left-arm unorthodox spin. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blue Square Thing, I've started a draft on updating

Looks like there are quite a few users [1] that wouldn't listen reasoning [2] [3]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I give up wondering why people are so, err, thoughtless... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind having a look at the List of Essex County Cricket Club players and see what you think of the format? I put it into narrower columns last week but I'm not sure if it looks better or not, and would be grateful for a second opinion. Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't tend to use a super-wide browser window, so that's something to feature in to my views. I think it's OK - I've experimented with 20em in the past as well. When I view it on a phone with a portrait window in desktop mode it's OK and drops it into 2 columns, whereas 30em keeps it in one. There are advantages with both way of looking at it. I don't think it's a problem when I full screen my desktop browser window either, so I'd be happy enough I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I only use a laptop so I forget the phone considerations. I've just a 25em version without saving, which looks slightly better as it doesn't break a player's entry across two lines, I'll try that now and can you have one further look please? If that's OK I will keep it at that! --Bcp67 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi BST - hope you're well. I assume your last edit to Lockie Ferguson was made in error? That damn IP does like their overlinks and n/a! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, very odd - I mean, you only beat me to it by several hours! No idea why that happened - I was probably trawling through their edits and somehow reverted yours. I must get around to taking that IP to ANI... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha, no worries and thanks for the self revert. Hopefully a quick block will do the trick. To the IP, not to me... :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Just logged this at

WP:AIV as their antics continue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

13:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

...are making this change. That includes Ohconfucius's User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates and User:Ohconfucius/AWB modules/dmy / User:Ohconfucius/AWB modules/mdy. He is maintaining those, so please contact him for help before reverting me again. I monitor his talk pages; please make a change request there. Dawnseeker2000 23:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000 Thanks for that. To be honest the quickest way to deal with the DATEVAR issues when they actually change a date in the article body is to revert rather than go through and change them by hand. If it just changes the date at the top of the article then it's not an issue of course. (e2a: the number of articles where YMD is being used in refs is dwindling as templates auto-replace dates etc... so this really isn't going to happen very often. When it does, place excuse and revert that I do. Oddly in the case of Caffyn the script changed the YMD date but not the later one with the ordinal...) Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The scripts aren't accepting that YMD is a perfectly valid form of date style in references. It's really not OK to impose your own preferences over the work of people who use decent, consistent reference styles in articles. Otherwise you'll end up with shit articles like John Cocker was before I added every single reference that's used in the article - and, at the same time, actually bothered to add about 2000 characters of prose to the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If one wants to be really pedantic, all dates in the Caffyn article -including the reference section - ought to be in dmy, per

WP:TIES

, which stipulates dmy dates. BTW, the ordinal date was not removed by script because it resided within a protected string and isn't touched by the script.

Fortunately, Caffyn is a relatively short article, and not much combing through the article history was needed to locate the edit by the "first significant contributor" as far as dates are concerned. But date auditing can involve a certain dose of pragmatism (as in the case of the edit you apparently objected to): just imagine how cumbersome it would be to go through all the edit histories of each article in one's worklist prior to performing date audits. Anyway no offense is intended. Regards, -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 20:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes - how odd. I think the oddness of the date in the Caffyn article threw me out totally (e2a: looking at it, my initial reversion would have been based on the diff I saw in my watchlist, so I'd have missed the other date - my, as they say, bad; I suppose I was right on Cocker and Nick Nairn...). It does, indeed involve pragmatism, especially when there's a mish mash of stuff going on. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

over the years I have become highly sensitive to errors in the reference sections. Quite often, after a script edit, I find myself having to delve into articles' references. They can be tens of references in need of reformatting them.-- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 07:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the reversion of my edit on

MOS:DATEUNIFY

.

I have a suggestion, not that you necessarily have the time to do so. It would be greatly helpful for editors and contributors that, if the date format for references is intended to be different from that for the text, that a new format template is added to wikipedia—e.g., {{Use y-m-d ref dates}}. In shorter articles, it would be nearly impossible to figure out whether the differences in the few references that may be present are intended or contrary to the major authors' intentions. Contributors and tools (e.g., various reference insertion/formatting tools) could also pick up that information.

I also note that Wikipedia:Date_formattings#Potential_false_positives does not list this issue either. rsjaffetalk 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone else just made the same mistake I had! I’ve reverted their edit. I think this adds to the case that something needs to be done to documentation and perhaps to templates. rsjaffetalk 23:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a clue as to how to go about creating a template such as that, but it's not a bad idea - ideally one that the auto tools can act upon as well I suppose. I do wonder whether it might be just as easy to remove the use dmy templates when the date style for refs is different - it's not as if there's much doubt in most cases as to how dates in the body should look. Thanks for the suggestions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I find the templates to be tremendously helpful even when not using an automated tool. They're a standardized way of identifying the English variant and date formatting that the article strives for. I've encountered plenty of articles that, without such a template, you'd be left to guessing (e.g., 50/50 mix of date styles). And automated tools are very helpful for tedious work like verifying spelling and date formatting. rsjaffetalk 23:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see the use, but things don't always work properly. Use dmy, for example, has the effect of turning a ymd date aside a cite template into a dmy date. I don't think this always happened, but it does now. All of which sort of leads to an "only one right way to do things" feeling. Nevermind - it's not something that causes a tonne of hassle most of the time anyway especially if people are understanding Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia:Date_formattings#Potential_false_positives rsjaffetalk 23:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blue Square Thing, I have been looking through some of Cholocateediters edits and most of them are not formal or are unsourced. So I have tried to readd the lead couldn't revert it so I had to redo the lead and recite the websites...He also edited

Probably - although given the map evidence they could well be right. Eston does appear in very old mapping as a village and seems to appear in Domesday. Not sure about the others, but I don't think I'd use subdivision in the way you have. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe its still a village and should be like suburban village or large village? Another suggestion :)

Found this and this

talk

) 15:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Bulmer's is a decent source certainly - and confirms the origin of South Bank at least. Eston doesn't look like a suburban village to me - certainly not one in the sense that I'd use. Referring to both as towns seems reasonable - but with the caveat that they are clearly part of the wider urban area. I suspect people living there may very well consider them suburbs. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

On 13 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bailey Wightman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English-Australian cricketer Bailey Wightman made his County debut for Kent whilst playing club cricket for Tunbridge Wells after an outbreak of COVID-19? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bailey Wightman. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bailey Wightman), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Was genuinely interested about some of the reversions you made recently on the List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lord's page. First off, you only highlighted that you needed a source for the number of five wicket hauls taken by each player in prose, yet you blatantly deleted the Cricinfo link that showed the list of five wicket hauls taken at Lords in prose, and that the (x/x) part was put in to highlight the generally stated information while allowing for the reader to track how many five wicket hauls have been taken. Furthermore, why would you consider that addition as "unnecessary information", when you have been putting small hatnotes including if the player has taken a hattrick on the Trent Bridge page (e. g. Stuart Broad), which I want to ask you why that is relevant to a page just generally highlighting who has taken a five wicket haul at Trent Bridge, and also if you can provide a prose source on whether England followed on, or when the hattrick was taken and at what time rain stopped play on the day, and what hat they were wearing since the names on the Trent Bridge are littered with hatnotes. I understand that they are there for general reading, but it can be aesthetically unpleasing if every hatnote is added unless it would be about whether a war or a flag had been changed.

Also, you have not addressed some of the other reversions, for example the removal of sortnames for Shahadat Hossain, Mohammad Amir, Khan Mohammed and etc. Those edits were made to keep the presentation of names on the article consistent and if there were additions (such as the dab=cricketer from the (sortname|firstname|surname|dab=cricketer), it can be added to link the name on the article to the responding cricketer. Moreover, you just made the reversions and failed to do the same for all the names and add all the hatnotes, which makes the edit unjustified, so are you just making it harder on purpose? Have a good day. SpyroeBM (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not every name sorts by surname. There's no need to use a template for this - if we need to use a dab then we pipe it. Simples. As you've changed it, we're sorting Mushtaq Ahmed and Waqar Younis by A and Y respectively. That's really not OK: every proper source will refer to these men as Mushtaq and Waqar, not Ahmed or Younis. This match report for example. So well done.

In most cases the reference for the five wicket haul will show whether a follow on, for example, was enforced. Particularly if the link is to the summary rather than the scorecard. The summary also shows things like debuts. Iirc every source on the Trent Bridge page should be the summary - it's possible other people have added scorecards for recent matches as the summaries only appear after a few hours.

The source at the top is utterly unnecessary. It's essentially original research anyway as it requires a specific search to have been completed. It can be added as an external link - not everything requires a reference. There are featured lists in the same series of articles that don't have it and have never had it.

The small text is pure

WP:OR

. None of it is referenced, it's simply someone counting by hand. Find me a (proper) source that shows this information.

The notes, on the other hand, are all supported by the reference. On the Trent Bridge one there are probably too many and if I were doing that list now I'd probably not add so many, but the case of following on, for example, is an obvious one to make clear for the benefit of a non-specialist reader. Cases such as debuts are particularly significant and there are a whole host of other things that can, if appropriate, be noted - Bedser taking seven wickets in each innings, for example, is massively notable and, because of the way people read tables, is absolutely unclear if you don't note it. As for hat-tricks - those aren't worth noting? Really? Because they're so common? We have whole lists of hat-trick takers. Rain just makes your argument look what it is btw, but whatever. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Note to self: this related to the discussion about historic counties in infoboxes. The ANI thread was Multiple abuses of process and subsequent mass automated edits in contravention of denied bot request and relates to the action of other users. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blue Square Thing can you please leave me alone and I will leave Michael Neser’s profile alone. Thanks Paynterurd4 (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC) .

Tell you what buddy, actually read what people write on your talk page rather than being a knob and I won't have to repeat it. If you can't learn from people with experience then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it prohibited to edit statistics of a player during a series??? Is that the reason why my edits on Mahmudullah & Mushfiqur got reverted?? Ezabuljoji (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It was the change of source from a reliable, standard source where the url should persist to, in one case a subpage (bad idea for lots of technical reasons) and in the other case to a far less accessible source for no apparent reason. Then the paragraph you added to one was in the present tense and really not that important in terms of the article - it falls foul of NOTNEWS. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi BST - hope you are well. I was reverting some nonense on Jacob Miltz's article, and noticed he had no DOB. Looks like the one on Cricinfo is incorrect, making him 12! Anyway, I noticed he played for the Kent 2nd XI this summer, so I don't know if you have any more info on this guy. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. It wasn't a name I knew, but he seems to have played for (and possibly captained) Folkestone in the Kent league as well - a search for Miltz Folkestone Cricket turned up this for example, which might be useful. There are also some KCCC articles about league cricket he's mentioned in - and presumably will be some on Kent Online as well. Interesting that he was playing for the seconds just before The Covid Match with all the debutants in it, yet they choose Harry Houillon to keep instead. There are probably those who would suggest that going to the "right" school and playing for the "right" club might have been a factor there. I might even be one of them... (Miltz is presumably classed as overseas as well of course, but then we only had Heino playing as an overseas in that match anyway).

Interesting one though - the Folkestone search is worth doing if you get the chance and I'll chip in with what I can when I get a chance. There may be a little more in next season's annual as well of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply to you: Good afternoon BST (As per IST), I know creating the section was your idea. Ok, I will surely wait for a next few days for you to rephrase the section. I know it will take time. I shall not do any further edit on that section of the article in the next few days. By the way, after your continuous removal, the article has become very short and wee. Also, I don't know why you have removed the paragraph regarding India's first pink ball match in the Domestic career of Shami. Anyway, I would like to request you to elaborate the article in the other sections as well where it needs, of course, in a neutral point of view. Again, 2021 IPL will end inside this week. So, you may add Shami's performance in 2021 IPL while doing the edit. I'd suggest you to elaborate the ODI, Test and T20 sections too if possible. So, I think it will be better for you if I and other users don't edit the article further in the following days. I hope you will overhaul the whole article. Lastly, I'd recommend you to rewrite the article section by section. For eg, in day 1, you may edit the introduction part, in the next day, you may edit the Early Life and Career part. In this way, oneday, the article will become standard and exemplary in the true sense of the term. I'll be glad if you give me the job to edit any section of this article. I will give my 100% while doing it. Ok, BSK, this is all for now. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you. --Soutut (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It'll take some time. I don't see the pink ball stuff as relevant personally - it's not that interesting unless it's particularly notable in terms of his career. I don't think it needs to be part of the lead.

The international section needs combining into one part really - it needs to flow. Then we can look at what's missing please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, BST, do as per your plan. Anyway, I shall not be available in Wikipedia from tomorrow indefinitely, may be a week or a couple due to some personal problems. I hope you will edit the page drastically and standardise it by then. Be happy, mirthful and have a great time.Soutut (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon BST, I am now available in Wikipedia. I have kept my word of honour. I have not made a single edit to the article Mohammed Shami since my promise. In the meantime, I have gone through the history of the article we are speaking of and your talk page. One thing I have found that any edit to the article gets reverted by you. You have also not expanded or standardised it in in the meanwhile. Now, I think time has come to elaborate the stuff. I may hope that you shall not revert or rollback my edits further as you have done persistently in the past with me, as well as, other editors. I will abide by your advice. The IPL part will remain sub-section. Hyperbole and fancruft words will be removed. Source will be cited after each incident. I will not edit the introduction section, because I think you can expand it better with some standard words and grammatical corrections. I will not add the 'Bowling Style' section, because it was your idea after all... So, you can materialise the section better. I will not start editing before your reply. Any advice and assistance regarding the editing will be accepted with exuberance of gaiety. Anyway, I also have some other questions. As per your thinking, Indian Premier League section should be included under Domestic Cricket section as a sub-section. Should not the same be done in case of the articles 'Virat Kohli' and 'Rohit Sharma'? Another question, the article 'Suresh Raina' contains a huge number of sections and sub-sections. The article also has a number of uncited lines. I have removed a few of those. Now, I'd like to request you to go through the article and summarise it by removing the unnecessary and beside the point sections. Also, if possible, summarise the article regarding Virat Kohli as it is quite vast and over-detailed. Thank you. Really looking forward to your response. --Soutut (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Urgent Update (HELP)- I am now in the most inconvenient predicament in the true sense of the term due to my edits to the articles- 'Virat Kohli' and 'Rohit Sharma'. You can fathom my problem by going through the talk page of the article regarding Rohit Sharma, where discussion on both the articles are made. I can't decide what I shall do. So I want your help and advice in this matter. You can tell me what the incorrect things I have done during my edits. Also, I request you to summarise the article Virat Kohli as it is too vast to be gone through with patience. When I tried to do it, I was admonished of being blocked. Ok, at first, read the talk page of the article Rohit Sharma. I did n't face any inconvenience while shortening and making an overall change to the article 'Suresh Raina'. So, you don't have to interfere into that matter. Ok, this is all for now. Thank you in advance. Reply me as soon as you view this message. Please don't ignore. 'HELP ME BLUE SQUARE THING --Soutut (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really available for a few days to do very much - maybe a little on the weekend. Real life and work I'm afraid. Slow down, wait and relax. There's nothing so important that it can't wait a week. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you too relax and take rest. To be honest, I have observed that since a few days, you have not replying and responding as swiftly as you used to do in the past. By the way, the problem is now resolved. So, the matter is not so immediate and important as it was. Anyway, whenever you become free, just go through the article Virat Kohli and shorten and summarise it as it is really quite vast filled with some superfluous and haphazard repeated materials that don't overwhelm, astound, carry away or flabbergast the reader's mind at all. Gracias/ধন্যবাদ/ Thank you. --Soutut (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply on the same: You have removed the section 'Bowling Style' as it has some copyright issues. I see, but why have you removed the quote of Bharat Arun on Shami? Shall I write the quote in ​my own words? 202.142.67.206 (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you hang on for a few days - it might be worth keeping all or some of, but I have other things I need to do as well and there are so many copyvio issues that I'd be concerned if we kept on throwing the same stuff in. It'll get done - relax. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

But, what is the problem with the quote? Why is the pink ball match irrelevant? Is it at all? Anyway, take time and standardise the article soon. Waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.206 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The better question is, "why is the pink ball match interesting" - or "relevant" in the context of Shami's career? Did it lead to anything earth shattering or significant for his career? If he took his career best figures, then maybe. He didn't - we know the pink ball moves more - it does that for everyone, not just Shami. Grant Stewart took 6/22 with one in England, but had only taken four FC wickets previous to that. He also scored a century with it - now, that might, just might, be significant (and trust me, it hooped around like a boomerang for him during the first evening session - never seen a ball move like it did out of Stewart's hand). But Shami? Meh - really, it's not a significant match really and not at a significant level. If he'd taken his 7 with it, then maybe. He didn't.

The quote might be OK - it just needs fitting into the wider article properly. It's already quite quote heavy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can not make out your second answer. Kindly explain it. Again, you personally may feel the pink ball match irrelevant or uninteresting, but the others may not. There is a proverb - " Why fix something that is not broken?" All the sections of the article, especially the Test Career one was section-wise well written before your removal, at least, as compared to the present one. It would be better if you restore the article as it was before your continuous edit. Remove sections of the articles only when you become free to edit and rephrase it. Please don't mind. All the best. 202.142.67.206 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The quote might work. It depends.

And, trust me, the article was not OK. Not close to it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry BST, I was a bit harsh during my last edit on your talk page. Please forgive me. Now, I'd suggest you what Soutut suggested. I think his recommendation is really good. I know it will take time. So, I am promising that I will not do any edit further of the article we are talking of. I hope you will rewrite the article and add the 'Bowling Style' in the next few days. I have full-fleged trust in your wise consideration and sense of responsibility. Sorry again and thank you, of course. Looking forward to your remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.206 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits to Venkatesh Iyer

Hi, while your intention or desire that the article should be concise, short or precise is ok, but after your reversion, pls. see for yourself where the article stands now, it ends with the mention of his first IPL 50 against Mumbai. Subsequent to that Venkatesh Iyer has made three telling contributions with the bat for his side KKR, first against RCB which was a 29 or 30-odd, which he followed up with a telling 51 against DC in the eliminator, and also added 96 with the other opener Shubhman Gill. The first two knocks were (if not the most important), but key factors in getting KKR to the IPL final against CSK. Fine, they lost the final, but in that too Venkatesh and Shubhman again added 91 for the first wicket with both scoring half-centuries. Don't you think that these should be mentioned? My last edit was till the eliminator against DC, before the final against CSK was played. I came back to edit with further material, but found all my edits having been deleted. If at all, you could have written to me asking me to shorten my detailing, and also (being a senior) guiding me on the way I should edit. Will wait for your reply.Srirangam99 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for cutting in your conversation, but I must say that, the same has been done to the article Mohammed Shami. Whenever I or other users, even the registered ones make any edit on this article, Blue Square Thing reverts and rollbacks it, saying 'Hyperbole', 'Irrelevant', 'Poorly written' etc (You can fathom the matter by going through the history of the aforementioned page). Like you, I too wrote Blue Square Thing to discuss the matter in the talk page before removing or deleting anything. After editing the article continuously, when I tried to give the finishing touch to the article, I found all my edits getting reverted like you. A number of other editors argued in favour of me. Anyway, I have decided to rephrase and overhaul the article with the help of some other users, who also make regular edits on it. I shall be glad if you (Srirangam99 (talk)) assist me in this context. I again apologise for interfering the conversation without permission. I am really sorry Blue Square Thing. Forgive me if you can. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:2E89:AC3B:0:0:CECB:60B (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise. This is a perfectly fine place to raise this - as is the talk page of the article. I raised what I think are the specific edits at User talk:2409:4060:2E87:EA84:0:0:CE8B:8002 - it's difficult to tell exactly what I'm responding to here when dynamic IP addresses are being used. If you could provide specific examples of exactly what you think should be included that would be helpful - there is a litany of issues that I've tried to address on the article: poor written English, massive fan-boy cruft, copyright violations and huge over-detail before we even get to a total lack of understanding of what the lead is supposed to be for and what shouldn't be included in it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I shall discuss the matter later. But thank you, Blue Square Thing, for supporting me in the article Bhuvneshwar Kumar. Yes, I was the user (My IP address may have changed) who was removing the over-detailed, superfluous part. Thanks again.202.142.67.35 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing, in the article Bhuvneshwar Kumar, I have removed the phrase 'rated as the greatest batsman', placed before Sachin Tendulkar. After a while, an editor reverted my edit. I think no one can be rated as the greatest. Even, the fact is quite irrelevant, unnecessary and of course, hyperbole in the article I am speaking of. Now, I want your opinion in this particular matter. I will wait for your valuable opinion before doing any edit to it. Ok, this is all for now. Looking forward to your reply. Good night (As per time of our country). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.35 (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree; I've also cut a whole pile of similar over detail and repetition (why do people not read pages before they edit them?). Certainly I feel the ref bomb was unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I convey thanks and the best wishes at the outset of my reply. I apologised because another editor (Not mentioning name), who is quite expert in cricket, reverted my edit and remarked 'go away' for cutting in his conversation with another one. By the way, let me enter the actual topic without any further delay. To be honest, I am beside myself with joy on knowing the fact that you have intervened the matter. I have gone through your conversation with Obama Gaming. I admit that I am the same person with random IPs from West Bengal. Yes, I have engaged in editing-war with Obama Gaming. It's true. I don't know whether I was wrong or he was. You can decide it. Anyway, the page is now semi-protected. So, I am now blocked from editing it. But, that doesn't matter really. I know many friendly registered users. I myself can create an account. That's not a problem at all. I have a request to you to move our conversation about the article of Bhuvneswar Kumar to the next section, as it consists of the same. If you don't mind, I must say that it is easier and more convenient to remove and summarise any stuff in Wikipedia rather than creating, elaborating and expanding anything. All right, no more now. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks again. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.158.67 (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would just like to ask your opinion on whether or not the removal of many details of Bhuvneshwar's notable tour of England (with sources) is justifiable. I don't wish to engage in an edit war with an IP address which is clearly the same person from West Bengal, but appreciate your opinion. Thank you

Hello. Firstly, I just reverted your last edit to the page - I don't hate the way you phrased what you re-added - it's certainly better - but you removed the bit about the duck - which, if it's true (and we could use sources for this) is actually really, really important. Otherwise we're saying he's the first bowler to have dismissed Tendulkar. Ever.

Wrt your query here, I'm not sure what part of the article you're referring to exactly. Is it the 2014 tour? I trimmed that a bit to avoid repetition and the whole number nine with three fifties, which isn't actually notable in any way really. Or was it something else? Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well personally I would consider it to be notable considering no one on India's team equalled him, nevertheless I'm only a novice in cricket so I'll take your word for it

I think Sachin's description should be kept there, because he was the first one to dismiss him for a duck. Albeit I didn't read it carefully & as you mentioned I left out the duck section. I do believe the duck did have a citation to it, if not I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to just find some news article on it. Cheers

talk

) 06:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As I say, I'm not unhappy about the description you had.

For the first part, do we need to say that he was India's leading wicket-taker (if he was)? Or are you talking about the batting? If they were his first half-centuries then we could add that - but I'm not sure the "first number nine to score three..." bit isn't more than a little contrived. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'll get onto finding a citation for that

It was the batting, we know he's already a good bowler. Perhaps we should trim it down a bit? I don't think it's exactly unreasonable to include small details like this but yes perhaps in hindsight it seems slightly overkill.

talk

) 07:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If they were his first half-centuries in Tests then simply say "On the tour Kumar also scored his first Test match (or international if he hasn't done so in ODI/T20I - or if he hadn't done so in FC then go further) half-centuries, reaching 50 runs three times with a highest score of XX". It doesn't need to go into individual scores - it was a long time ago now and reads like it was added ruing the tour or just afterwards when it, perhaps, seemed more important than it is now - remember, we're looking for a summary article, not a "and then he..." approach. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am the same user who commented about the articles Mohammed Shami and Bhuvneshwar Kumar earlier. I don't know whether you have seen my last reply on the article regarding Bhuvneshwar kumar. If you have not read it, then please go through it at first. Anyway, let me enter the actual matter without any introduction. I noticed that you have removed a whole paragraph of the article Umesh Yadav. I think you did the correct thing. The stuff was quite irrelevant, unnecessary and superfluous. While editing, you made a mistake regarding the spelling of the cricketer, which I rectified later. I'ld be glad if you kindly go through the 'International Career' part of the page and summarise it. The part is quite vast with a lot of over-details regarding a single match. So, I think it should be shortened and hyperbole informations should be immediately removed. All right, no more now. Convey your thoughts and remarks here after minutely studying the article. ধন্যবাদ (Thank you). 202.142.81.72 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the spelling - possibly autocorrect, possibly my typing. I wasn't sure if we should be calling him Yadav or Umesh - which is most appropriate in this case?

I might try to get to the international section. I'll see. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, take your time. In most of the cases, the second name or title (here Yadav) is used to call one. But the case is quite different in case of the Indians. We, the Indians, generally use the first name (here Umesh) to call a person. So it is up to you which one you will use. I'ld suggest to use that one, which is used in the article most of the times. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.81.72 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to make some improvements Grubby Richard (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry; I have been working on the article for a few days. I hope you still have time for the garden. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries - it's sunny so I'll get outdoors. I just wish you'd have said something as it would have saved some time. It's done though - it needed its own article clearly, so thanks for going ahead with it. I needed to stop soon anyway to clear my head - and that plot definitely needs some attention. And I need to address the rhubarb as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Why you said there is no need of putting the info the he runs a youtube Channel . I need explaination. After wards we will decide to put it or not. SANJAI DS (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea whatsoever which edit of mine you're talking about. I edit a tonne of articles, so if you could let me know what I've done, where I did it and when it happened that would probably help. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Furthermore, this is a general encyclopedia article about Rafiq, not a genealogical treatise. There's no good reason to use non-standard grammar form there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've stopped. Don't fret love. Bit of a one-sided warning however, given the obvious newbie editor with remarkable grasp of some interesting MOS elements and which was created just after an IP did the same thing. Grand idea that. Article will need someone to keep an eye on it btw - all sorts of silliness and very much in the news. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no need for the passive-aggressiveness of your note in the revision history of Salt's page - I'm a relatively new editor on the site that didn't know about only adding teams to the infobox until they have made an appearance for the first-team so educating me about that would have been enough. Stig7tfm (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be passive aggresive. We have been known to get a lot similar edits at this time of year - once the IPL super-duper-aucton comes along there'll be a tonne of them. It's my way of dealing with it I'm afraid. Sorry if it gave the wrong impression to you - you'd be amazed at the number of people who don't pay any attention when any form of note is left. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In the talk page of an article, a user remarked me "Can you please use indentation in a discussion? Read Wikipedia:Indentation." Tbh, I can't grasp or fathom the matter correctly. So, please explain it to me as an experienced and aidful editor. Thank you. --Michri michri (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

See this diff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.