Jump to content

Talk:Mohammed Shami: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 106: Line 106:
:No I haven’t. It’s now a subsection as it probably should be. Once he does something notable in 2021 or the season finishes then a sentence might get added. The stuff currently there is padding. [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 12:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
:No I haven’t. It’s now a subsection as it probably should be. Once he does something notable in 2021 or the season finishes then a sentence might get added. The stuff currently there is padding. [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 12:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


Edit summary: BSK, if you regularly follow IPL 2021, then you should know that the campaign of Punjab Kings have already been ended, so have been Shami's. Anyway, although I have reverted your edit, but I have not reverted the whole section. I have not changed the sub-section of IPL into section. It has remained unaltered since your last edit. Again I have removed some of the unnecessary, hyperbole, fan-cruft words like- ace, unaided etc to make the article neutral. I have also cited source after some sentences. The numbers of wicket taken, average etc have also been updated and corrected. Even, I have not added Shami's performance in 2021 IPL as per your remark. The same has been done to the T20 Cricket section. So, please don't rollback and revert my edit. If you find any other lines or words to be exuberant, then remove only that particular word and not the whole section or better at first discuss it in the talk page with other editors. Ok, BSK, this is all for now. I have n't written this in the edit summary due to the word limit present there. Anyway, looking forward to hearing from you. Have a great time. [[Special:Contributions/202.142.67.206|202.142.67.206]] ([[User talk:202.142.67.206|talk]]) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Edit summary: BSK, if you regularly follow IPL 2021, then you should know that the campaign of Punjab Kings have already been ended, so have been Shami's. Anyway, although I have reverted your edit, but I have not reverted the whole section. I have not changed the sub-section of IPL into section. It has remained unaltered since your last edit. Again I have removed some of the unnecessary, hyperbole, fan-cruft words like- ace, unaided etc to make the article neutral. I have also cited source after some sentences. For instance, a site has been cited for the controversial sentence--- "That spell of Shami will surely be vividly reminisced as one of the greatest super over spells in the history of Indian Premier League." The numbers of wicket taken, average etc have also been updated and corrected. Even, I have not added Shami's performance in 2021 IPL as per your remark. The same has been done to the T20 Cricket section. So, please don't rollback and revert my edit. If you find any other lines or words to be exuberant, then remove only that particular word and not the whole section or better at first discuss it in the talk page with other editors. Ok, BSK, this is all for now. I have n't written this in the edit summary due to the word limit present there. Anyway, looking forward to hearing from you. Have a great time. [[Special:Contributions/202.142.67.206|202.142.67.206]] ([[User talk:202.142.67.206|talk]]) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


== Can the Indian Premier League Carrier section be expanded? ==
== Can the Indian Premier League Carrier section be expanded? ==

Revision as of 09:13, 11 October 2021

Is the "Ahmed" part of his name or not?

There is definite confusion in cricketing circles about Shami's actual name. Wisden 2013 has him listed as Shami Ahmed, as does his ESPNcricinfo biography (although not the page itself, which still refers to him as Mohammad Shami) which has his full name listed as Mohammad Shami Ahmed. However, in this interview published a few months ago, he claims that the Ahmed has been falsely attached to his name:

"Among many things that confounded Mohammed Shami was that extra baggage of “Ahmed” to his name. In the span of two weeks, he resoundingly ensured that his name wouldn’t be messed about. “I don’t know how my name got that tail. I’m Mohammed Shami, not Shami Ahmed,” he grinned." ŋ

It seems that all three are used quite widely at the moment, although Mohammad Shami is often accepted as the correct one. Does anyone have more conclusive evidence than what I've provided above as to his genuine name? Even the most official sources were making a mistake in calling him Shami Ahmed to begin with, so I'm not sure which sources to rely on. Ultimately, if there is no Ahmed in his name, which he hints at in the above interview, then his full name should not be listed as Mohammad Shami Ahmed in this article, as it is currently. I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 16:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC) My Name Is Subhdeep Plz Win The World Cup 2015 For Me[reply]

Born place

What's up with his born place? There are 2 different places given in the article. Isn't it as it is given here? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC) My Name Is Subhdeep Plz Win The World Cup 2015 For Me 9717353349[reply]

As per the source I am citing, the birth place of Shami is Jonagar, Bengal.[1] Isn't it?

Mohammed Shami

Ahmed is a part of name of Mohammed Shami. Nitishph (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Mohammed Shami which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-nicknames-of-Indian-cricketers&ei=bBMCkT8l&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=36&ts=1437198737&sig=AKQ9UO_lrrohBZfd5CQ_6og9v2pJiJh56g
    Triggered by \bgoogleweblight\.com\b on the global blacklist
  • http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://m.sportskeeda.com/cricket/ravi-shastri-assigns-interesting-nicknames-to-indian-fast-bowlers&ei=_M0phsuq&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=36&ts=1437198735&sig=AKQ9UO9xxLj434460EPmqtXK36y4CZ-sAQ
    Triggered by \bgoogleweblight\.com\b on the global blacklist


If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

This paragraph is presently in the article: In 5th ODI he bowled a good spell in death overs with tight line and lengh & Midlle stump Yorkers. After that cricket pundits call him Indian bowling future.[2] I don't see mention of 5th ODI or 'tight line and lengh & Midlle stump Yorkers' on the web page.--Brenont (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cricbuzz.com/profiles/7909/mohammed-shami
  2. ^ "Shami offers Dhoni hope for future". Retrieved 5 September 2014.

Can this project be promoted to B Class?

I think this page is eligible for B Class. Can anyone tell me in which sections should this project be improved to meet the criterias of B Class? (If it has not already met it) 202.142.67.57 (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this article to be promoted to B Class quality the following assessment questions need to be answered.
  1. Coverage and accuracy: Does the article cover all aspects of the subject reasonably well? Is this coverage accurate? Is it verifiable? There should be no original research nor any copyright violations. Is the article reasonably concise and precise? Does the article inform the reader without needing to leave the article to consult wiki links or look up terms that don't have wiki links
  2. Referencing & citations: Do all the facts in the article have a source citation? Are those citations able to verify the facts in the article? Have all citation cleanup tags been properly resolved?. Have any missing or incorrect citations been found and properly cited? Are there any citations that require special access methods and are these restrictions flagged in the citation. Do all citations have the date of publication and/or access dates given. Are any archived citations viewable or valid and readable? Can you find revised citations for any archived or dead links?
  3. Use of English: Is the article written in English? Is anything not in English highlighted and translated, accurately. Which particular dialect of English is used and is this flagged on the talk page? Is the English used well and does it make sense? Has the article been written from a neutral point of view? Has the Manual of Style been followed sensibly? Is the tone of the article appropriate? Is the English reasonable, restrained and objective. Does the article avoid any promotional or superlative language? Does the article follow the requirements of biographies for living people? Does the article strike a balance between all the points of view in the sources without giving excessive weight to one side or another?
  4. Structure: Does the article have a lead or summary section that accurately and fairly summarizes the contents of the article? Is everything summarized in the lead section able to be verified in the body of the article, or a citation? Is the article divided into sections? Do those sections and headings make sense? Does the article follow an appropriate template?
  5. Navigation: Can you read the article right through without feeling the need to follow any wiki links? But are there enough wiki links to look up anything that might not be understood? Can you find the article from related articles, such as those mentioned in the footers? Do other articles link to this article? Can you locate a particular part of the article from the table of contents?
  6. Supporting materials: Does the article include supporting materials such as photographs and information boxes, as well as tables of relevant statistics and performances?
If you can answer all the questions above with a positive answer, then you can complete the checklist in the banner. Once the checklist is competed the banner will change from C class to B class. However, you should create an account and make those changes as a registered user, rather than edit the assessment banners from anonymous IP addresses. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I, being a new user, don't know how and where to change. I'll be glad if you kindly assist me in this context. Note that, this page is already rated A class in two sections and GA class in the 'WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games' section.

In the last 10 days, the History of this talk page reveals it has been subject to, what I consider, vandalism by anonymous users to misleadingly upgrade this page to GA status. The changes made have been done so without explanation and have taken the article from being C class to GA class without evidence of going through the proper nomination and review process by a registered user. According to the nomination process, only registers users (those with an account) can review an article and change it to GA class. For more information please read the assessment process article where you will find more information about a B-class assessment. What needs to happen is that the B-Class checklist needs to be completed inside the WikiProject banners at the top of the page. You will only see this checklist on B- and C-class articles. Legitimate GA-class articles will have nomination and assessment sections. Before you edit this article further, I would recommend you log on and create an account. That way your contributions are properly attributed to you as a user, rather than an anonymous IP address that might change or be shared by other contributors. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your postings on talk pages. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This article has now been downgraded to C-class and I have added the checklist questions to the banners. Answer each parameter "yes" or "no" as appropriate. I have also added the WikiProject Crime banner on account of the criminal charges and corruption accusations. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am trying to elaborate the article as much as I can. I'll be glad if you help and assist me in this context. Can you give me any suggestions about how to improve the article we are talking about to promote it?

I'd suggest a total rewrite. We need a lot less of the minutia about the IPL, less sections, less over-detail and think about the over-arching themes. There are quotes with missing citations and plenty that needs proper prose citations to back it up. I've started to work through. I'm usually pretty vicious when I do so and may cut stuff that could be put back if it's cited properly.
The idea it to think about what a general reader (not an IPL fan boy) would want to read if they heard Shami's name mentioned. Think about what Paula in Verona or Clive in Chattanooga would need to know - that's what's actually important, not that he bowled 131 dot balls, scored 53* or had figures of 8–2–35–3 - neither Paula or Clive would understand what any of those were without some pretty serious help. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, will you rewrite the sections after sections you have removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.206 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With what? Hyperbole and fan-cruft? No, I won't do that. I won't repeat things three times or make unsubstantiated claims either. I'll remove the crap and then see if I have time to find anything useful to go in; but it needs to be properly sourced and not include hideous over=detailed recentism bollocks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BSK, you have removed the whole IPL section. There is not a single information about 2021 IPL performance of Shami. After your continuous removal, the article has become wee. So, responsibility should be taken to rewrite the article section by section. Otherwise, what is the meaning of deletion if it is not rephrased? Can you answer? 202.142.67.206 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven’t. It’s now a subsection as it probably should be. Once he does something notable in 2021 or the season finishes then a sentence might get added. The stuff currently there is padding. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary: BSK, if you regularly follow IPL 2021, then you should know that the campaign of Punjab Kings have already been ended, so have been Shami's. Anyway, although I have reverted your edit, but I have not reverted the whole section. I have not changed the sub-section of IPL into section. It has remained unaltered since your last edit. Again I have removed some of the unnecessary, hyperbole, fan-cruft words like- ace, unaided etc to make the article neutral. I have also cited source after some sentences. For instance, a site has been cited for the controversial sentence--- "That spell of Shami will surely be vividly reminisced as one of the greatest super over spells in the history of Indian Premier League." The numbers of wicket taken, average etc have also been updated and corrected. Even, I have not added Shami's performance in 2021 IPL as per your remark. The same has been done to the T20 Cricket section. So, please don't rollback and revert my edit. If you find any other lines or words to be exuberant, then remove only that particular word and not the whole section or better at first discuss it in the talk page with other editors. Ok, BSK, this is all for now. I have n't written this in the edit summary due to the word limit present there. Anyway, looking forward to hearing from you. Have a great time. 202.142.67.206 (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Indian Premier League Carrier section be expanded?

I am requesting the other users to assist me to expand the section I have mentioned in the headline. I am also requesting to promote this article to B Class. 202.142.81.43 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of WikiProject Crime

I notice that various unregistered editors have repeatedly edited the WikiProject banners and removed this article from membership of WikiProject Crime without explaining why in their edit summaries. This article's membership of that WikiProject is due to accusations of crimes made against Mohammed Shami and those facts, alone, make this article of interest to WikiProject Crime. The presence of the WikiProject Crime banner merely indicates the project is interested in this article and is not intended to imply anything about the reputation of the subject in any way. Those accusations also do not make this article a Criminal Biography, otherwise a different banner would be used. The WikiProject banners form part of the overall quality assessment of this article and any unjustified changes or removals affect the integrity of the assessment process. Also, I would note that Wikipedia is not censored and the accusations made against Shami are a matter of public record. Because this is a biography of a living person of a public figure you can complain about the article. If you feel strongly enough to be offended by these facts or wish to suppress drawing attention to them, thus wanting to remove the crime banner, please explain yourself here, first, before attempting to remove the crime banner, again. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


My dear Cameron Dewe (talk), you are forgetting that this is the article of CRICKETER Mohammed Shami. If the other users (especially my fellow INDIANS) agree to my point of view, then please support me in this context. Thank you.

Supporting 202.142.81.12 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's entirely possible for someone to be of interest to multiple wikiprojects. There is no reason to remove the banner. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, Blue Square Thing (talk)202.142.67.206 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of my comment do you disagree with? That it's possible for someone to be of interest to multiple wikiprojsects or that there is no reason to remove the banner? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

I'm trying to make sense of this - but it's complex and I need some time to look into the details of the whole thing and find a tonne of reliable sources. I think there are two allegations - firstly one of match fixing and then one of domestic abuse and so on. They seem to have occurred at a similar time. Can anyone shed any light on these - and if there is anything else we need to include in this section? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]