User talk:THUGCHILDz

Click here to leave me a message.

Archives

^{[1]:November2006-January2007}
_{[2]:January2007-February}

Re: Cricket World Cup

I won't have the time to copyedit the article, but I'll have a look at it when time permits, most likely over the weekend. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's on my watchlist but I don't have time to edit much, I mostly just revert a little bit and take a look at the Rfar. I don't have the time to build up another cricket-related article to FA, Cricket World Cup has made it though, no chance it will fail because there are no oppose votes. :) — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. :D — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm motivated to do more on this FA campaign. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war on this, but the CWC structure (etc) has been far more criticised than it has been praised and we should say so. PaddyBriggs 08:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup

All fair use images need a fair use rationale, and just about all (there might be a few exceptions) need to be of low resolution. Logos are no different. ShadowHalo 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ShadowHalo is right. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

I think the background is pretty fugly on that image, but I'll let it slide :) →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh

Got the "hairy" turbanless pic uploaded. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The hair and beard are not supposed to be cut, and the hair is supposed to be wrapped up. Having said that Yuvraj Singh and Ravi Bopara are completely clean shaven and have short hair. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

Hi. Your (welcome) opposition to the move seems to have removed some earlier comments. Were you perhaps editing on an earlier version of the talk page, or did you intend to remove them? If not, perhaps you could go back in to revert and then add your own comment. Thanks. Johnlp 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in image

Image:Cricket_World_Cup_best_results.png no country from south american has ever won as far as i can tell (Gnevin 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Ok sorry i didn't know , i guess i should go read up on my cricket (Gnevin 18:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Fair use images in Cricket World Cup

Look, if those fair use images remain in the article, it is likely to have its FA status removed. There isn't a strong enough argument for fair use of those photos, especially since the Wikimedia Board has made a statement calling for stricter application of fair use policy. I stongly advise you not to restore those pictures, and instead to look for copyright free images to illustrate the article. WjBscribe 00:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert my edits because the default should be not including copyright images unless fair use is established. It is up to you to make a case for the inclusion of the pictures and gain support first. Fair use images must be necessary to illustrate the subject of the article, those don't seem to be. Also, the fact that the uploader of the trophey picture on Flickr says its free does not mean that it is. Someone seems to have uploaded a publicity photo of the cup to flickr which they claim to license it freely, but it remains a copyright picture. Feel free to continue the discussion on the talkpage, but in the meantime I think the present reversion should stay. Better for you to have a copyright argument on the talkpage than to have that argument onlongside the article's FA status being reconsidered. WjBscribe 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Would that the wiki-mavens would redirect a fraction of the time they spend on fair use paranoia by doing something useful -- such as permanently prohibiting IP addresses from editing and thus saving thousands of editor hours currently spent reversing vandalisms. Wahkeenah 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think you will have to give the issue some thought but for the moment ... I was convinced by your arguments. --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • People quit wikipedia all the time in frustration, and Wales doesn't really care, because there are always naive new ones ready to jump in and continue his grand social experiment. I'm not yet at the jumping-off point, but after 2 years the screwed up priorities of this so-called encyclopedia can get really annoying. Wahkeenah 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan FAC

The Michael Jordan FAC has been re-listed (which was probably a good idea). Thought you'd like to know, here's a quick link. Quadzilla99 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:GoogleCWC07.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GoogleCWC07.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

thats fine, didn't know google sad not use them...--Thugchildz 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer's death in ITN

Hi, your frustration at the slow-inclusion of this item may be due to your misunderstanding of ITN and its processes. If you're not already, please familiarise yourself with the section's criteria and procedures. ITN is not a newsticker, it's a place to highlight substantially updated articles on Wikipedia that are currently in the World media's attention.

If you're already aware of all this then just ignore me ;) --Monotonehell 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

wc death

Thank you for your recent note. Please be aware these talk pages aren't supposed to be used for letter writing, although enforcement of that rule is arbitrary and capricious. My Indian co-workers are naturally chagrined that the ongoing World Cup (1) has seen their team essentially bite the dust and that (2) the only way for the World Cup to make the American news was for this murder to have happened (an article item to which I added some bits of information here and there as they became known, along with other editors). The intrigue surrounding this crime, in my opinion, has the potential to wreck the sport, but it depends on the motive. If it was just anger, that's one thing. If it was about money and possible match-fixing, that's big trouble. Cricket doesn't need its own version of the Black Sox scandal, for sure. Wahkeenah 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Black Sox Scandal was the single worst public relations event in the history of major league baseball. The Chicago White Sox and the Cincinnati Reds squared off in the 1919 World Series, and several key White Sox players took bribes as part of a conspiracy to lose the Series on purpose. This event shattered the base assumption that baseball was "on the level" and threatened to destroy baseball as we know it. It is said that the rise of Babe Ruth and the New York Yankees, along with the iron-fisted rule of Commissioner Landis to rid the game of gambling influence, rescued the national game. Wahkeenah 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Please be aware these talk pages aren't supposed to be used for letter writing," I'm sorry, what does this mean? Talk pages are to enable editors to communicate with each other on all matters concerning Wikipedia. That's what I've done above. --Monotonehell 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment was prompted by an IP address that deleted Thugchildz's entry on my talk page because it was basically a "how are you" kind of note for the most part. I restored it, and my reminder above was just to raise his awareness a little bit. I don't care, personally. It's just that you have to watch out for the wiki-nannies, some of which show up as IP addresses. Wahkeenah 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I see, I thought you were responding to my comment. --Monotonehell 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I was actually just being lazy, and putting two thoughts into one paragraph. Wahkeenah 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD

When you nominate something for deletion, please give an informative edit summary so that it comes up on peoples' watchlists. Actually, you should give an edit summary for every edit, but it is especially important if you are nominating pages for deletion. Hesperian 06:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: World Cup templates

It's because the template isn't really that flexible; for example, I can't link to Kingston, Jamaica (I have to write Kingston, which then causes a link to the disambiguation page Kingston, and all sorts of headaches). Been meaning to fix it but it'll take a lot of work. Sam Vimes | Address me 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cricket wikiproject

Thanks for the reminder - I was aware of the existence of the project for some time but for some reason hadn't added myself to the list! -- Chuq 08:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also aware of the project and have made many major and ongoing contributions to many cricket articles and images. PaddyBriggs 08:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Delighted to join the project ! How do I go about it? PaddyBriggs 10:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please leave my User Page alone. Send me a message if you like but the page (+ the TALK) is MY PROPERTY and I'll do what I like with it. PaddyBriggs 08:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please read what you quote. WP:USER: Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Super 8 Table Backgrounds

I don't want this to end up as an edit war, so I'll come here to sort it out first - was there any reason for changing the red background in the table? It helps to see which teams cannot qualify, and can be removed after the end of the S8 phase (or when all qualifiers are known). Oh, and you also removed the grey background for the fourth-placed team, which I'm going to go and change back now.

Paddyohale 13:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Super 8 Correction

No, as it stands, SA have more points than England, so are currently in 4th position in the table. The table is still unfinished, as both SA and England have matches left, so if England beat SA and move ahead of them, then the table will reflect this. Of course, even if England beat SA, they are still not guaranteed a semi-final place, as the Windies could defeat them heavily and lower England's NRR. Or SA could simply beat England, then they will automatically qualify for the semis. So, as it stands, SA are in fourth place in the table, and I don't see the need for further discussion of this.

Paddyohale 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)