User talk:Richard Daft: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:40, 31 December 2007

Note that I have copied the first two entries below from the User talk:88.111.83.82 talk page as it is clear that User:Richard Daft is the person responsible for the edits done by that previously anonymous IP address. --AlbertMW (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the article as appended is disingenuous to cricket historians everywhere and if you would, as I suggested constructively, that you go to the association of cricket statisticians website you will find a review of Mr Leach's so called research. I would also ask you if it is Mr Leach who has written his own article. Such claims should be supported by authorative citations. The article as appended is a disgrace to Wikipedia and merely confirms to view of the narrow minded minority who question it ---- richard daft

Arthur Haygarth and John Leach

I was alerted to your edits by the very questionable POV remark you made about Haygarth and, by following your user history, found the unacceptable edits you have made to the Leach page. Along the way, I have also removed a POV comment about FS Ashley-Cooper, albeit a harmless one on that occasion.

I would point out that you are contravening WP:NPOV by making edits that are not merely subjective but clearly expressing a very personal point of view. Whatever thoughts you may have about "eminent authors", they are your opinion and other people might not agree with you.

I suggest you learn to edit your inputs to check the spelling, make them presentable and make sure they appear in the correct sequence. In my opinion, you are a very poor editor.

I have reverted all the edits you have made back to the one by User:Jpeeling as above. --AlbertMW (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

Hello. This is John Leach, known on here as BlackJack. I'm 99% sure that I know who you are too and I'm very disappointed indeed that you do not have the courage or decency to write to me personally and tell me what all these "errors" are, per the invitation on my site. Unlike certain people I could name, I do not "know everything" and I seek continuous improvement, which is why I have invited constructive feedback to my e-mail address.

You will notice that I have taken on board your "criticism" and, as you evidently will not do it yourself, I have nominated the article about me for deletion. It doesn't matter to me in the least if it gets deleted as I never wanted it in the first place: the original author is an American guy, though a mate of mine did correct a few details like my DoB.

But, fair is fair, I have caused several ACS-related articles to be deleted and it is only right that the one about me should go through the same process. Except of course that I won't whinge about it if it disappears into virtual unreality.

If you want to have your say, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Leach (writer) but make sure you log on first because the deletion process doesn't accept inputs from people who hide behind IP addresses.

As it happens, I made my peace with DM only a few weeks ago and I was seriously thinking of rejoining the ACS. Not now. Happy new year. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 I was alerted to your edits by the very questionable POV remark you made about Haygarth and, by following your user history, found the unacceptable edits you have made to the Leach page.  Along the way, I have also removed a POV comment about FS Ashley-Cooper, albeit a harmless one on that occasion.
-I would point out that you are contravening [[WP:NPOV]] by making edits that are not merely subjective but clearly expressing a very personal point of view.  Whatever thoughts you may have about "eminent authors", they are ''your opinion'' and other people might not agree with you.  For example, I have seen a book review by [[Ashley Mote]] that suggests John Goulstone, for example, is anything but eminent.
+I would point out that you are contravening [[WP:NPOV]] by making edits that are not merely subjective but clearly expressing a very personal point of view.  Whatever thoughts you may have about "eminent authors", they are ''your opinion'' and other people might not agree with you.
 I suggest you learn to edit your inputs to check the spelling, make them presentable and make sure they appear in the correct sequence.  In ''my'' opinion, you are a very poor editor.