User talk:BlackJack

Archived Discussions

• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 1: July 2005 – July 2006
• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 2: July 2006 - February 2007
• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 3: February - March 2007
• User talk:BlackJack/Archive 4: April - August 2007

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Courtkittie 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

From your recent user page and user talk page edits, I assume you are back, at least for now. Welcome back. ww2censor 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delighted to get you back ! While Cz claims that it is not just for experts, the impression that I have always received from browsing through Cz and its forum is that they look down upon amateurs and non-experts. Tintin 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not very active at the moment but may return in a few weeks. Tintin 15:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Did this because it is not available anywhere online. Tintin 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a small book - about 140 pages - and is meant for the serious reader. Unlike Guha, it does not make very easy reading. Please check your mail. Tintin 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

BG! You're back!

Ooh, I'm pleased. --Dweller 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

History of cricket in Zimbabwe from 1992 to 2005

I think you either need to alter your introductory sentence, and perhaps the article's title, or else omit the coverafe of the tours of the country in 2005-6. At the moment there's an inconsistency. Oh, and welcome back! JH (talk page) 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look

I've left a further reply on WT:CRIC for you to have a look at. Thank you. Bobo. 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I undid 4 of your edits: 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4. You said in the edit summaries of each of those that you were "redirect"ing them, but you just blanked them, and didn't apply any redirects. I am not sure where you wanted to redirect them, so if you still do, go ahead and do it. Just thought I would let you know. - Rjd0060 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just came across these also: 5 and 6. - Rjd0060 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem.- Rjd0060 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

You OK? --Dweller 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on helping get Charlie Macartney to FA and working on some Norwich articles. I've got one at FLC and I'm getting another ready to go there (although I can't find an RS for the 10 people added in 2006). --Dweller 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

1801 to 1815 English cricket seasons

Nice article. Being my usual pedantic self, it seems to me that the three references to cricket abroad, whilst interesting, don't beloing in an article about English cricket. Also, if you are listing all f-c matches for 1811-1815, perhaps you should explicitly state that there were too many in 1801 to 1810 to list (assuming that to be the case). JH (talk page) 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

More pedantry from me!

A minor point concerning your "Further Reading" books that appear in many of your articles. My understanding is that, when Altham's "A History of Cricket" was first published in 1926, it was in a single volume, and only in a later edition (the 1962 one?) was it split into two. After all, in 1926 a first volume extending till 1914 wouldn't have left much for volume 2! So giving a publication date of 1926 but referring to Volume 1 is rather misleading. Since later editions are likely to have included some corrections and additions, there's a case for always referencing the most recent edition (1962 in hardback - I think the 4th edition - with a paperback version in 1968). The whole work I believe had its authors specified as Altham and Swanton, but I believe that volume 1 was almost entirely Altham's work, volume 2 almost entirely Swanton's. JH (talk page) 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's sensible. I hadn't known about the 1947 edition. I wonder why the 1948 edition was published only a year later. JH (talk page) 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided that it was high time that I had "A History of Cricket" on my bookshelves, so have just bought both volumes of the 1962 edition. I've only had time for a quick skim so far, but confess myself a little disappointed. Altham doesn't strike me as that good a writer. Also, it might have been more accurate to call it "A History of English Cricket". There seems to be little about events in other countries. And even within England, there seem to be some surprising omissions. Nothing on London County, apparently, or on Philadelphia's tours of England. Bart King isn't even mentioned, if the index is to be believed. JH (talk page) 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1999-2000 Indian cricket season

Shouldn't this page link to History of cricket in India from 1985-86 to 2000 rather than 1970-1 to 1985. --Jpeeling 10:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

philately orgs

Hi blackJack -- you started the Category:Philatelic associations and societies. I've been doing basic cleanup & standardization of organization categories, and most of them are "Category:X organizations". That would be a simpler & shorter name & more standardized category; do you have any objections to renaming PA&S to Category:Philatelic organizations? --Lquilter 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi BlackJack - Good timing! I did make the proposal, but I proposed "Philately organizations" -- if you have a good reason for "Philatelic organizations" or other thoughts, please do weigh in at the 12/28 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The AFD Barnstar
		For dedication to WP:AFD, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. --Sharkface217 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Return of the Thing

Jack, I have observed this row with some dismay and I have intervened, though I have not actually cast a vote. I think I know who you have in mind as the Daft person. Your article should stay. Hang on in there. Very best wishes. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Asquith post

[[ refer you to Albert Wright's page and its discussion.

I was unaware of wikipedia, as I do not reference cricket on Wikipedia but came across your biography through using a similar name. You will see that I have, as I did in my re-write, attempt to be fair to you. Like me, you are an amateur historian not an eminent one. I have no knowledge of stamps but for all I know you may be an authority in that area. Unfortunately the remarks about your emminence in cricket cloud the whole thing. You know and I know you are not an eminent cricket historian and if your e-book is to be used in evidence then all I can do is refer to those who have greater knowledge than you and I, and they think it.., well you've read the review which in my opinion, was very, very kind. All this leads to the proving of the pudding, in that wikipedia to be any good must be authoritive. What business you had altering the ACS stuff I don't know as you are not a member and never have been someone who attended meetings or were on the committee or even knew the main players well. I did and do but would think the ACS might produce it's own work rather than, what was it Dylan said - Self Ordained Professors. I might add that it was me who gave your work spece in the ACS Journal despite oppostion and significant moaning afterwards. I gather you claim you did not want it in the Journal though curiously you submitted it for publication in two forms. Incidentally I did not hide behind an IP address - I had not attempted to access the inner workings of wikipedia. Mark Asquith (I do not have e-mail or indeed am I a member of ACS - merely concerned at the hi-jacking of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim to be "eminent". An American guy who is into general sports history saw my theory about 1660 and thought it was significant. I just think it is a logical thought. He wrote the article on WP without my knowledge and a mate of mine helped out with my DoB. And that's it. This is tiresome and a waste of everybody's time. Please go away. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Well as usual John you do the talking without reference to what anyone else has said. Of course you also make personal remarks, I seme to remember several e-mails much in the same mould and I'm sure there are people on the ACS webring who recall your intemperate and often inaccurate remarks. If anyone with the slightest interest in authoritative work beleieves you to be anything more than an enthusiastic, rather vain glorious amateur, then more fool them. I do not in any part of my article claim greater authority than yourself. I have no idea what you know about the 04 South Africans or Sid Copley or CE Winter or the White Conduit Club(well I do on this last having all the same sources as you which I hope I can quote with greater accuracy) . What I do know and I don't intend to take this any further, is that by your article your endless diatribes against serious historians and indeed your self important remarks about your furtherance of knowledge, you render the good work you haver done void. In my opinion, and many others, anything you put on this site about cricket should be treated as if it were flawed. There can be no greater tribute and I'm sorry I have upset you but, you are so easily upset. Mark Asquith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is Mr Asquith who is easily upset! --AlbertMW (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)