User talk:AlbertMW

Hello, this is my talk page. Bear with me while I get organised. --AlbertMW 05:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AlbertMW, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Blnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Cricket Wikiproject.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Project Membership

Hello, Albert. Welcome to the site and thanks very much for your valued contribution so far. Not only that, you are the 100th member of WikiProject Cricket so I've taken the liberty of awarding you the membership badge on your user page. Hope you don't mind. All the best. --GeorgeWilliams 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philately

I am sure all of us will be happy for your contributions to any of the philatelic articles. It's surprising where one editing lead you. I just worked on a few motorcycle related pages on stuff I had completely forgotten about. It is interesting here. Cheers ww2censor 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm writing to you to thank you for your support in the philately discussion and, lo and behold, you're also a cricket man!!! Small world, I suppose. Anyway, I see you're new here but you've made your mark already in my book. Hope you can spare the time to join us often and I look forward to seeing more contributions from you. All the best.

Er, I see you're from Durham: I'm a Yorkie...... ;-)

--Jack 13:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philately Categories for Merge

Discussion Page Set Up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30 so please be prepared to give additional views if required. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket History categories

Looks good to me, Albert, but I think I might keep the 18th century category as it contains quite a lot of entries. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W G Grace

Hello Albert and welcome back. I spotted your addition to the WG article just now and it's a good idea. I know I've read a book by Eric Midwinter before and I think I enjoyed it but I was wondering if you would recommend me to buy his WG book?

I'm afraid your new name for the article didn't last long, which is not surprising when you know how some of these people think. Joining the initials isn't my preference but it is certainly at least acceptable and does not involve full stops here, there and everywhere like a case of measles. If you want to raise it as an issue, I will support you. The so-called "cricket project" does NOT own these articles, although certain individuals think otherwise.

Are you still studying GB stamps, by the way? All the best --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Albert. I definitely will buy that book. Best regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philately WikiProject

You are listed as a participant in the Philately WikiProject. Today I have created an inactive list consisting of those participants who have not made any philatelic edits for more than six months. I was going to use a 3 month cut off point but felt generous. You may be one of those editors, so if I have moved you and you want to remain an active participant, please forgive me, and move your name back from the inactive list to the active list. If you are still active on Wikipedia but are inactive in philately I hope there is no harm done in listing you as inactive. We really need more active participants for all philatelic articles. The Philately Portal has been running for some time and I am doing occasional updates, Postage stamps of Ireland is a candidate for featured article (that would be the first philatelic article), and several of the redlinks have been filled but we need more activity so if you are around please participate. Otherwise thanks for the work you have done in the past. Cheers ww2censor 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Leach

Hi Albert. Thanks for all your help with this article and I'm sorry to see that a ruckus has arisen between you and RG Traynor. I've had the article pared down by someone I know and really I'd like to have it left alone now so this AfD can finish without causing confusion. I'm very impressed by the Gibbons reference you found as I didn't even know about it!!! Can you send me a copy, please? Best wishes for 2008. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I know you don't like the article but I think it should stay. We shall see. I'll apologise to Mr Traynor. I'll dig out the magazine and send you a copy of the page. All the best. --AlbertMW (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Albert

Thank you for your note. I have no wish to cause anyone distress, but Wikipedia is a public place and transparency is essential and inevitable (and sometimes inconvenient). The core question posed by all three nominations for deletion is what the threshold should be for notability as a cricket writer/statistician and that is a question on which members of the cricket project would be expected to have views and informed opinion, so it is natural to draw this to their attention. If the threshold is low, then I would expect a lot of articles, including those already deleted in earlier purges, to qualify; if it is high, then relatively few would. All three articles, Jack's included, stand or fall by where this threshold is set and that's for the Wikipedia community as a whole to determine.

I've given my vote on two of them, but you'll note that I have only commented on Jack's, not voted. I may or may not later: essentially I wish we spent less time on notabilities and importances and ratings and such like and more time actually doing the business of creating a usable encyclopedia here. And I know that in that business Jack has an awful lot to contribute, under whatever name he chooses to do it.

But private disputes and woes have been dragged into the public arena that is Wikipedia, and not by me. Now that they are there, surely the best things is swift resolution - and then move on.

BTW, neither you nor Jack have email enabled, which might enable further exchange (if wanted) to be done more privately.

Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mark Asquith

You will note that all your edits have been reverted because they are unconstructive and include personal attacks that are out of order and unjustified. Nevertheless, I will address two points you have made.

One is Mr Leach's work in the field of philately. You have implied that this is overshadowed in the WP article by his cricket work. I agree and I have moved the philately section to the top of the article. I notice, incidentally, that a previous editor complained of this section being treated "almost as a footnote".

Your second point is that Mr Leach claims to be an "eminent" cricket historian. That is completely untrue. He did not want an article on WP about himself and has recently tried to get it deleted, though this was partly to accept the "challenge" from yourself.

You have admitted that you do not understand WP and I would point out to you that someone does not have to be "eminent" to warrant an article. Being merely "notable" is enough and "notable" is a very inclusive term as applied by WP. The fact that Mr Leach has been published by the Cricket Society confirms his notability (leaving aside his philatelic work) and anyone else who has been published by the Cricket Society would deserve an article on WP; as would anyone published by Wisden, obviously enough.

If you wish to contribute to WP you must do so objectively and constructively. You must refrain from personal attacks and from expressing personal opinions. Any opinion you do express must be capable of verification (e.g., if "CMJ" (sic) has written somewhere that Goulstone is eminent, then you must specify that source). WP will not accept material on a "he said, she said" basis.

Please note that I will not reply to any further messages from yourself about this matter. I will instead refer all your edits to an administrator and request that your access to the site is blocked. --AlbertMW (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]