User talk:Orrelly Man

Re: <Year> in sports

They may qualify for deletion under WP:R3, however as some of these have histories as articles and could very probably have some incoming links from elsewhere, it's probably better to leave them as is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having taken a look at some of them, they don't have a lot of incoming links; however, several seem like plausible search terms and should probably be held for that reason. If you do still feel they should be removed, you can nominate them for deletion at WP:RFD, where users will have a chance to discuss the issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddha games list

I took the prod tag that you added off of Buddha games list. I think that there is probably enough verifiable material of significance to warrant either improving the article, or merging it with Brahmajala Sutta (Theravada). My more complete explanation of the prod removal is at Talk:Buddha games list. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with your rationale and agree that the article should remain. Thanks. --Orrelly Man (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Username

Is your username a reference to Fawlty Towers by any chance?--DFS454 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha thought so! Did you hear about Sachsgate? --DFS454 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

prods

"unresolved issues" is not a clear enough reason for deletion -- I have removed all prods that no not say why the article should be deleted. If articles are unreferenced, please look in appropriate sources for references, and, if you cannot find them, then nominate for deletion on that basis at AfD, saying how you searched. I call to your attention WP:BEFORE: according to WP:Deletion policy, deletion is a last resort if it is impossible to improve the article. There is no time limit. DGG (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And do you honestly think those articles will be improved? --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you didn't leave a message letting the article creator of Sacramento Savages that you prod-ed the page. While not required, it is just common courtesy to leave the creator a message. A template for this is provided both on WP:PROD and is also included on the article's prod box. Killiondude (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the article history, the "red link userid" edited the page (a bunch of times) after you proded it. Extrapolating from that, I'd say he was interested in keeping it, and that it wouldn't have been a waste of time in notifying them. I didn't say I disagreed with the prod (I actually tried to find refs, and couldn't). Killiondude (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:YearsProject

Hello. On 24 Jan you reverted a change to Template:YearsProject with the edit summary "redesigned to comply with other projects and allow for future development". I'm wondering what you meant by that and whether we can help to fix it. You are much more likely to comply with other projects if you use the {{WPBannerMeta}} than otherwise, in my opinion. Regards, Martin^Msgj 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Years in sports

Hi, I see that you have recently rearranged some Years in sports articles. I worked on them when they were mainly decades rather than years. Have you worked much on content or primarily on re-arrangement (1741-1760, etc)?

At a long glance but no close study, it appears that (a) there is always a References section which is always empty, and (b) there is always a link to some particular "event" or particular "history" article where more information may be found. There are some exceptions but is that the design? I will be grateful for reply in our User pages or at WP:sports talk. --P64 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I inserted the template TOCright in the 1701 to 1740 article. I am a fan of TOCright, at least when there is no other box or image displayed at right. This isn't a strong opinion but a demonstration and suggestion for general use. --P64 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What's notable in the future?

As a member of the WikiProject Years, could you please contribute to this discussion? Thank you. ––bender235 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cricket

"I think you are seeing this in purely admin terms and forgetting the readers. If there is one act of stupidity every eight hours, such as redirecting to some children's game, then the chances are that a sizeable number of readers will try to look up cricket in that time and be put off the site. The main criticism of Wikipedia in the real world is that it cannot guarantee the credibility of its articles because it is open to vandalism.

A second criticism I often hear is that the so-called administrators are only interested in applying the rules to suit themselves and are not particularly bothered about the poor reader who is trying to research a subject and cannot do so because the article has been wrecked. The fact that you come along five minutes after he has left in disgust doesn't help the situation at all. The point is that he has left in disgust.

When dealing with cretins three times a day, prevention is necessary. Reverting does not repair the damage in terms of the lost reader." Orrelly Man

That's the most sense I've heard on here for a long time. :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict ;) Thanks for fixing that mess. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:British cricketers

What about the interwiki links? Should this category be removed elsewhere as well? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

April fools

File:Portapotty3000ppx.JPG		Port-a-Potty!!!
		DFS454 (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!! Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

Thank you. Just what I've always wanted!  :-) --Orrelly Man (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game events

FYI (prod contested). MuZemike 05:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Just wanted to apologise and explain that my rollback of your edit on the Talk:WPCric page was a mis-click, not a reflection of what I thought of your contribution! I Undid myself as soon as I realised. The-Pope (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Playing at

I removed self referenced POV. The view expressed is not held by anyone else although the principal was sound. The editor was using the article to express a view published on his own site- his own original research. The Verity thing is self evident. I attempted to improve an article which is a crib of Allen Hills' book. I drew attention to the fact that Verity was quite a fast spinner. This was referenced to the Pathe site.HughGal (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone has taken up my cause - removing input to my site!

I disagree with your point regarding Verity. Anyway his pace is mentioned in Hill's book of which the article is or was, a crib. This is the problem with WP - which sources are cribbed from - some good, some, well appalling.

It has allowed what Dylan called of course Self Appointed Professors to assume a power beyond there wit.

Blackjack's article on which his stumpsite is based was published by myself in the ACS jornal. BJ was offensive because it was edited(removing the spurious non--cricket data). He was then offensive to PWT when he review the e-book. He responds with accusations. He has compiled a compilation (as has cricketarchive (after discussion and meetings))of other peoples work. By his own admission he does not posses key texts yet he writes as an authority. He certainly has knowledge but he makes unsubstantiated judgements, often quoting dialogue with other interested parties. They tell me this not really the truth. BJ is, because of WP's wide currency, causing confusion and leading to errors appearing in print from people who do not have time to search out an expert opinion. His work on pre 18th cricket is remarkable in its industry but I doubt, indeed he admits, to not having done a stroke of original research. Although he references other texts, many of the judgements are his. Some of them are sound, some interesting, some simply requiring additional study. Some are nonsense and some are utterly unsubstantiated and too many of these appear on WP. His is in fact making Judgements on Primary Sources on a Major scale. The camouflage is the refs to his own site. As someone who was involved in the research of the early score lists I find this unacceptable but more than that perpertrating an incorrect or shall we say, highly questionable view through WP. One of the reasons I resigned from ACS was the criticism I receive over the publishing of BJ's work which was described by some, and I have the emails, as 'rubbish.'

It isn't rubbish but omnipotent.

Things like this, and it of course is happening across WP, rendered it deeply flawed.HughGal (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Just two points of fact before I shut up.

I have removed no posts from my own site. I certainly did edit Verity.

Blackjack has told me many times he has only used other peoples sources. This is mostly from a list he collaborated on updating(not compiling) with the well known Historian Keith Warsop. BJ does not possess many of these books and he was unaware some are available on-line- these books run in at about 200 quid a go. He has not, as I have, whirled away through microfiche. The corrections to Waghorn etc, mainly come from Britcher's book or McCann's research. Most are longstanding errors. There are hundreds of errors in S&B. CheersHughGal (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I note what you say but it doesn't tie in with his introduction that I read earlier today. I think you are remembering conversations you had with him about the work he submitted to the ACS, which may well have been a list. Perhaps he was new then, but he certainly says in his book (which is definitely not a list) that he owns the source books and that he paid over £250 for one of them, Buckley I think. And, as I said earlier, his introduction also states that he did a lot of research into primary sources. It seems he first published From Lads to Lord's in 2007 and I suspect that the ACS article cited in Variations is much older than that. It looks to me like he's moved on and gone a very long way since he was writing for the ACS (I don't know if he is still a member).

By the way, the Waghorn corrections are in a book called The Waghorn Index by one Martin Wilson.

The only person called Keith Warsop that I've ever come across is a football writer who published a history of Notts County (not a happy club at present). Same one? --Orrelly Man (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin collated most of the data - some, there are a lot, were dug up by KW. Yes it is the same one. He is also a massive, and I mean massive expert on classical music. He was probably the main researcher of pre 1850 cricket along with John Goulstone(rubbished by BJ) and McCann. The contradictory quote is an accurate one - it was by Bertolt Brecht. McCarthy didn't notice. No from Lads to Lords (though edited) was the substance of his ACS text in 2004 I think. He wasn't writing for the ACS, he made a submission which I, as editor, accepted in an edited form to considerable noise. I still have the file. I was trying to stimulate a debate on pre 1800 cricket. There are corrections and a number of added matches. He has told me several times he has done no primary research, even making a kind of triumph out of it. In reality pre 1850 cricket needs a lot of primary research. There are several areas of the country where the newspapers have hardly been glimpsed at. In Shropshire there are certainly matches from the 1820's. Much of the pre 1850 has not been seriously looked at. Overall the Primary sources of cricket are neglected eg: MCC reports, Scorebooks(Millions in existence) County minutes(locked up like WMD in some cases)When the ACS(I am not a member now) collated the match score booklets, there were 2000 corrections for 1864 from previous sources - a few have come to light since.) It is fair to say that many text based rather than statistical books on cricket are not, if you will, good history. I would exclude Rosenwater, Wynne Thomas, Hamilton and Miller's book on Bucks plus others I can't remember but not many. The book on Colin Blythe had no primary sources at all beyond a few regimental notes. The book on Hill by Verity is similar though it was intended to be in the Kilburn tradition - a piece of purple prose and a tribute.HughGal (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Verity are very good (I just made a tiny spacing adjustment) and I'm pleased that you decided to remove the joke from BJ's page.

I haven't actually seen Martin Wilson's book but I recall reading about it when it was published. I remember it because I thought at the time that there is a need for books like that, given the fact that writers of history are generally error prone. BJ is right about one thing: if you put your history on the net, you can correct the errors in seconds whereas a printed book is stuck with them. I accept your point that Martin Wilson's book is a collation and I would say that BJ's Lads to Lord's (LTL) is likewise. Just looking at his intro again, he says his aim was to "create a chronology of cricket in the underarm era and a consolidation of what it (sic) is known about the early matches from which few details have survived". A consolidation means a collation and, although I haven't read the text in depth, a scan of the work reveals that it is essentially a collation of match reports lifted from the earlier sources. Having seen some of his ACS work via the Variations citation, you are right that LTL is an expansion of that.

I've been told by a colleague who knows early cricket that LTL is accurate in its transcription of the Buckley and Haygarth references but my impression is that it is weak overall on biography. Some biographies stand out as apparently finished, but most are really just potted pen pictures. I notice from his contribs that he has recently written a considerable piece on here about Val Romney but in LTL Romney gets a single paragraph. The general history in LTL is high-level only, to provide background, but it seems to be sound and some of his insights are good. His analysis of the wide bat fiasco is very good, especially his logic re the introduction of the straight bat only a few years earlier. I haven't read LTL in enough detail to review it fully but I would describe it as a worthy effort that is definitely useful as a collation of match references and information. His ideas are interesting but, as you say, some are probably controversial though I think a few are written tongue in cheek. His style is plainly that of a professional analyst and he doesn't need to emphasise the fact in his intro: I had the impression of a specification rather than a story. A big plus in the work's favour is that it is the only easily accessible source for pre-Lord's cricket matches (i.e., anyone can read this; finding a copy of Buckley is not so simple). I tend to mark very strictly when I review but I would give this five out of ten now and six if he sorts out the biographies. To do better than that, he would have to produce some meaningful original research (as I think you may have mentioned!) and raise the level of his intended audience from the "interested amateur", as he puts it, to the scholar. Having said that, the vast majority of his readers on the internet are going to be interested amateurs. Two things he does need are less analysis and more straight narrative.

Incidentally, I would give Beyond a Boundary nine out of ten (I consider it to be the best cricket book ever written) but there are some cricket books I've seen that are lucky to score one. Cricket books on the whole tend to be better than those for other sports, I find.

Well, I've enjoyed our discussion but I'm afraid I'll have to sign off now for a week or so due to a business trip, although the travel prospects do not look very promising. Orrelly Man (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)