User talk:Blue Square Thing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Blue Square Thing, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


History of cricket to 1725[edit]

Hello. Could you please explain this edit summary as I am concerned that you think there may have been a copyvio? Thanks. Jack | talk page 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - I was working from a tablet at the time and quickly. It seemed really odd that the paragraph referenced something like "the other three current test playing countries" - referencing SA, Aus and NZ. Given that Zimbabwe are also test playing it seemed like it might have come from an old source - it just sort of read that way. And I was trying to work quite quickly - I also don't think I'd read the line which specifically referenced Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh which I know that when I did the edit I was querying in my head as well. My fault - it just read oddly and I was working quickly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)„“
I see. No problem. I gave up trying to use a tablet to edit: couldn't get the hang of it at all!! Thanks for the clarification. Jack | talk page 08:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page[edit]

You told me that my edits were not constructive and that they lack common-sense. I find this disrespectful and offensive. Everyone has a right to edit Wikipedia and I did so in good faith and constructively. A nickname is something someone teasingly calls someone else. Adam has been called Sir Adam and Bradam in numerous news articles. On the issue of whether or not he will still be called that in a month's time, well yes he will be as long as his batting average stays really high. Now, Australia have only one test after this one within the next month, and even if Adam scores two ducks, his average should remain above 85. So there's a good chance this nickname will stick in a month.

Anyway, I find the treatment of new Wikipedians by "established users" offensive. My edits were reverted numerous times, and it is a matter of debate between me and another user reverting (I also, of course, reverted his edits); you are not involved. Please keep it that way, unless you want to have a constructive debate on this matter *before* reverting my edits, in which case I'd be happy to do so. (Note that I was debating this matter with the other user in my edit summaries.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason the edits were unconstructive is that they'd already been reverted several times. You were already close to edit war territory and weren't engaging in any talk on the matter (which you are now by the way which is excellent). There's also a discussion on the relevant project talk page as well for whatvit's worth - which was where I became aware of the issue. That's the way it works - you don't "debate" things via edit summaries which was why I bothered to leave any message on your talk page at all.
Maybe the name will stick. If it does and he's being regularly called it then add it when that happens. But to respond by continually adding something that's quite possibly a flash in the pan isn't actually all that constructive. There are enough problems with nicknames anyway! Thanks for bothering to leave a comment here by the way. It is appreciated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I have added references now. Please let me know if there are further issues. (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I forgot to thank you for reinstating my edit here: [1]. I appreciate it.

Lately, I've been feeling very unwelcome here, however, by a few users. I'm making edits based on factually correct statements (e.g., based on mass media), but people are repeatedly attacking me, and recently someone threatened to block me: [2] so they could put themselves in a position of power of me and silence me in the debate (or, so it seems). The "policies" people cite are terribly inconsistent and I really don't understand how it is unencylopaedic to add statements from the media, especially if they reflect mass opinion. (This is done all the time in Wikipedia, or at least I feel so whenever I read articles).

I'm a little worried that User:Moondyne will block me, although it's clearly unfair as I've done nothing wrong, and he just wants to silence me. Do you know what avenues I can take to prevent him from doing so? I don't want to accept his threats and live in fear, as I feel that's just giving in to his bullying. (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. All this stuff is tricky as heck. In general, higher profile articles (so, current Australian Test cricketers for example) will generally be more commonly watched. I guess that people will probably be more likely to revert stuff on them and try to keep a balance of some sort. It is difficult though - it's very easy to fall into recentism and so on where you get incredible detail about recent events (some football articles are hideous in that regard - especially where there's a follower of a team who constantly adds every training round bust up, every goal, every sub appearance and the like - Leeds articles a while back where dreadful as a result of this sort of thing). I try to think about articles as if they are being read in a few years time - is there a balance of stuff there without too much detail on specifics?
In that regard stuff like nicknames and, for example, the edit about Bailey being a "nice guy" is the sort of stuff I, personally, wouldn't add. As an example, I tend to keep an eye on Sam Billings. I'm not suggesting in any way that the article is "good", but I've tried to get some sort of balance on there - it would be very easy to have a huge amount of detail about his ODI debut for example (in fact, I think there was) or his PSL campaign (there almost certainly was - take a look at a few PSL articles some time...), but I'd rather see a general, encyclopaedic sort of article that will stand the test of time. It's difficult with someone like Voges, for example, which is why I reverted the removal of the record from the lead (it is already in the article body, albeit uncited there) - it's a clear, unambiguous fact that will not change any time soon. It's clearly notable and there are multiple reliable citations to support it (btw, avoid blogs and social media if you can with cites; indeed, try and avoid any opinion piece if you can). It clearly, in my mind beyond any doubt, belongs in the lead.
Unfortunately there's plenty of crap articles out there with stuff that really shouldn't be there in them. Take the Kagiso Rabada article. At least two of the supposed nicknames in the article are almost certainly stuff from online commentary lines rather than actual nicknames (I can probably accept KG but need to do a bit of looking on it). Neither citation provided for nicknames actually supports any of them. The domestic career section is also, by the way, one where you can see straight away that "facts" have been added a paragraph at a time. At some point, probably when he's playing for Kent, I'll tweak that around a bit and try and make it more general. And don't get me started on the lists of damned "awards" - for some reason people in the cricket project love their lists and treasure them even when they're unusable or unmaintainable. I was vaguely surprised to see, for example, that we even had List of cricket batting averages - and then I remembered that it's a WP:Cricket article so obviously we do - and the obvious failure to name the article correctly doesn't surprise me either (it needs Test in there fwiw). It's the sort of article I avoid.
I'd suggest:
  • try and avoid too much recentism - current stuff is always tricky;
  • try and avoid anything too much that could be considered opinion and punditry - I understand where you're going with the Voges stuff for example, but it's on the edge of what we'd want certainly, and probably a bit over it;
  • stick to clear, unambiguous facts and summarise rather than over-detail wherever possible;
  • cite from newspapers, preferably multiple times, but try and avoid op-ed stuff;
  • don't worry about there being other articles which are rubbish or include certain things on them (see Rabada above);
  • get a log in rather than using an IP address - it will help, although you need to be clear that you are the ip as well, certainly to begin with - and given the "history" you have I thin that would be incredibly important;
  • remember that there are some bloody awful cricket articles out there and some really dodgy (imo) decisions have been made about some of them. Change what you can;
  • if you're reverted then, unless it's clearly wrong, talk about it first - I'd suggest the article talk page first fwiw, leaving a note on the user page if necessary. It doesn't always get you there quickly - trust me, been there, done that...
Don't worry about stuff too much, do what you can and enjoy the cricket. Obviously :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments! I consider them very helpful and they are much appreciated. I am very grateful for your time too and I will try to follow your advice as best as I can. I hope you are enjoying the World T20 (if you are following that). (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Kent County Cricket Club seasons[edit]

Hello, and thanks for the fixes/improvements that you have contributed to the Kent County Cricket Club in 2015 that I created last year. I put a lot of work into this page (and enjoyed doing so!) and agree with all of your edits. I am currently creating a page for the 2016 season, using the updated 2015 code as a template so this is really very helpful. I would be delighted if you could take a look at the new page once it is published. Bs1jac (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Will do - let me know when it goes up. I favour more of a prose style btw, so be aware of that :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it's coming along. Thanks for showing me how to use the match boxes btw - never done that before... Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I really appreciate your input. Thanks for fixing a few things I had not yet got right, and for the improvements that enhance the layout. So much easier when somebody else is adding sensible insights. Bs1jac (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
They won't always be sensible... I appreciate you changing the reference format btw - I dislike cite ref for a variety of reasons. Still wet at Canterbury as far as I can tell - I had a vague idea of going yesterday but pulled out and missed DBD's double... Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I only used cite ref as that is what I had previously copied from elsewhere. Am now more aware of the reasons against these (thanks!), and the alternatives, so that helps with other pages I create (mainly relatively fringe cricket pieces). At least you didn't try going to Worcester this week! Bs1jac (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


I see you have started working on Blythe. I began working on this some time ago, but never had time to finish. I took it up to around 1909, but ran out of steam. Realistically, I'm unlikely to work on this any time soon as I rarely seem to have the time or inclination to do much on WP these days. So, feel free to steal anything I did. The draft is here if you want any of it. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up (and, e2a, there's some really, really good stuff there - although what's the Scoble source?). I don't know when I'll get a chance to have a go at the article properly - it's one that I probably need to look for printed sources for as well - it strikes me as one which should be able to, eventually, be worked up to something really decent. I'll see how I go - I have a couple of others from the 1906 Kent team to do first who will be a lot simpler. Then Blythe and Woolley... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The book is Colin Blythe: Lament for a Legend by Christopher Scoble. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll see if I can find it next time I'm at Canterbury! Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Cricket talk page[edit]

Hello, do you mind if I merge the two discussions taking place so that everything is under one heading? It will mean moving your input to the topic below. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem - I think I more or less agreed with you in terms of the page needing to be rationalised after rewrite. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks again, BST. I'll move your input to the main topic. Btw, I have got the Colin Blythe biography (see above) so if you don't manage to get a copy of your own, feel free to ask me if you think I can help with references. All the best. Jack | talk page 13:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

IPL 2016[edit]

Hi Blue Square Thing... I wanted a bit of help from you about this 'Venues' issue... Can you please explain to me what actually the issue is and what the problems are with either formats? I just wanted to learn about it in detail from you... Can you please help? Cricket246 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If you try narrowing your browser window it will show the same problem - essentially everything wraps around and looks odd. It also happens if tables are very, very wide - so, for example, on List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club grounds the table is too wide for my monitor right now, and that's set at 1280 pixels wide which is fairly standard. On a tablet it screws everything else up entirely as well. Compare to List of Kent County Cricket Club grounds which renders perfectly well on anything. I'll maybe try to get some screenshots up on the web over the next few days to illustrate the problem. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok I can understand that... Can you tell me 1 thing? Should I stick with the older format or go for the new suggested format... Please make me understand and tell me what to do... Cricket246 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know! I find both a little tricky to read myself. I'd quite like to see a bit more prose about the venues. I think that might allow us to float a map out to the right of the prose section - if we can get 3 paragraphs or so of prose, which shouldn't be that difficult, then that is worthwhile - a smaller map floated to the right. Then I think I'd try a regular table rather than the sort of infographic that we currently have. But that's me - I like simple, easy to use stuff and prose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm totally confused... I can't really understand what exactly is supposed to be done... I think you can do this job the best... U are one of the most trustworthy and experienced editors there... So it's best if you look after this because several people are having different views... I think u are the one who can help us settle this issue... Cheers... Cricket246 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

When I get a chance I'll mock something up in a sandbox. Until the weekend I'm rushed off my feet at work though! Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at WT:CRICKET[edit]

I literally cannot hit a cow's arse with a cricket bat as the expression goes because without my glasses on I am well Mr Magoo basically. (I do wear contact lenses sometimes but they spoil my beautiful looks.) As I imagine you got, I do kinda understand the rules of cricket a bit (there are eighteen bowling balls in an oeuvre, right?) but this one was a bit of a googly so we tidied that one up nicely between us, thank you. Some are far more in an esoteric orbit than this one, believe me. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cricket edits[edit]

The official county championship started in 1890 but previous to this there was an unofficial county championship where a winner was declared by the appropriate parties at the time. This started in 1827, became better organised in 1864 and eventually became official in 1890. In regard to adding the template boxes I believe that it is beneficial to add them to show the continuity of the county championship by linking it to the cricket seasons from 1827. Both Wisden (the cricket bible) and other publishers such as Hamlyn all list unofficial county champions (pre 1890) and wikipedia has no links as to what happened before the 1890 county championship. Readers will believe that because it is listed as the first official championship that nothing previously existed. Feel free to suggest alternative option but I can not think of a better way at present.

Perhaps a link to the County Championship article, rather than a template that has things on it other than the date the article refers to. I would agree that the mess which are yearly cricket seasons and cc articles needs sorting out, but what you're doing is not the right way to do it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BST. Can we please take this to the RM talk page (as you originally requested) so that we are not going here, there and everywhere? I'm copying the above to the discussion on that page. Jack | talk page 19:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Beccles Airport/DMY[edit]

Okay - don't see the problem. Looked at your userpage and it seemed to back me up in that there should be uniformity and that the will of the first editor should be adhered to. It states use DMY format at the top of the article, so I converted them all to DMY. Yes I made a mistake on the highlighted one (7 January 2016 to 17 January 2016) but I do not see how having **one** date format (your words) is a problem - in fact MOS encourages it.

Fair point in pointing out the error in the transliteration of the dates and I will not revert anything, but I do not see the problem. Best wishes. The joy of all things (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that references can be in one format and the text in another. DMY is appropriate for the text - because Ellough's in the UK. DMY or UTC is appropriate for the references. I prefer to reference in UTC as it takes out any ambiguity at all and there is no question about whether a publication, for example, is American based or UK based or based somewhere else or simply globally available.
I tend to get a bit hassly about it simply because there are bots employed to gratuitously change everything but, in actual fact, it's first style used properly which should be the one used for refs fromt hat point onward. But anyway, thanks for leaving the note; I appreciate that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I did not read your message you left on my page until after I reverted your message, which is why I did not give you a reason, although I did give a reason in the edit description. I have since reverted your edit again, but have replied to your message on the talk page. Hopefully we can sort this out, but in the meantime to avoid an edit war it is probably better to leave the page as it is until we reach a consensus. Englandcricketteam (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've replied to this on the article talk page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:English cricket seasons[edit]

Hi, Blue. Writing to let you know I like this template. I'm guessing that adding it to 300 articles is a tedious job? I have a tedious process monitoring job to do right now so will help out some. It will pass the time, believe me. Today's target? Maybe get you to end of 18th century? Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're a star - thanks! :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No, just a little helper. Made it all the way to 1850 but concentration had gone. Needing to work again now, the damn process has broken! Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 13:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I **think** I've filled in the gap between 1960 and 2005ish. So that's probably all of them :-)
Many thanks - much appreciated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16
01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Good teamwork. Thank you too. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

1947 English cricket season[edit]

Hi, Blue. Going through all those season articles yesterday, for me the standout is this one and it was only a start-class assessed. I have used B-class assessment criteria from the project and I think it is B-class. Do you think I should raise it at good article review process? I have just added some images, the one thing it lacking before. Main writer is no longer active. Will be out most of today. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 09:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I've never really gotten involved in rating articles - but you're right that it's so much better than almost everything else (and doubly so in my opinion as it has prose rather than just bloody tables...). Rather bizarrely there's no 1947 County Championship article - there's a case for some of the stuff being split off to that as there's an awful lot on the individual County sides. The trobalt with including all the information about the individual Counties is that I want more referencing for some of it - if I look at the Kent section (my County) for example, I want an obit at least for Harding, it needs refs for the "star" element of Evans and Wright and more on Martin as well. Then, further down, there's stuff like the "Significant omissions" part of the Cricketers of the Year section that would seem, to me, to have elements of POV in. It's a *bit* one source as well perhaps - but I'm not sure to what extent that stops it at GA. If you think it's worthwhile go for it - or perhaps send it to the project for other opinions.
The single biggest strength of the article, imo, is the lack of tables though. That makes it a model in many ways. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Blue. Oh, I absolutely, absolutely agree with you about statistical tables. All the tables in the article now were put there in 2007 and see here what the article looked like then, entirely tables bar a single sentence in the intro. I have been seeking to improve coverage of Bangladeshi cricket and tables are the bane of my life. A well-developed article has way too many of them and a stub has them nothing but.
You would do very well as a reviewer, you have hit two nails right on the head. There is definitely some POV in the Wisden CY section. A a few sentences should be taken out. And, you right again, I think more referencing in the counties because it looks in every case that a single source covers whole paragraph. Not sure if GA would want more sources but FA would, trouble being that only Wisden and Playfair do a decent season review. Looked in a different book and all it says of 1947 is Compton, Edrich and glorious weather!!
I will go for GA. It will be interesting. I have the Playfair annual (the first one) and my friend has the Wisden so we can answer questions. Thank you again, Blue. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 17:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll add it to my watch list and keep an eye on it. I'm not sure I have anything handy to add to it right now, but there may be something I can dig out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Bangladesh Premier League[edit]

Hi, Blue. This I think is being of interest to you. Thank you, Blue. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 20:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom Latham (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fred Huish and dates[edit]

Hello Blue Square Thing,

As suggested by you, I will change it to August 2011. Thank you for your inputs.


Vikram Maingi (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff[edit]

The PSL Barnstar.png The PSL Barnstar
Have not really handed out one of these PSL barnstars before, but you could take this first one. Your username crops up on the watchlist every now and then, so thanks for looking over some of these pages and trying to restore some order when it seems frustrating. I do think, in the long term, most of the PSL articles ought to be protected anyway due to the high WP:OR added by IPs. Mar4d (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Why, thanks - actually I appreciate that. I'm currently trying to do some form of clean up on the BPL as well if you want to take a look :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Blue Square Thing, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob13Talk 15:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)