User talk:42 marshall

42 marshall, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 42 marshall! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Squad number

Please don't remove the squad numbers from cricketer's article. If you don't want squad members in the articles you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 08:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squad numbers

Can you please tell me the meaning of squad number? Do you even realise that there is only one squad for every team for a particular tournament and 31 is just David Warner's shirt number and nothing else 42 marshall (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what it means. You have been asked to stop doing this multiple times in edit summaries and nowon you talk page. It is a totally valid parameter for the infobox. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squad

There is only one squad for every team for a particular tournament please explain me the meaning of squad number 42 marshall (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number that the player wears or wore on the back of their shirt whilst they play(ed) for that team. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squad number

The number they wear on their shirt should be mentioned as their shirt number in other specific column, does that squad number thing make any sense? 42 marshall (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tim Murtagh without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Astle

Hey, I've just reverted your changes to Todd Astle again. I'm really reluctant to do it because I'm getting close to breaking WP:3RR (it's been more than 24 hours since the first one so I think I'm fine, but I'm not going to keep on going because it's definitely pushing it). I tried to ping you on the talk page to discuss it. Right now your edits to the infobox are definitely against consensus, as it says at Template:Infobox cricketer: "Up to 4 Column types can be used for different codes of the game. Suggested 4 are Test, ODI, FC, LA. Others may be used to make up the columns." Your edits to the lead might be good but all you're doing is removing content without any edit summary and without engaging on the talk page. Please discuss this before you revert again. TheBigBadBird (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

At least read the edit properly before reverting it Astle has played 115 FC matches but you again revert it to 114 and second thing in every players profile T20 stats are mentioned because it is an international format 42 marshall (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should see that in my last edit I did update from 114 to 115 FC matches. No, T20I stats don't get mentioned before List A stats, as I quoted in my last comment from the documentation at Template:Infobox cricketer: "Up to 4 Column types can be used for different codes of the game. Suggested 4 are Test, ODI, FC, LA. Others may be used to make up the columns." Unless there's a good reason to have T20I ahead in this case (which there isn't) it should stay as the four default ones. And that still doesn't explain you removing content from the article lead. TheBigBadBird (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Your recent editing history at Todd Astle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Harrias ^talk 05:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Adair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bowler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Devoleena Bhattacharjee. Diff: [1] This edit is indistinguishable from deliberate vandalism when the subject appears to have had her 32nd birthday in 2017, which would make her birth year 1985, not 1990 as you claimed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

I notice you have a tonne of warnings, including a significant one on this page relating to the way you edit cricket infoboxes. You need to read the infobox documentation and the talk page (and its archive) please. The example on the documentation page is particularly helpful. It clearly lays out what is the norm and where it is appropriate to deviate from that. You're very clearly taking it upon yourself to impose your style on everything rather than go with what has been decided by discussion and consensus over the years.

If you have any questions raising them on the infobox talk page would probably be more appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Aditi Rao Hydari. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Aditi Rao Hydari, you may be blocked from editing.

Age

Aditi Rao Hyadri's age is 33, she was born in 1986 you can search it on Google as well, 1978 is incorrect, have you seen her? Does she even look like 41? 42 marshall (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites court papers for her age, you have not cited anything - let alone a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to James Faulkner (cricketer), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You've been asked a number of times previously not to remove squad numbers from articles. I have no idea why you think there is a need to do this. You should also know that the infobox documentation is very clear that we keep FC and LA statistics in the vast majority of cases rather than using T20I stats where these are relatively less significant. In Faulkner's case his T20I appearances are less than 20% of his LA apps, so there is no reasonable reason for preferring T20I over LA in the context of the infobox documentation and surrounding discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could repeat the same warning regarding your behaviour at Mitchell Santner. If you think the consensus is wrong then seek to change that through discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Blue Square Thing. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tom Latham (cricketer) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop removing clubnumber fields from cricketer infoboxes. You've been asked not to do this on several occasions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Santner is currently ranked number 3 in the T20I rankings, he has played quite a lot of T20 cricket for New Zealand so it is important to show his T20I stats 42 marshall (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the consensus is that we always almost always include first-class stats, but you insist on removing them. You need to seek to change the current consensus rather than work against it - and that means discussion. In the case of Santer, he has over three times as many FC runs as he does at T20I, including three centuries and 12 half-centuries - compared to none in T20Is. He's bowled almost ten times as many FC balls as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I will include his T20I stats along with his FC stats, I hope that is fine 42 marshall (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it's justifiable to do so I think - but only really because his List A appearances are predominantly ODIs. If they weren't then it would be best to leave the T20I out altogether. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now mentioned both the T20I and the FC numbers and now I hope you are satisfied and for the sake of God don't revert it back 42 marshall (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to AB de Villiers, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You have been asked a number of times to stop removing the club number field from cricket infoboxes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Courtney Walsh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]