User talk:Jpeeling/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

FLC

Re: WP:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Singapore/archive1. Please revisit the nomination page to see if your concerns been addressed satisfactorily. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder and apologises for my tardiness. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tie section on 99WC

Hello, I'll admit to muddling my words in that section, having said that, a tie is not a tie. If Australia made 7/300 and then South Africa made 9/300, Australia would be awarded the game due to less wickets lost. This change was ammended by the ICC after the 2003 World Cup. J.

According to Wikipedia's list of tied ODIs, which relies heavily on Cricinfo so I believe it to be accurate, there have been 25 ties and only two are recorded as being the won by the team who lost fewest wickets and both those were in the 1980s.

If what you state is true then Klusener would only need to block out the final four balls of the 99 WC semi but given that this match is so high profile I'm sure there would be some comment on why on Earth Donald was trying to run a single when he didn't to. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason that Donald ran (as you mentioned previously to correct my mistake), was that RSA had the lower NRR over the course of the torunament, thus requiring the one run. I would agree that CricInfo would be correct, so we must however go by that. I remember flicking through Wisden and seeing matches that were awarded to the team who had lost the least wickets. I think that this is the case with the Commonwealth Bank Series in Australia, except there have been no ties. I do believe that tie's in knockout matches (Not any ICC tournaments such as World Cup and Champion Trophy) are awarded to the team who lost the least wickets. I apologise for wasting your time with this matter and will make sure I've got it right to begin with. Joshthomson (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well different tournaments may have had different regulations with regard ties but a high % of ties have been recorded as simply ties so it's seems the 'fewest wickets' rule was always in the minority. The current ODI playing conditions states "If the scores are equal, the result shall be a tie and no account shall be taken of the number of wickets which have fallen." (Law 21.4) so it appears all ODIs now have a uniform rule. No need to apolgise :) --Jpeeling (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting me on the proposed deletion template. For some reason, when I saw it, I was thinking of speedy deletion. I need to be more careful. -- Pakaran 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Saving those cricket lists

Keep up the good work. I imagine there are one or two more in the pipeline that could use your eye for detail and precise edits. Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Status of 1 Jun 2009 T20 match between Ireland and the Netherlands

Hi, JPeeling!
You make a good point (with which I agree): a lead-up match, between cricket minnows, just doesn't seem to have what it takes to be considered a fair dinkum Twenty20 International.
Notwithstanding this, I disagree with you that it was not a Twenty20 International. In short:
- it was a T20 match,
- it was between two national cricket teams,
- therefore, it was a T20 International .
Perhaps it might be better to continue discussion on the relevant articles' talk pages; I thought it best to start the discussion here, before any escalation. Looking forward to your comments!
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to discuss, the ICC determine what constitutes a Twenty20 International and this match isn't. Cricinfo and CricketArchive don't even consider this match a Twenty20 because it was between 12 and 13, and so can't be considered a competitive fixture. Your view that it's a Twenty20 and they're International teams therefore it's a Twenty20 International is far too simplistic. --Jpeeling (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Jpeeling on this, if CricketArchive and Cricinfo don't consider it to be a proper T20 match, let alone a T20I then neither shuold we because the encyclopedia is based on sourced information. I recall that before the 2007 World Cup national sides played each other to warm up, but because the teams regularly fielded more than 11 players to give everyone a run out they weren't considered ODIs or even listA matches. Nev1 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The first GHit for "Twenty20 International" is - unsurprisingly - "Twenty20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", the second is "Twenty20 International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", and I'm more than happy to take this as a starting - and ending - point: "A Twenty20 International (T20I) is a form of cricket which is played over 20 overs per side between two national cricket teams." This narrow (I demur on "simplistic") definition would perhaps suggest the match in question a T20i. The clincher, however, is the second sentence: "The game is played under the rules of Twenty20 cricket." As you and Nev1 rightly point out, with more than 11 a side, the match was not played under ICC rules, and - case closed, done and dusted, no further correspondence shall be entered into - was not a T20i. Perhaps a question remains: does info about that match (otherwise unremarkable except that it was decided a by a Super Over) have a place in the Super Over article?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition of a Twenty20 International does need some rewording to give a more accurate explanation, i.e. only T20s between ICC Full Members and/or Associates with ODI status, abiding by ICC regulations etc. I have no problem with you including it in the article, as long as you don't label it a Twenty20 International. It might also be worth mentioning last season's South African domestic T20 semis where both matches were tied, the first use of the Super Over in domestic Twenty20? --Jpeeling (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Great outcome; and article in question will continue to be improved. Thank you all! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FLC reviews

I've seen your name pop up on my watchlist lately. Thanks for your attention to detail and accuracy; they are exactly what we need in reviews. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears most of the FLC reviewers focus on the prose so checking the data does often catch several discrepancies. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made it a point to spot-check the data in all FLCs I review now, although not as thoroughly as you. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was meant as an observation rather than a criticism, ideally we'd have more FLC reviewers so every section is checked and double checked. Your time is shared between FLC/FLRC/FAC/FAR so I don't expect you to spend lengths of time checking every detail like I enjoy doing. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On initials

I don't have a strong opinion on Chandra - the initials used to be more common, but now Bhagwat is also used frequently.

Generally, the story is that many South Indian cricketers were known by their initials till some 15 years back. This is mainly because they have no surname/family name in the Western sense, instead have their father's name as part of their name, and this is hidden as the initial. When the cricket reporting from India became more global, media started writing the names as per the convention of the majority of the cricket world, and expanding the initials became common. In the 1980s, Ramesh and Srinath would have remained "S Ramesh" and "J Srinath" but now their names are almost never used with the initials. Tintin 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo

Thankyou for your comments at the above FLC - the article has now passed and your assistance was much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Somerset Cricketers

Hi, I saw from WP:CRIC that you are a Somerset supporter. You may have noticed that I have been doing some work on expanding the articles for their players recently, notably Craig Kieswetter, Omari Banks and Zander de Bruyn. I am also paying particular attention to Andrew Caddick due to his upcoming retirement, and the fact he was a leading England player for a number of years. I would appreciate any input or contributions you might have on these or other Somerset CCC related articles, and particularly would appreciate comments on the how the Andrew Caddick article is shaping up. Harrias (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not a Somerset supporter, but I shall take a look at the above pages to see what I can contribute. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, it clearly says that you are a Yorkshire fan, no idea where I got Somerset from! Thanks for having a peek though. Harrias (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Elvir Mekić

Hello I do not know why do you say that this is vandalism. I am stating facts and not saying anything offensive. As the person I am editing is not established as an renown artist in our country and by that the person that is contributing the first article is a liar not me. If you want I will state the facts that needed for my post. CHeers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabanajzer (talk • contribs) 11:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To me your edits are derogratory towards the subject and unsourced, it's a clear breach of policy and I constitue it as vandalism. I see you have undone my edit so I have reverted again, if you continue to edit the page in such a manner then you may be blocked for edit warring. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You don't know the person and his status as a an alleged musician. you are keen to keep the praises toward his alleged work and not accept the fact of the music critics in our country . I have proof that only children went to his concert I have proof that his status is not highly regarded in my country so what I have to do so I can put the real facts on this site if that is so, you then have to delete the whole article of Elvir Mekic if you do not wish to let my changes be Cheers Sabanajzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabanajzer (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No I don't who this person is, but I do know that your edits contrive Wikipedia policy and should be reverted. If you are not happy with the article then you should edit it while abiding to Wikipedia policy. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tosh in 48

Fixed. Rather embarrassing YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, I doubt there's any substanial article which doesn't contain at least one mistake. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you check back and cross them off if you are satisfied? thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam London

Thank you for notifying me. I wonder how he has done. I hadn't noticed that he made his debut. I've just given the article a quick once-over. Good stuff.

All the best. Bobo. 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad (or quick) start, 68 off 173 balls. I had thought the version you wrote was better/longer than the original which is why I didn't think the original would be much use. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/IWGP Tag Team Championship/archive1

All concerns have been fixed.--WillC 07:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was aware just haven't got round to completing my review, should do it in next couple of days. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be waiting. Thanks for the comments.--WillC 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I completed my review last night, nice to know it was so underwhelming :) --Jpeeling (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ata Fida Aziz

Thought he might be Strider11, but actually the banned Paknur (talk · contribs). This kind of extreme POV pushing is what the majority of his ilk do, unfortunately. I wish there was an abuse filter. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Karyasuman's message

This is not your image .This is my own downloaded logo of icc rankings. Please see the difference in graphics and dont try to delete that image again mind you man!!!!

It's not your image either, it's owned by the ICC and as a copyrighted image shouldn't be used without the necessary rationale. If you continue to break Wikipedia's policy on image use you may be blocked so I suggest you stop working with images or learn how copyright works. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I could not understand you. Well please tell me something about it. My uploaded logo image is quite different from yours and I have supplied the essential information to use it in Wikipedia. I am a new user and therefore need some information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyasuman (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm have trouble understanding you, I've never uploaded any image. The image of ICC ranking logo you uploaded is copyrighted so can only be used in line with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, although it's legitimate to use it on the ICC Player Rankings page, as it's not relevant to the LG ICC Awards 2009 article (the rankings play no part in the awards) it doesn't meet criterion 8. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling this to me. Well to which country do you belong to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyasuman (talk • contribs) 11:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Talk page guidelines suggest you don't remove comments so I've re-added your comments and struck them instead. Can I ask that you take more care when reviewing articles for importance, if you think the level is too low I would advise changing only by a single level i.e. Mid to High. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

well I seriously want to know to which country you belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyasuman (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter? --Jpeeling (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to know the status of cricket in your country and to relate it with you. I am really a big fan of cricket.

When you start taking my advice about assessing articles I'll be happy to tell you which country I belong to. But as long as you continue to cause disruption I will treat you as a vandal and not lower myself to small talk. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay from today I will judge the articles according to your advice and it is a promise and remember I never break my promise. Now please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyasuman (talk • contribs) 04:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Call me cyncial but your promises mean nothing. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay if you dont want to tell, dont tell. You will know about my character in few days. And when you feel its o.k. please tell me about the question I asked.--Karyasuman (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE Luke Wright

this is going by a chat that i had with Luke Wright, he now is bowling at 85-90 mph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angellis123 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well your chat isn't verifiable to everyone else in the world is it? Secondly it's not the bowler's choice to say what pace they bowl. The sources say Medium so that's what we go with, end of. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

i dont wont to get into anything with this but sky sports 2 live have just put him up as RFM and he is bowling at just over 83 mph. before i changed it it say RMF and the fact the commentaors have been saying much faster he is bowling at. no offence ment

Classification of fast bowlers

Type	mph	km/h
Fast	86 +	138 +
Fast-medium	80 to 85	130 to 137
Medium-fast	75 to 80	121 to 130
Medium	70 to 75	114 to 121

I'm not sure how reliable that table is, equally the Lord's speed gun has received comments that it is unreliable this summer with bowlers gaining around 5mph compared to other grounds. Onions reached 92mph and averaged high 80s against the West Indies at headquarters, so do we call him fast? No we call him medium-fast because it's what the sources say. Brett Lee reached 96mph today, a speed he hasn't reached in years, coincidence? I think not. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

so how come all the media,the grounds speed monters and other web sites be worrng the all cant be worrng can they and going by what your saying the then all the pepeal in crikit must be lieing and how we no your web site isnt out of date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angellis123 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First please sign your comments and use English in future messages. As I said above speed guns are widely unreliable and this media you mention has yet to be backed up by actually references. I would be interested in what sites have him as 'fast-medium' but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter as Cricinfo/CricketArchive are the two sites that Wikipedia cricket articles heavily rely on and both go for medium. The third most relied on source is Wisden and having just checked that, it also lists him as right arm medium. --Jpeeling (talk | contribs) 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting

Thanks a lot for your detailed review. Fixed many problems. Will let you know when done. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Booth

Thanks again, fixed. I'll have to see if I copied that Perthville number correctly YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award

Thanks for your comments on the FLC, I've fixed the issues you listed! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/David Bowie discography/archive1

Hi, thanks for your input at the FLC. I've made changes per two of your comments and have replied to one. If you have any further concerns or comments please let me know. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I had missed a bit, now fixed. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please leave this time man

Why you are trying to follow me? I am following ur Guidelines now. This logo is bigger than old image and is better edited than the older one.

I'm not following you, you're making errors so I undo them. You're not following the guidelines you uploaded a higher resolution image when the same image already existed, read 3b of the Non-free content criteria. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography

I have addressed the issues you raised at the FLC, WP:Featured list candidates/Gwen Stefani discography/archive2. Thanks for pointing out the errors. Some numbers must have got mixed up when I rearranged the chart columns. Could you strike your issues and, if possible, lend your support? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please respond Jpeeling

Please respond to my reply on my talk page to your "copyright violation" comment on the Jessica Martin page. Glorganhog (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jpeeling bhai

BCCI clearly states that its logo can be used for Indian cricket team. Also all other teams like england, australia, pakistan, sri lanka have their board's logo even in wikipedia. it cannot be considered as any violation as Indian team has same logo as of bcci.--Karyasuman (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a violation as the rationale for use of image states that you'll use it on the Board of Control for Cricket in India article, if you wish to use the image on another page then you need to create a seperate rationale. I requested three weeks that you should stop working with images until you learn the basics of image copyright and yet you are still making mistakes in this area, if these continue I will be requesting you are blocked. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FLC

Re: WP:Featured list candidates/List of Kansas City Royals managers/archive1. Please revisit the nomination page to see if your concerns been addressed satisfactorily. Thanks.--LAAFan^sign _review 23:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a response there yesterday. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Outer Hebrides/archive1 – sorting fixed, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You fixed the C's but the other figures still don't sort correctly. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag/archive3

Hi. You have commented on a previous FLC for this list, so a revisit for the current FLC would be appreciated. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I only commented on the nominators rather than the article last time. I reviewed the list first time around and there's still some minor unresolved issues. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

John Maunders

J Peeling. The information added to certain pages that you have intercepted is not for the greater good of cricket or wiki. Trying to dominate pages as if they belong to you is not the intended purpose of the site, it is to expand people's knowledge of people and their situations, not for control pleasure. Please do not intercept fair information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.51.236 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposing lists

Hey Jpeeling. Just a quick note to thank you for your dedication and scrutiny when it comes to reviewing our lists. Unfortunately you opposed a list just after I promoted it. For your information, lists tend to get promoted or not, last thing on a Saturday or Tuesday, so comments that come in just beforehand (or during, in this case) are likely to be overlooked. Perhaps you could ping the nominator with your concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked the last two months of closures and none were on a Saturday night but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. The problem here is not me but it's having four supporters who don't know what the FLC criteria is. The problem here is not me but it's nominators who lie just to help themselves to a star. The problem here is not me but it's nominators who ignore comments rather than saying why they don't want to do them. The problem here is not me but it's directors who overlook legitimate opposes/comments - before this I'd been ignored five times by a closer and frankly I've had enough. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I resolved the sorting issues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Outer Hebrides/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I didn't overlook your comments, they were made before I closed the FLC. As I said. And I did come here immediately to apologise. Sorry you feel so upset about it. And by the way, the last two sets of closures were on Tuesday (6 Oct) and Saturday (10 Oct) night, as expected. Also I made promotions/failures on 29 August, 5 and 12 September (all Saturdays, ok, one at lunchtime), Matthew did some on 8 August (Saturday). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find I made the comments four days before the closure but I got ignored by the nominator, checking back last night I found the problem still existed so I switched to oppose. The list should never have been promoted while this problem existed, whether my comment was labelled as a oppose or not doesn't come into it. Out of interest why did you ignore/overlook/discount my oppose here? As for the facts I describe seven o'clock as evening rather than night and it's certainly not "last thing on a Saturday". Also 8 August isn't in the last two months but when has getting facts right meant anything at FLC. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I immediately came here to apologise - your switch to oppose came after closure, and there were plenty of supports both before and after your particular comments. And as for how you classify times of the day, give me a break. We're all volunteers here, I can't tie myself to exact timings just to please certain individuals. If your comments are "overlooked", it's doubtless as a result of a general consensus in support of promotion. Are you suggesting that if you make comments, but everyone else supports, the community should wait until you are satisfied before a list can be promoted? Okay, so August 8 isn't in the last two months, but all the other Saturday closures you overlooked were, but as you assert, when has getting facts right counted for anything. As for the Ponting list, the nomination had four supports and the nominator went a heck of a long way to satisfy your comments and did so within an hour or so of you making them. I am genuinely sad you feel that the FLC process has let you down so personally, we're all trying to do a job here, in our own time and for no reward. Hopefully now we have a larger set of directors you concerns will be met to an extent. Also, if you really felt a list was prematurely promoted, you could always start a discussion on WT:FLC (for recent promotions) or WP:FLRC for not-so-recent promotions. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are plenty of supports that's because last week you decided to set a limit of one nomination per person, people started going out supporting anything and everything so the limit would be lifted. It has been and FLC will go back to its old state again. Cycles of low activity followed by mass activity followed by low activity lead to a complete degeneration of FL quality as lists get supported/promoted on the basis of their timing rather than actual quality. I would have thought the directors would recognise this and take more vigilance when closing. I don't expect you to close at the same time every week I was simply responding to your unsubstantiated claim that FLCs are closed last thing on a Saturday, if you'd said FLCs are mostly closed on Saturdays and Tuesdays then I would have had no case to argue. Neither am I suggesting that my (or anybodies) comments should hold up a FLC unless it's a FL necessity such as sortability or alt text. What's the point in having these criteria if reviewers don't review against them and, failing that, closers don't close against them.

The Ponting list had one support based on the completion of my comments, there was one provisional support and two supports from WP:CRIC members. I wouldn't have promoted under those circumstances but evidently it was enough for you. The unresolved comments were inaccuracies in the table and the poor alt text, if those are the kind of things that directors discount then FL quality really is as bad as it's critics make out. I do hope Dabomb and IMatthew are more than simply 'support counters' but I won't hold my breath. Matthewedwards was another support counter so it appears to be just the FLC way. Perhaps I've stumbled upon the reason why there's generally such a dire number of reviewers, it's the directors and their attitude towards closing. People spend their time reviewing lists just for a director to come along ignore the comments and promote it. If it happens repeatedly people grow weary of wasting their time in such a manner so they stop reviewing. Perhaps instead of constantly looking for more reviewers you could concentrate half your efforts on treating the ones you already have with a little respect. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I made no such decision to limit anything. You'll have to check your facts on that one. Closing FLCs is thankless task, as this whole mess proves. As I said, I would very much appreciate for you to bring specific issues to WT:FLC or WP:FLRC. The first I heard of your discontent was your reaction to my apology. When's all's said and done, we can't improve the process if you keep it all to yourself and then hurl all manner of accusations of malpractice around. This is a wiki, you have valid concerns over FLC closures, then go and discuss it in the right forum. Don't jump on me for actually being civil enough to come here to apologise to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I had assumed the emails you, Dabomb and Matthewedwards were exchanging just minutes before the limit was announced were to do with the limit. I really don't see any point bringing it up at WT:FLC or WP:FLRC, the people there would support you over a nobody like me even if you were totally in the wrong, you're fully aware of that which is why you so readily offer it as a 'solution' to these kinds of problems. When did I ever say I want to keep the process to myself? and you say I throw around accusations. The patronising tone of your 'apology' was the problem, if you'd stayed quiet this dead-end, mud-slinging discussion would have been avoided. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That limit was a spur-of-the-moment action by me; I didn't discuss it with anything else. Personally, I think we should have a permanent limit on active FLC noms per nominator. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sir, Is there anything you feel that needs fixing? Apart from this (Shucks). I would be happy to do so. Aaroncrick (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

One correction made, I still think the alt text could be improved but it's clear from the above discussion that my reviewing skills are poles apart from what they should be. Anyway I am impressed that there is at least one person out there who doesn't think getting featured means the article's finished, sadly it's an attitude that is far too rare. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 11:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I was extremely impressed by your reviews. As you may have gathered by ALT Text skills are ordinary. Also the article is nowhere near finished in any event and it's refreshing to hear another editor agrees that an article becoming a FA or FL doesn't mean it's finished. Keep up your good work, and thanks for your keeping a close eye on all the cricket projects vandalism. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "nowhere near finished" but there are probably improvements that can be made, as there are with any featured article/list. Several times I've commented on FL talkpages with unresolved issues from the FLC or general suggestions and I've never got a response, that's what makes me so cynically about nominators intentions. Anyway thanks for the encouraging words. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I saw that you edited the BCCI article and mentioned their website. Can you log onto it? Everytime I try and visit the page it just comes blank. I have tried from different computers and browsers but nothing. Can you please check for me? If so, can you give me their contact email address if there is one. Thanks 211.30.101.208 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Try this link: http://www.bcci.tv/index.shtml. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 10:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That works, thanks a lot. 211.30.101.208 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Zim list

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography FLC

Hello! You brought up some issues regarding the featured list nomination of Gwen Stefani discography at its 2nd FLC. It wasn't promoted because one site I linked to as a source, alphacharts, crashed for several weeks. The site is back up and I have renominated the list here. Would you consider offering your support, given that your issues were resolved? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have stopped reviewing at FLC. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)