User talk:Loganberry/Archive2

Upsala Simsällskap

Thanks for correcting the article. I realized when writing it that the thing about the oldest sports club in the world was probably wrong, as they don't actually don't claim that on their own homepage. And the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews is even older than the Marylebone Cricket Club, as it was founded in 1754. Perhaps a List of sports clubs by age would be interesting to have (stopping in 1850 or whenever they start to get too numerous). u p p l a n d 19:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, though I suspect that 1850 would be too late to keep the list manageable; many county cricket clubs had been formed by then, for example. Maybe even a cut-off of 1800 wouldn't be too late. As for the very oldest, one possibility is the Southampton Bowling Club, which was apparently formed in 1299! Loganberry (Talk) 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hiya. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my recent RfA. Cheers! --Ngb 19:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Enjoy your new-found power... =;) Loganberry (Talk) 23:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketbio-stub

Sory mate, I didn't think about the other stub, it should be changed too. I changed the stub template link because

It was an external link instead of internal, which is misleading
It was piped, leading a user to the contributions section when they probably wanted to go to the portal itself
The bolding looks bad, my opinion.

--Commander Keane 13:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Onychectomy

Hi, thanks for clarifying your use of the term "never heard of", which I think I misunderstood before. A lot of people (not you) use it to simply mean something is seen as shocking and awful, and that they *wish* they never heard of it. But, you're usage seems to be basically correct. If you want to say something "Declawing in the UK is almost unheard of" or something like that, please do. I just ask the wording (like my example) suggest that "declawing in the UK" is what's unheard of, but allows for the fact people in the UK have "heard of" declawing (I hope I'm making sense). I think the original wording implied people in the UK were naive/unaware about declawing, when in fact they may have a *greater* awareness of the issue than America. In fact, I think, oddly, placees where everybody has heard of declawing have much less declawing, then in places where few think of it. --rob 23:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for making the small edits. This is my first time i've submitted an article into Wikipedia and the pointers did a world of good next time I contribute. XendrianMaranmore 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Walker

Hi there. We appear to have run into a problem as regards the Alan Walker page. Trouble is, there's two Alan Walkers who play cricket, one Alan Keith Walker and one Alan Walker. Somehow we're going to have to fix these, maybe by moving Alan Walker (sportsman) to Alan Keith Walker (while keeping the other at something like Alan Walker (cricketer)). How is this? I know there is a soccer-related case where a John Grant Robertson and a John Neilson Robertson can be differentiated, but this is thanks to the latter having a middle name. What do you think would be the easiest thing to do?

Thank you. Bobo192|Edits 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe Alan Walker (Australian sportsman) for AKW and Alan Walker (English cricketer) for the English county player? Loganberry (Talk) 21:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having considered this, I agree. We're going to have to be very clear on the disambiguation page, though. Thank you for your consideration. And the only real link to the page currently situated at Alan Walker (sportsman) which needs fixing is from the Cricket Wikiproject, though this redirection is very minor. Do you want to do it, or shall I? When it comes to redirecting things, sometimes I'm good at messing them up. Bobo192|Edits 05:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved AKW to Alan Walker (Australian sportsman); and put a redlink on the disambig page for Alan Walker (English cricketer), plus fixed the WikiProject link. I think that should be okay. Loganberry (Talk) 11:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. All fixed up. Thank you for your concern. Bobo192|Edits 11:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox (Gus Logie)

Thanks. I suppose I should have looked around and not copied it from any random cricket bio :( Guettarda 04:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay

Thanks for the advice...

(Talk) (Comment by Bronks)

List of non-admins with high edit counts

The only reason is, apparently, because I'm dumb. Thanks for pointing the mistake out. I'll fix it presently., Nandesuka 23:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metalworking

Just noticed your edit to cutting speed, and wanted to remind you that there's wikiproject on the subject, and we always need more members! Bushytails 06:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (a fluffy silly wolf that won't do anything worse to a rabbit than random hugs. :)[reply]

*Grins and hugs, on general furry principle* Sadly changing it's' to it is is about the extent of my knowledge on this matter! Unless there's some form of metalworking that involves cricket, that is... =;) Loganberry (Talk) 23:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, *hugs*. :)

I just figured that if you're reading reasonably obscure metalworking articles like that one, you might be learning about metalworking. oh well. Copyediting is always needed too! :) Bushytails (Oh, and I replied to your other comment on my talk page there -- Bushytails 06:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Trinidad v. Trinidad and Tobago

Are you certain that there was no "Trinidad and Tobago" team? It strikes me as rather odd. "Trinidad" is often used colloquially (and a little chauvanistically) for the whole entity. The "country" was called Trinidad and Tobago since the 1890s, so it strikes me as odd that the team only bore the name "Trinidad" officially. Guettarda 02:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that Trinidad has been united with Tobago politically since the 19th century. However, this CricketArchive filter shows that Tobago was not used in the name of the cricket team, which is the important thing here, until the match in Barbados in early 1963. Loganberry (Talk) 02:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the link doesn't work for me. I accept what you say, but it strikes me as very strange. Guettarda 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating to click through to the CricInfo article and see a pic of Ganteaume - based on the surname I always assumed he was white or near-white. Guettarda 02:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lovely - show me that part of CricInfo - let me spend the next few hours looking up local matches when I have an exam to come up with for tomorrow morning. Thanks alot. ;) - Guettarda 02:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary

On what basis do people decide something is spam: [1] 24.54.208.177 04:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I felt that the DoYouDo article read very much like the sort of semi-promotional pieces that turn up on Wikipedia with considerable frequency. I was going on the basis of this version of the article, as well as the original version, not the far shorter one that now exists - though that I would also vote for deletion on the grounds that it gives almost no useful context. The huge reductions in the text of the article after AfD are also unusual, to say the least.

It's also fair to say that like many (most?) other editors, I tend to be a bit harsher on articles written by anonymous users. I'm well aware that this is by no means always fair, but the sad fact is that the great majority of non-useful edits (spam, vandalism etc) are done by IP addresses rather than logged in users. Assume good faith, yes, but that doesn't mean "take everything at face value at all costs". I may be wrong to believe that the article is inappropriate, but looking at the AfD discussion I'm hardly the only one. Loganberry (Talk) 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks, that makes it clearer for me why it went the way it did. 205.217.105.2 11:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Surrey v Yorkshire 17 April 2005.JPG

Thanks for your comments on the licensing of this. Going forward I'll try to remember to add the GFDL licensing info to the piccis I upload. If you see any old ones I have uploaded, then feel free to add the GFDL template yourself, jguk 05:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Scoring

Hi Loganberry,

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Scoring. I just wanted to point out that at the moment, someone casually scanning through the votes would probably look at the first word and think that yours was a Keep. I don't think that is your current intention (depending whether you think his source is adequate). You might want to rephrase your paragraph.

Stephen Turner 13:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Actually, Jack has added some text to the article since my original vote, and now I do think a Keep is appropriate. However, I still have concerns about the lack of an independently verifiable and specific source. I've rewritten my vote based on this; hopefully it's somewhat clearer now. Loganberry (Talk) 22:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for clarifying it. Stephen Turner 08:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smoker ...

Thanks for the fix :-) Tintin 02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]