User talk:Slimshady75

Slimshady75, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Slimshady75! 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 Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Sanam Re, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content

The exact same thing has been written twice that's why I removed it Slimshady75 (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand English

Hello. In New Zealand English we write numbers greater than 999 with commas as separators - so 5342 is written as 5,432; 10654231 is written as 10,654,231. This improves readability and maintains the style users will expect to see on an article associated with that country. The style of English expected in an article is often specified as a note within the wiki code at the top of the page. In the case of New Zealand English you can find this laid out in the New Zealand governments own style guides here and here for example. On wikipedia there is a section at WP:DIGITS that also makes this clear.

Please stop changing number formats away from those in general use in the country the article is associated with. It is disruptive. The same style is used for numbers greater than 999 in Australia, the UK and South Africa as well.

You should also know that we use long dashes to separate years rather than the minus sign on your keyboard - so, we would use 2000–2005 not 2000-2005.

In the infoboxes for cricketers, please don't add in last match played when it's not already in the article (the problem if articles not being updated frequently means that this actually creates significant reliability issues) and don't change dates for infobox stats unless you're actually updating the statistics - and certainly don't chnange them to a previous date. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player profile

Well I didn't know that so I won't change it but you can check the profile of any cricketer everywhere it is mentioned that when and against whom he played his last odi/T20/test match so why do you remove that?? Slimshady75 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They get out of date really easily. I just happened across an international cricketers page randomly just now. The dates of his last Test and ODI are wrong. Another player from the same international team: the T20I date is wrong. People simply don't reliably update these - they go through stages of updates and then the people who have been doing it stop - it happens all the time. It can lead to things being years out of date.

My preference would be that for any current international player we don't have last played dates - it means that it's much less likely that the article will be, well, wrong. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player profile

And second thing is that I change the statistics/dates whenever the player plays any match Slimshady75 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of Martin Crowe actually where, for some reason, you changed it to 1995. Where people have finished playing we use the date to show when the infobox was last updated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player profile

I will not let that happen (incorrect dates) and I will make sure that I update the date and stats whenever Adam Milne plays any international/domestic match so kindly allow me to write the dates of his last odi and T20I in his Wikipedia profile Slimshady75 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if those dates aren't currently on a page that you leave them for now. In six months time, once you understand a little more about how wikipedia works, you might want to consider adding things like that. You'll have a better understanding of the ways that things can get out of date by then. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Trent Boult, 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. Please read the template documentation at Template:Infobox cricketer, in particular the note about using endash in the Club section and the note in the Stats section about which types of matches we usually include. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player profile

You can check the player profile of any cricketer everywhere his T20I stats are mentioned kindly don't change them and add his List A stats as T20 is the most popular form in cricket and most people don't even know the full form of LA, second thing is that Trent Boult has been retained by Delhi Daredevils team for the upcoming Ipl so he is currently contracted to that team. Slimshady75 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC):[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. You want to change the way that infoboxs are applied then start a discussion about it and stop being a twit. I've already had to explain that we use endashes for dates - as specified in the infobox documentation. You persistently remove them even after you've been told to use them. The current date styling - no spaces, using a nowrap template etc... - is a more effective way to present dates. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player profile

The dash issue is a very small thing but you need to realise that it is important to show the stats of a player in an international format (T20) and not his domestic stats and second Thing I am telling you again Trent Boult has been retained by Delhi Daredevils team for the upcoming Ipl so he is currently contracted to that team plz allow me to write his international T20I stats Slimshady75 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question first - what is the present year? Think about it for a moment before you reply. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player profile

The year is about to end very soon Slimshady75 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that you're currently writing 2018-2018 which is silly.

Now, question number 2. On 1 January what will the present year be? And will Boult have played a match for Delhi in that year?

As a supplemental question: are you guaranteeing that Boult will play for Delhi. I mean, if you are could you send me the lottery numbers for next week as well please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Travis Head, 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) 09:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thank you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see MOS:DATERANGE, read it and follow it. This is part of the MOS - it is not negotiable. To revert edits without using an edit summary and break the MOS at the same time is essentially vandalism. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Andrew Tye. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. The manual of style is not optional. See MOS:DATERANGE. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MOS:DATEFORMAT is very clear about the non-use of spaces between dates when they are used in the way they are in the infobox. Given your unwillingness to engage in discussion about this issue, your inability to follow the Manual of Style and your use of blank edit summaries, this is beginning to look like deliberate vandalism now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Look Andrew Tye, Ish Sodhi, Trent Boult Colin Munro have all been retained by their Ipl teams which means they are contracted to those teams that is why I edit their profile and write the word present with the year so why you remove that?? Second thing in Martin Guptill's profile Derbyshire is already mentioned once you can add the year next to that why is the need to write Derbyshire while it is already mentioned Slimshady75 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging with other editors. I would suggest that if someone has only played in 2018 in the IPL that -present is potentially misleading. I would tend to remove that when I see it, but that's not actually a major issue. In terms of Guptil, there are multiple ways to go about adding Derbyshire. Either way is fine. Your last edit removed Derbyshire in 2015 entirely. Given that the 2015 was in a separate row before either you or I started to edit the article, it's probably reasonable to leave it there on the principle that we disagree but someone else had already placed it there.

Now, on Tye. You are continually adding that he played for Gujarat in 2016. He didn't. You know that because you added it to the prose in the article yourself.

In terms of seasons, if you add, say, 2013-2014 for a BBL team who does it tell you about how many seasons the player played for the team for? Either 2013/14 (1 season) or 2013/14-2014/15 is more accurate. If that's in the article then please leave it there. Changing it is utterly misleading for any other user. It's even worse if someone played for one team in 2013/14 and another in 2014/15. Adding the detail as 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 makes it look like they played for two teams during one season. It's best not to mislead users as it leads to confusion and gives the impression that Wikipedia is even less reliable than it is. Please change Tye back.

MOS:DATERANGE specifies that we do not add gaps between years when we specify a range of years. So, as you currently have Tye's article this is a specific breach of the MOS. In other words, stop adding spaces in date ranges.

If you have any queries about any of this then this is probably one place to raise them.

Thanks again for engaging in discussion. I note, again, that you're still not using edit summaries. This is an expectation in order to explain your edits to public articles. I added a warning template above already. Please read it and ask someone if you don't understand what it means. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, I'm Blue Square Thing. Your recent edit to the page Harry Gurney appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. The infobox is used for teams the player has played for, not ones that they might do so in the future. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

Harry Gurney was picked up by Kolkata Knight Riders in the Ipl auction and he was also signed by Quetta Gladiators in the Psl draft which means he will play for both of those teams this year so how do you think that this information is incorrect? Slimshady75 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because he may not play for one or the other. Tymel Mills, for example, was due to play in the BBL. He didn't. Do you know why? (here's a hint: I do) Having signed for a team is not the same thing as having played for one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

Whether he plays or not is something which cannot be said right now but since he has signed with those teams so it required to mention about those teams in his profile if he doesn't play then that information can be removed later Slimshady75 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By all means mention the team in the article. That is, in the actual prose (the writing). But not in the infobox - that's not the aim of infobox at all. Can I suggest that you also read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If there's anything about that you don't understand, please let me know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Andrew Tye. 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. You are also quite deliberately and after separate warnings, not using the manual of style correctly on the same page. None of your reverts of my edits use edit summaries either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tye

Look Tye was contracted by Gujarat lions for 2016 Ipl and he was available for the whole tournament but the team did not select him and he is contracted by Kings XI Punjab for this year's Ipl but still you remove that information Slimshady75 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, he didn't play for them in 2016 then? Or for Kings in 2019 yet? Here's a hint: the infobox is for teams/seasons when HE ACTUALLY PLAYED FOR THE TEAM. So, 2016 is a DELIBERATE FACTUAL ERROR. The emphasis is because you don't appear to understand that your edits are causing a range of problems. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team

Kane Williamson did not play for Yorkshire in 2015 and 2017 but still in his profile you edit and mention 2013 - 2018 isn't that misleading?? Slimshady75 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the source I used said. Can you find a source that says otherwise? Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team

In Kane Williamson's Wikipedia page you can click on refrence no. 2 - List of First class matches played by Kane Williamson, there you will find out. In 2015 he was signed as a replacement for Aaron Finch but later when Finch was not selected in Australia's odi squad he was re signed by Yorkshire instead of Williamson and Kw did not play for Yorkshire in 2015, and in 2017 Kw played for Barbados Tridents in Cpl and he did not play and match in any format for Yorkshire, you can even check this on ESPN cricinfo website Slimshady75 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complexity of that - some of which the article implies in the prose - it might be best in this case to leave the infobox as it is for now. He didn't play any other county cricket during the period so it's not misleading in itself and the range of seasons in which he played for Yorkshire is right. One of the problems with infoboxs is that they can get hideous complex - see Chris Gayle for example. I'm not sure, for example, that Williamson has played for Northern Districts in ever season that the range suggests either - certainly he's played a lot less frequently for them in recent seasons and I think there may be at least one where he didn't play at all. But sometimes you have to look and say "let's keep it simple enough". That's the problem - judgement calls Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team

Kw has played at least one first class match every year for Northern Districts every year since his FC debut, but he did not play for Yorkshire in 2015 and 2017 so it is misleading Slimshady75 (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He played for Yorkshire in the range of years 2013-2018, yes? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he played for ND in every season? Having just done some Original Research, I'm not sure that's technically true. I might have missed a game here and there, but I don't think he played for ND in at least one season and at least one calendar year. So, what do we do? Make the infobox hideously complex or just accept that sometimes making things a tad simpler is easier for everyone? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team

Similarly Andrew Tye was also contracted by Gujarat Lions for the 2016 season and he was available for the whole tournament but you remove that info from his profile Slimshady75 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But he didn't play in the range of seasons 2016-2017. There's a difference. Saying Tye did play in the range 2016-2017 is misleading; saying Williamson played in the range 2013-2018 isn't, although the prose could certainly use updating and rewriting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Your recent editing history at Sean Marsh 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 BRD 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.
This is non-negotiable. You need to read and understand what you have done, change the article to how it was and respond here. If you continue to show you have no understanding of the basics of Wikipedia then there will be consequences. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to have responded to this but are continuing to edit. I am concerned that you do not understand the principle at place here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Edits: 1314; Edit summaries used: 0. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 13:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Lamichhane

Hi. Please stop changing the tenfor value from 0 to n/a. Taking ten wickets in an innings is possible, so it should be a zero. You seem to be edit warring over this, and if you continue to do so, you could be blocked from editing. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

No player in the history of cricket has ever taken a 10 wicket haul in any of the limited overs format(domestic or international) so it is not possible Slimshady75 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have. And, by definition, it is entirely possible it will happen again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Mehboob Alam's article and this scorecard, for example. Because you think it's never happened, does not equate to it being impossible. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

The next time you change this from 0 to n/a in the tenfor field, you will face being blocked from editing due to edit-warring. Please reply here to state that you understand this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned multiple times that 0 is the preferred form for the 10 wicket match parameter in an infobox yet are persisting on deliberately making the change to n/a on a number of articles. The rationale as to why 0 is logically and technically correct has been explained to you calmly yet you continue to edit in a way which changes 0 to n/a against consensus an without using an edit summary at all. Please stop doing so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

The first recognized 50 over domestic match was played in 1963, the first Odi in 1971, the first domestic T20 in 2003 and the first international T20 in 2005, so its been 56, 48, 16 and 14 years respectively since the first domestic and international 50 and 20 over game was played but till date no player from any team has ever picked up a 10 wicket haul so you need to understand this fact that it is not possible to get 10 wickets in any limited overs match Slimshady75 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Just because something is very hard to do, does not make it impossible. It has already happened in a 50 over match, as detailed above, with Mehboob Alam (source). Saying "n/a" is incorrect, so please stop adding this to the tenfor field. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

What you mentioned wasn't really a recognized cricket match it was at the under 19 level, I'm making a polite request the day someone picks up a 10 wicket haul in any limited overs format (Odi, LA, T20I, T20) you change the stats of every bowler but till then let it be n/a in the 10 Wicket haul column for limited overs cricket, possible?? Slimshady75 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It happened in the 2008 ICC World Cricket League Division Five - a fully international tournament, and not a U19 competition as you claim. One bowler can take ten wickets in a limited-overs match. If you can find sources to state this is completely impossible, then please provide them. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Apart from Test matches and Fc cricket the profile of a player has any/all of these columns Odi, LA, T20I, T20 The best bowling figures in these formats are 1) Odi - 8/19 2) LA - 8/10 3) T20I - 6/8 4) T20 - 6/5 The profile doesn't include any other column so 10 WH column should have an N/a Slimshady75 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can put whatever columns you want in - I've seen Youth Tests, Women's matches and all sorts of things. I came across one the other day that had some strange league in. Why not T10 or The Hundred when that starts? There's no reason why under-19 matches can't be added.

The problem is that each of those figures can be beaten. The 6/5 could become 7/34 in the IPL. Or 8/21 or 9/12 or 10/52. It's possible. You've been asked by Lugnuts to find sources which state that it's completely impossible to take all 10 wickets in a match in those formats of the game. That's what we're looking for - not what has been done, but that you can find sources which make clear that it's impossible to do what you're saying is impossible.. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

What I'm saying is that normally the profile of a player has any/all of these columns Odi, LA, T20I and T20 and till date no player from any team has ever picked up a 10 wicket haul in any of these formats, the day someone picks up a 10 wicket haul in the above mentioned formats you change the stats from n/a to 0 but till then let it remain n/a. Possible? Slimshady75 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. We're just in the process of going through all the instances of the infobox and getting rid of all the errors that have been introduced over the years. That was a list of over 8,000 infoboxes and has taken a long time. We're better off having as many as possible marked as 0 in the first instance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was discussed on the template talk page in 2008 and 0 considered the best option for precisely the reason you're suggesting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last word I'll say on the matter is this. Let's look at the best figures in an ODI. Chaminda Vaas taking eight wickets in the match. Here is the scorecard. Muralitharan took the other two wickets, which were also the last two wickets to fall, in his one over. However, Vaas had only bowled eight out of his ten overs. Are you saying that in this case, it was totally impossible for Vaas to take all ten? What if Muralitharan did not pick up any wickets, with Vass to bowl two more overs. That's 12 deliveries. At tail-enders. From the Zimbabwe team. It's possible. The only way it would become impossible is to limit all bowlers to a maximum of nine deliveries in match... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does none of the above apply to Dale Steyn? Is it impossible for him to take 10 wickets but possible for everyone else to? I can't imagine what else would explain this edit.

You have been warned multiple times. We have explained why. At least four editors have reverted your changes. It would probably be the time to move on and accept it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Well I'm just requesting you to kindly wait until someone takes a 10 wicket haul in any of the limited overs format until then let it be n/a, you can even check on ESPN cricinfo website if you click on the statsguru bowling analysis of a bowler for Odi and T20 format it will show only 2 columns 1) 4 wicket haul 2) 5 wicket haul, the column of a 10 wicket haul only shows up when you check the test record of any player, this shows that even they believe that it is impossible for someone to get a 10 wicket haul in limited overs cricket. Slimshady75 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't show that at all. At best that's a weak inference, at worst it's a projection. You need to accept that 0 is just fine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Maxwell

You keep adding the name of the team twice in Glenn Maxwell's profile while it is already mentioned once you can add the year in front of the team's name what is the need to mention the team's name again and again? Slimshady75 (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to this on the article talk page hours ago. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You have currently made 1,454 edits and used an edit summary once (the words "added content" when you were, in fact, reverting an edit made by someone else). It is not acceptable to not use edit summaries to explain your edits on this sort of basis. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

Shaun Marsh is not contracted to Perth Scorchers 2018/19 was his last season, he is currently contracted to Melbourne Renegades and the other thing when he has played for a same team in 2 different years the year number can be added in front of the team's name there is no need to mention the team's name again and again Slimshady75 (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's no longer contracted it doesn't mean he won't necessarily play. We could wait and see on this, it doesn't really matter. In terms of getting the obvious chronology of teams played for right so that it's obvious to any user we'd be, as has been explained to you before, much better off keeping the two times he played for Glam as separate rows in in the infobox. There is no pressing space reason not to do so and he played for the team so many years apart and for another county side in between that it makes much more sense - for the benefit of a non-technical reader to keep them as separate rows. I see you've already reverted - again, without an edit summary. That's not what's supposed to happen: you're supposed to TALK FIRST. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting inappropriately and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

When a team's name is mentioned once you can add the year in front of the that name there is no need to mention the team's name again and again, there is absolutely nothing wrong in that no one feels any difficulty in reading from that, you are the only person who thinks that it is incorrect, I have shown it to many other people they consider it absolutely fine so kindly do not write a team's name again and again. Slimshady75 (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Sometimes it's appropriate to list the teams in a strict, chronological fashion - as in the case of Shaun Marsh. At other times it can be appropriate to do other things. You are essentially not listening to the idea of context. You need to.

Bearing in mind that you edited whilst not logged in as well, you are now really close to violating all sorts of edit warring guidelines. I suggest you step back and start thinking about the idea of context rather than assuming that things can only happen in one way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

At least allow me to write the name of the team in a proper way what's the use of writing the team's name without using brackets Slimshady75 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OLINK. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Your recent editing history at Adam Voges 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 BRD 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. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

Why do you think that his T20I stats should not be included in his profile Slimshady75 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Adam Voges, yes? In that case, context (again). The infobox docuentation has always stated that the default position is T-ODI-FC-LA and that T20 stats of any kind should only ever be included if there is a column missing (so, ODI-T20I-FC-LA for example when a player hasn't played Test cricket). That has been subject to discussions in various places and a compromise was agreed on the Cricket project talk page some time ago which said that the context of the player's career should be considered. It's not good enough to simply say that T20I are more important because they're internationals. It, essentially, depends on the context of the career.

So, in the case of Voges, his 7 T20I are simply not all that significant in the context of his career, so the compromise consensus is not to include them - his 200-odd LA matches are way more significant.

This works in other ways as well. So, for example, in the case of someone such as Andrew Tye it's more significant, in the context of his career, to go ODI-T20I-LA-T20 and to exclude his 9 FC matches. It's harder with current players to draw a definitive position of course: it's possible that Tye may go on to play 100 FC matches, at which point the consensus position would be to go ODI-T20I-FC-LA (probably). The same may be true of D'Arcy Short, although there's actually a case there to include FC and, possibly, exclude LA or T20. In general, domestic T20 would only be included if there's a very, very clear reason for doing so - Tye, probably, Short, possibly. A different position is someone like Brendon McCullum who has clearly played a significant number of matches in all three international formats, so T-ODI-T20I-FC is clearly the way to go.

So, it's all about context.

Now, you've broken 3RR on this. That's a really significant problem. I suggest you undo your last edit to Voges' page before someone who cares enough to raise a case on this - which will lead to a ban, especially with your issues with edit summaries - notices. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to this and seem to have no understanding about following guidelines, working towards and with consensus or what 3RR means. You're now essentially vandalising articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response and you continue to edit against consensus and infobox documentation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting inappropriately and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

Harry Gurney has given up red ball cricket and he is more of a T20 specialist now so is it not important for people to know about his domestic T20 stats, you said that it is not necessary to include T20 stats in Adam Voges's profile but for someone who specializes in the shortest format isn't it necessary to include his numbers in that particular format? Slimshady75 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. Read the infobox documentation and go through the old talk pages - there is a clear consensus that we retain FC stats other than in exceptional circumstances. He's played over 100 FC matches. You're very clearly way against consensus with this. If you think otherwise, gain consensus on the Wikiproject:Cricket Talk page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Whilst I'm at it, be aware that editing whilst not logged in counts in terms of 3RR and that that is a serious business. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Martin Guptil while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting inappropriately and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Again, this means you're at 3RR. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Martin Guptil 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 BRD 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.
Very clearly editing as an IP address as well as logged in editor. Passes duck test by a mile. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

Martin Guptill is New Zealand's leading run scorer in T20 Internationals and the 2nd highest run scorer in international T20IS in the world but still you think that people should not get to know his T20I numbers, instead you add the stats of a domestic format, do you really think this makes any sense? Slimshady75 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have violated WP:3RR for at least the third time this year. I know that the infobox documentation has said since at least 2009 that T20 stats are not used other than to pad out the other stats. I know that the consensus is that First-class stats should be included in the infobox.

You need to deal with your childish behaviour where you assume that by logging out you can get your own way by pretending to be someone else. It's obvious what you're doing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 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 Martin Guptil, 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 are consistently editing against the consensus agreed by the project since at least 2009. You're being disruptive and are headed for trouble if you continue to do so. You haven't read the infobox documentation and don't appear to understand anything about the idea of working with consensus or coming to an agreement about something. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You are consistently editing against the consensus agreed by the project since at least 2009 and doing so in a way which is unexplained as you continue to not appear to understand the importance of using edit summaries. You're being disruptive and are headed for trouble if you continue to do so. You haven't read the infobox documentation and don't appear to understand anything about the idea of working with consensus or coming to an agreement about something. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting inappropriately and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I have reverted a number of unexplained edits that don't adhere to the infobox documentation. There are STANSDARDS that we stick to. One of those is explaining our edits. I'll take this to ANI in the morning - your edits are utterly irresponsible and demonstrate a total lack of understanding of how wikipedia works. You need action taken against you at this point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely worn out the patience of your fellow editors. I strongly suggest you start editing collaboratively and stop the edit warring across multiple articles and learn to edit collaboratively by listening and taking on board the concerns raised by others regarding your edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I've reset the clock on your block as you are clearly evading the block through logged-out edits here. You cannot edit under any account or IP while this block is in place. If this continues, I will block you indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "You cannot edit under any account or IP while this block is in place" do you not understand. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 3 May 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]