User talk:Stephen Turner/archive9

Category:Fast bowlers

I knew I should've inquired first. Thanks for the link to the actual discussion on the matter -- it was an interesting read - Maajid 13:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Clark

Thanks for that. I've just warned one of the contributors (socks?) for that and vandalism at Brian Lara and I'm pleased an experienced editor concurs it's junk. --Dweller 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit this ([1]). Ta --Dweller 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dweller. I've added two more suspected socks there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

I can't tell... erm, are you an admin? --Dweller 15:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to be? --Dweller 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to be at the moment. Thank you for asking, but I've got far too little time at the moment to do a good job of it, and also I don't need any excuses for spending any more time on Wikipedia! Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add Brian Lara Images

Please, can you or your contacts put a picture/s of this great man that does not violate copyright issues? Brian Lara Wikipedia page requires pictures of him -- a portrait image and some cricketing images. Thanks 130.194.5.130 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but it's difficult to get hold of freely-licensed images. Usually it needs someone to take a photo at a match. Stephen Turner (Talk) 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motmot pix

Nice pix, with the added bonus that they're from home! Guettarda 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad you like them! Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webalizer

Hi, you have rv'd my addition to the Webalizer page with comment "not related nor similar". If you look one more time you will see, that the program is BASED on the Webalizer and it is VERY similar in functionality (but analyzes different things).

Martin (martin(at)hinner(dot)info). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.160.37.52 (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Martin: Thanks for your note. I apologise, it does say that it is derived from Webalizer. However, I'm afraid I still don't think that a program which says

Please note that the code is one-night hack, it's a very very poor quality! It is not recommended to run seolizer on a production server

on its home page really deserves a place in the Webalizer article.

I'd also like to draw your attention to WP:COI and WP:AUTO, which describe how you shouldn't write about yourself or your own works.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you wrote, but basically the program WILL be finished to stage so as it can safely run on any server. This is it's first version, I published it because I wanted some feedback from people. And there is no feedback unless I promote it. I don't see any problem related to WP:COI and WP:AUTO as I am not writing about myself and the product is FREE (GPL). I have no benefit from publishing the link. So I kindly ask you to consider adding the link back to the page or other pages. If the program lasts unstable for month or more, it's fair to remove the link (unstable means in this case that it doesn't parse logs incrementally and it can eat quite a lot of memory, but it basically works - I am using it for my own purposes for over month without any problem). Thanks ...

Martin (martin(at)hinner(dot)info). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.160.27.57 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Marting. But I think there's something you haven't understood about WP:COI and WP:AUTO. They're not only there because people might have a financial benefit in writing: they're primarily because it's almost impossible to write in a neutral and objective way about things you are deeply involved in, even if there is no financial benefit.

I understand the point about promoting your program — I am a freeware author myself — but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Wikipedia is for writing about topics that are already notable.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hit the ball twice#John King

I think I have got a plausible explanation for John King's dismissal at Talk:Hit the ball twice#John King. Not sure if that should be incorporated into the article, though, as I might be wrong, or the reasoning might be unverifiable. -- Paddu 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Paddu, because I didn't have this article on my watchlist any more. I've made some more comments there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge City Council

Hi Stephen

I saw you edited the Cambridge City Council page earlier, removing some content I had added to the page, and I wanted to explain to you why I had put the content there in the first place.

The page as it stands suggests that all the Council is about is local councillors, which is not a fair representation at all. I work for the Council and have been asked to have a go at adding more content to the page, beginning with linking to the other websites run by the Council. These sites are not necessarily even known as Council websites to the public, and this is one way of making our link to them apparent.

This is what you saw as copyright violation, and while I see your point I don't believe it is because the content has been put there at the Council's request. While I see what you mean that a link to the homepage is enough, the way the different sites are manages is such that they are not all immediately advertised on the main City Council website, hence linking to them individually here.

Basically what this comes down to is we want to make our services and content available to as wide a range of people as possible - much as any company does - and this is one way of doing it.

Regards,

Tris Lambert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trislambert (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Tris. I realise your edits were in good faith, but I'm afraid have to direct you to WP:COI which explains our conflict-of-interest policies. The whole page is relevant, but in particular the part that says:

"If [...] you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) [...] then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement."

Edits in such subject areas, beyond simple, uncontroversial, factual corrections, are almost always reverted immediately. Remember, the page is trying to be an encyclopaedia article, not a publicity platform for the council.

Having said this, I agree that the page is weak at the moment. Why don't you send me a list of the things that the council does that are distinctive (i.e., not things that lots of councils do), and I'll try and work them into the article in a more encyclopaedic way?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

Don't know if you watchlisted me, so just a courtesy note that I've replied to you at User talk:SMcCandlish#Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Godleman

Nice one. The link you've added for the Championship was the best I could find too, but as I thought it misleading, I left it red. What do you think? --Dweller 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller,

I thought of it this way: If we had an article for 2007 County Championship, it would probably only be a redirect to 2007 English cricket season, so I felt justified linking straight there.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Hall Cricket

Thank You for you interest in my article. I looked up the case you cited of Corridor Cricket. Interesting article but I have put reasons why I don't think that that deletion is relevent on the Hall Cricket talkpage. If you know of a generic site of indoor cricket related games that would be a better place onwhich to attach the stub I would appreciate it.

Where the difference really lies is in the ball and bowling. Corridor cricket really is just an indoor version of cricket using a tennis ball covered in tape, not something that can be played inside the home. The game I am writing about uses a table tennis ball is played over a much shorter distance. The ball needs to be thrown and is not bowled. Through playing it I am getting my son and daughter interested in Cricket (though it proved difficult to keep their interest for the whole world cup!)

Whether it's my particular page or another one there has to be something on the indoor versions of the game. --Emptyart 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know I have deleted the article --Emptyart 10:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to handle this situation

Hi Stephen. I was wondering what you thought was the best way to go about this. A while back I wrote an article about Namibian cricketer Marc Olivier, Under-19 World Cup cricketer of 2006. According to a source (second half of page), it would appear that the young batsman has died, though it does not give the date, and a search on Cricketarchive and Cricinfo alike comes up fruitless.

I have written it into the article, but I have not included a death date within the initial paragraph as this is uncertain. I was wondering whether you had any better ideas as to how to handle it. Thank you. Bobo . 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Bobo. I don't think you need to handle it any different from normal. We have the month of death, and we can do without the exact date. I've edited the article to do it that way.

By the way, I'm not sure if you already know, but if not you should be warned: there seems to be a majority view at the moment that cricketers who have not played a first-class or List A match are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and can be deleted. This is based on WP:BIO#Criteria for notability of people, which refers to "competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport". This came up recently in this deletion debate, which concerned a cricketer who'd even captained Australia Under-19s. I was undecided on it, but the consensus was to delete it.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the confirmation. I hope the way I've handled it you feel to be the easiest and most accessible way of doing so. I was considering contacting Cricket Archive on the matter, but in some cases (notably Wass's entry which I added several months ago) it would seem that eventually the news will filter through. Unfortunate in circumstances as these, but I guess we can hope.

As for Philip Hughes' entry, I must admit I noticed that straight off when it was on the cricket-related deletions page. I agree with the current state of play, but these things can easily change and if and when the situation changes, I know that we'll all be rushing to add it back with suitable reasonings all round. Bobo . 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've never tried contacting CricketArchive myself, but I've heard that they're very responsive. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne Image for FPC

Hi, I noticed that you added a photograph to the Samuel Bourne page. You will be interested to know that two days ago, I nominated a Bourne image of the Taj Mahal for Featured Picture at WP:FPC. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricinfo template

Why did you revert my edit? I simply edited it so that the template would actually work. View Geoffrey Boycott to see what I mean. - PeeJay 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you figured it out already. But for the record, Boycott was using the template wrongly. Editing the template broke all the cricketers who used it correctly. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand now. Thanks for not taking it the wrong way. - PeeJay 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karan_Bilimoria.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Karan_Bilimoria.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated reply

Hello Stephen, Thanks for your question and apologies for my belated reply, which I have now put on my discussion page. Kind regards, Bessel Dekker 11:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much for letting me know. Stephen Turner (Talk) 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ's College 'twinning'

Thanks for your query - will copy this to relevant talk page too. Kelvin Bowkett, Senior Tutor "Similar pairings have since become established between Christ's College and Branford College at Yale and Adam's House (and more recently also North House) at Harvard.". See http://www.yale.edu/branford/about.html AWO 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM overhaul

Where were you??? Yes, there has been a much-needed overhaul of the whole page, which I instigated. I posted MANY notices seeking input at the MOSNUM talk page, and three at MOS-central. It's been a huge amount of work, with lots of valuable input and a consensus of sorts (as much as could be expected, with everyone, including me, making compromises).

The process (two weeks old, intensified over the past 10 days) could have been extended, but frankly, several key people have worked hard on it and I was keen that it not hang around.

I'm looking forward to moving on, so please review the discussions at MOSNUM talk and ... I suppose ... raise any misgivings you have, there or on my talk page. I'm keen to wrap it up soon and post the "summary" into MOS-central, which was the initial idea. The summary will comprise most of Sections 1–6. If you have suggestions for improving the page, now is the time, although everyone's probably had their fill of debating the issues that you can review at talk.

Tony 11:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I've replied at the talk page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges of Cambridge

I removed those links because there is no point in having them there if there is no page. Personally, I have never been inspired to write an article about something because I saw it had a red link on Wikipedia. To be honest, I think they just look ugly and shouldn't be there. asyndeton 18:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Asyndeton. In general, I think words or phrases should be linked if there should be an article about them eventually. A red link can sometimes prompt people to create an article. But even more importantly it means that when the article is eventually created, it's already linked from all the right places. Otherwise the person who creates the article would have to guess all the places it might be referred to, and add the links, and they'll probably miss some.

This is discussed at WP:RED, which puts it this way: 'If the article is likely to be useful in a "final version" of wikipedia, it should be linked now.'

Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. My personal view is still that they should be removed if the article doesn't exist, however, if it is policy to keep them, then I am not going to rock the boat. asyndeton 21:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further idea

I've had another idea for County Championship seasons by team, see what you think as to the insertion of two templates at the bottom of each article – one for Previous and Next seasons and the second to a template involving the same information but the opposite way around - County Championship teams by season. I've been awake for rather a while so I'm not sure whether the first of these templates should be used, but see what you think. Thank you. Bobo . 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]