There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor making rapid, nonsense !votes at AfD and refusing to accept new sports SNG. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "make useful contributions" what a fucking joke, 60,000 edits and 6,500 new articles created. I'm done. This encyclopedia is now overrun by people who are incompetent and make absolutely no useful contributions, if they could they would, but their inability to speaks volumes. AA (2009-2022), out. StickyWicket (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When you come back from your retirement, keep in mind that there are no vested contributors on this website. You are required to treat everyone with respect. This includes making snide comments to new users. If you have evidence that someone has engaged in sock puppetry, you can file a report at WP:SPI. Otherwise, you need to keep your suspicions to yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • AssociateAffiliate, I really hope you decide to come back. You're one of the last quality sports article creators we have! BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose I should really back off here and I would appreciate any comment by NinjaRobotPirate, but I think it is reasonable to point out that my first venture into AFD came after 46 days membership and over 300 edits. Back in 2009–2010, AssociateAffiliate made their first venture into AFD exactly 46 days after opening their account. What a coincidence.

However, as I have already said at the AFD page, I hope that despite their outburst, obviously caused by frustration, AssociateAffiliate will think twice about quitting the site. I am more than happy to accept consensus if any or all of the articles I nominated should be retained. If I have made any mistakes, I shall learn from them as I always do.

I've said my piece and now I will move on. Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose it's worth putting on the record here that Sistorian has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of No Great Shaker, an account which is very clearly a self-confessed sockpuppet of BlackJack. I doubt very much that the intention of the editor concerned was to lead to AssociateAffiliate decided to at least take an extended break from Wikipedia, but it is, perhaps, a shame that rather than being blocked initially that AA wasn't questioned about the inference in their edits or asked to remove that inference. Fwiw I could have provided enough evidence at an SPI at the time to make a reasonable case against Sistorian, but there you go. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard O'Grady is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard O'Grady until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Iaintbrdpit (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, Christopher Ling popped up on my watchlist because I PRODded a BLP article on someone else of that name many years ago.

I created a redirect from his full name Christopher George Ling as given in the lead, and it resolved a red link in 1937 Coronation Honours - but I don't see that CB mentioned in his article. Over to you. It's always a good idea to create redirects from other versions of someone's name, as it often resolves red links elsewhere, can help a reader who has a different name for the person they want to find, and also can help avoid duplicate article creation. I also added him to the surname list at Ling (surname). Thanks. PamD 09:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for bringing that to my attention, I wonder if I missed the CB in The Gazette? Thanks for creating the redirect and adding his surname to the Ling (surname)! StickyWicket (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

AssociateAffiliate,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, you too :) StickyWicket (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to see that article in particular get there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such and interesting and varied life, nice to get him to FA status :) I have a few more cricketers lined up over the summer too. StickyWicket (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gog the Mild:. Cheers! Got there in the end haha! First of many, I hope, as it's only taken me 13 years to get a FA! StickyWicket (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly a lot of pent up creativity about to be loosed then. We need a second data point to see how steep the exponential curve is going to be. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha there's plenty pent-up, hopefully that curve is going to exponentially increase. I think it's the first cricket FA for 7 years? StickyWicket (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final was the last, in May 2020. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahhh, looks like the list on WP:CRIC is out of date, but still a 3 year gap is quite long. StickyWicket (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree. And pulling off the trick of getting an article through FAC which is notable for two entirely separate reasons, especially a bio, is a rare one. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully might inspire some other CRIC members to take similar articles to FC, would be nice to have C. B. Fry (who reputedly turned down the throne of Albania) as a FA oneday. StickyWicket (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go for it! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, AssociateAffiliate! The article you nominated, John Manners (cricketer), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, while working on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Featured_content, which includes reporting of your featured article (feel free to check the writeup - plenty of time to change it if you hate it) - I realised I don't know your preferred pronouns. Would you mind sharing? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 03:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha not at all. Just a he! Just looking at the little poem for Manners, part of which reads "Her Majesty's Ship, Viceroy.". Was His Majesty's Ship under his command, though not sure if that matters in a jovial sense! StickyWicket (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A fair point, and may as well get it right, eh? The two long-lived queens cover enough of the periods I write about usually that it's easy to slip into habits.

Thanks a lot! Updated the little poem. I'm kind of hoping this is easier to read than the old style featured content, which was the first paragraph or so of twenty-some articles always seemed a bit much - we were still using the techniques of the old weekly issues after it didn't really work anymore. Mind ye, at some point I'm going to hit a Holocaust article or something and have to tread much more carefully, because most things I can afford to trivialise a little bit, but some... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 09:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Henry Ayres has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN athlete, played one match

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll put this here rather than anywhere else for now - the article had been prodded in 2016 so the prod would have been removed on those grounds. I didn't realise that only having played one match were grounds for prodding these days either... A very suitable alternative exists. I'll start adding details to it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers BST. All these PRODs and AfDs where a suitable ATD exists are getting tedious! Can't understand why people don't just be WP:BOLD and save everyone time and effort! StickyWicket (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's probably because they genuinely don't realise that it's a reasonable thing to do. As a heads up, WP:LUGSTUBS probably means we've got a tonne of stuff heading our way within the next six months or so. I'm doing some work on the articles that have been drafted there to see if it's possible to argue that the lists being generated have issues with them, which at least would mean that sources already in articles would need to be checked. But this could all get overwhelming. But, you know, never mind. The sun's out here... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blimey, I'm so out of the loop with my Hampshire expansion project, I didn't even know this was a thing. On an amusing note, someone there seems to think Lugnuts created 19th century cricket articles. Pretty sure that wasn't him :D!!! I've done 150-ish Hampshire stubs so far and managed to expand them all, so seems they're safe for now. StickyWicket (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ronald Coleridge, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Just because you haven't found the material does not mean it was never recorded, reported or otherwise documented. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry Ayres is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Ayres until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Toddst1 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You commented that These kind of nominations are very tedious for all concerned. WP:AFD is how articles are deleted and process was followed. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in the discussion or even edit here. Either way, we could do without your snark. You may notice the other participants had much more constructive comments.

WP:BOLD encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. It is not a preferred way to eliminate articles. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To note that I've added a note at Toddst1's talk page expanding on this situation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is tedious, there's no two ways about it. There are obvious ATD to go down, which are long-established. It wastes everyone's time, when the outcome was, unsurprisingly redirect. I'm sorry your feelings have been hurt, perhaps because you had to be corrected about what constitutes first-class cricket pre-1947? My explanation was constructive, but hey, if you don't want to learn something and admit you were wrong, then that's no skin off my nose, but perhaps that's why you've pettily felt the need to spam my talkpage? StickyWicket (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not wrong. Feelings not hurt. Just going by according to our process. You don't have to like it.

More importantly calling your behavior out. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you were wrong. Are you that arrogant? You claimed the cricketer hadn't played first-class cricket because it wasn't a thing before May 1894 (thereby insinuating that the article was created as a hoax), and I politely explained that the ICC allowed the ACS to define first-class cricket back to 1772. So yes, you were very wrong and hadn't created an accurate rationale for deletion, or checked with the cricket project if you were unsure. And a week later, you leave a comment here??? StickyWicket (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your signature does not comply with the behavioral guideline governing signatures, specifically the first bullet of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, specifically, A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. You are signing your comments as "StickyWicket (talk)" which does not comply with that requirement.

Please change your signature to comply with this requirement. Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Toddst1:After being confused by this sig in a post[1] on my talk, I came here to see if anyone else had warned of the problem.

Now I see that more than 2 weeks after your warning, the sig is still not fixed. Time to escalate? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I agree. But I'm apparently that arrogant. See above. Toddst1 (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, considering you nominated an article for deletion on an incorrect rationale, wouldn't admit you were wrong, then assumed yourself to be the authority for issuing first-class status to cricket matches (contrary to WP:OR), yes, I'd say so. StickyWicket (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AssociateAffiliate's sig. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I know next to nothing about cricket - but I do know this: you are an excellent Wikipedia editor. So here's a barnstar! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Thank you! This Barnstar is very much appreciated and thank you for your kind comments :) Cheers! StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been editing for 14 years, I don't think I'm a vandal, do you? StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Spencer Crawley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Not notable for his cricket career, article appears to have been created on cricket grounds and then hijacked to promote his business activities, which also appear non-notable as there is no significant coverage of him in the sources provided.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeeggs (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just be WP:BOLD and redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players, retaining the default sort and Category:English cricketers and Category:Oxford University cricketers. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mahratta Light Infantry officers has been nominated for renaming to Category:Maratha Light Infantry officers (British Indian Army). A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Jones (cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Jones (cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lewis Church is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cricket articles needing attention only to structure has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WPCRIC/GAN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello AssociateAffiliate, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BugWarp (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you :) You too! Many happy New Years cricket returns! StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Fram, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal attacks? Have you seen their edit summaries. Condescending, rude. Absolutely no discussion with myself or the cricket project. So are you condoning that the manner in which they behave? Because it would seem so. For years, this editor has edited in a manner which can only be described as rogue, often working against community consensus. And what makes it worse is they actually contribute ZERO to the site as a whole. Basically zero article creations or major works on articles to expand them, they just masquerade as some pseudo-intellectual lording it over the project, redirecting articles, moving pages (often poorly and haphazardly). Where is their competency being questioned? If they were a competent editor, they should have the confidence and know-how to create and expand articles. In the last year, I have expanded nearly 500 cricket articles from stub to B/GA/FA. So which editor would this project rather have? Myself, who actually builds an encyclopedia, or Fram, who rubs people up the wrong way from his Belgian abode, and who laments contributors while himself having only ever contributed poorly written articles about people who pedal fast, or writes about some old French woman and spends 70% of the article talking about her husbands were. Jimbo had any sense, he'd ban this individual. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I find Fram can be abrasive and unhelpful, they have contributed hugely to the encyclopedia, such as being the primary contributor of Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges, so you can't say they aren't a net positive as regards content creation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot agree. They have spent years being abrasive and unhelpful to others. I know for a fact they have contributed to the retirement of several long-standing editors who, in the end, just got fed up with them. Any contributions seem to be outweighed by their snidely comments to other editors and that, I have little time for. There seems to be little comeback for their poor conduct. And I mean, it isn't hard to be polite. I'm not sure why they behave like they do, if they are like that in real life, or if it is an online act, but it's been going on for too long. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) The above is just another personal attack - and far longer and more aggressive than the one you posted to Fram's Talk page. Was there some recent trigger that prompted the attack? I assume you don't personally attack other editors simply because they don't meet your standards of content creation? You are not entitled to challenge someone's conduct by attacking them. WP:ANI is the proper venue to seek sanctions against another editor for their conduct, not yelling at them on Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been working vigorously on the redlinks for List of Europeans first-class cricketers over the last few months, having thus far redirected 52 pages due to a general lack of sources, even where a full name is available. If I can find sources outside a database, I will create the article. Several of my recent creations were redirected with condescending "piss-taking" edit summaries. Proper etiquette is to drop a message on a user talkpage or project page, and most definitely not to use condescending edit summaries. There really isn't any need for it, and I will bite to what I consider rudeness. I am typically very polite and encouraging to users (like here), but I'm afraid Fram has a knack for rubbing me up the wrong way with their conduct, and have for years. They are another Daft-type character with regard to the Cricket Project, to whom they have in the past been rather uncivil toward. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like for minor cricketers I ain't really fussed. Redirect with categories maintained, but have the decency to message me with a list of redirects and don't leave rude, condescending bordering on "piss-taking" edit summaries aimed at a long-standing editor (not that length of standing matters, should be polite to all). 99.9% of editors on here seem to get that, but others still have this abrasive tone and I have no idea why? StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll need to see an example of a "piss-taking" edit summary; looking at recent edits, this summary of "Redirect, no indepth sourcing about him, just databases, passing mentions, routine coverage" isn't at all incivil.

"I'm afraid Fram has a knack for rubbing me up the wrong way with their conduct, and have for years." Well, as you can see from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram, this isn't an isolated view, but when the evidence was put towards the Arbitration Committee, the decision was that the conduct didn't amount to a site ban. cf. "The Committee decides that Fram's ban was not required, and therefore vacates it."

I'd personally advise to ignore Fram if you can; and if you have a disagreement with content, ignore any edit summaries you think are uncivil, as they probably aren't directed personally at you. And don't snap back, as it makes it impossible to not pass fault on both sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In one edit summary "Reflect what he is known for" is condescending and "Oh, it's worse, that sole good source is about his father" is just outright abrasive and rude. There is no need for it really. I see article creations about cricket and cricketers all the time which might not meet what the project is after, but I am never rude to others.

Back in 2019, I was unfamiliar with this user, but I note from having read this case a few years ago, they pledged to improve their behaviour and conduct back in March 2018. For years after the fact, they have continued to act in an abrasive manner - so I struggle to see how that has been improved. At the end of the day, this is a website. I fail to see why someone has to A). take it so seriously, and B). in doing so, act in a manner unbecoming toward others.

In real life, I have little tolerance for rudeness and I work for some of the leading surgeons in the UK - people a lot more scary than Fram, and I tell them to be polite when the need arises :D Rudeness is my trigger, I'm afraid! StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SW, I get that Fram's language is rubbing you the wrong way, but when you answer condescension with a blatant personal attack, you actually put yourself in the wrong. Fram may be working just on the not-sanctionable side of the line, but you're taking their bait and excusing taking that bait by saying 'rudeness is my trigger'. Why are you letting him pull your trigger, when it could literally get you blocked if you don't learn how to control your response? Valereee (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cricket articles with incomplete B-Class checklists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...has been recreated, you prod'd it last year. Still looks borderline from my perspective, but you are definitely more of a subject matter expert than me! Daniel (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, thanks for the message. I'd edge on the side of taking it to AfD. He may make his List A debut in the coming days, but that alone probably won't be enough to satisfy wider GNG. But until he does make his debut in a major form of cricket, I'd delete for sure! StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it looks as if you weren't advised that this article is in AFD. It is one you created although there has been a change of title. Apologies if you did know about it. Batagur baska (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Strange nomination, 64 matches at the highest domestic level in Pakistan and England. Highlights the Anglo-centric bias of the site at times. AA (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. And, yes, I agree. Batagur baska (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]