User talk:Jhall1

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jhall1.

Archived messages: /archive Jun,06-Dec,06 /archive Jan,07-Jun,07 /archive Jul,07-Jun,09 /archive Jul,09-Dec,12

The redlink in Fender was annoying me a little, so I created Alfred Jeacocke and managed to get in two juicy scandalous tales, both concerning PGH of course. Feel free to add or tweak anything I've missed, as Surrey is not my strong point. Though I have got hold of Lemmon's Surrey history as you can never have too many cricket books... Sarastro1 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that as well, but there is literally nothing about that side of his writing in any of the sources to which I have access. I'll do another trawl, but I'm not confident. If push came to shove, I'd take that out as we have no information on it. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. I've left a note there, more in hope than expectation. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not checked Barclay's yet, but as you may have gathered, I picked up a cheap copy for myself, so I can have a look there. But I'd be grateful if you could check Thompson for anything in there. Thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for that. I don't suppose you have a page reference for each quote? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the original article was cribbed wholesale from one of his obituaries (either the Cricketer or Wisden, I can't remember); it was re-worded, but the stories and content were almost identical. So maybe the obituary writer used Thompson. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on with Weigall. I didn't name him in the article on the grounds of obscurity and as he wasn't exactly a top-level critic! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope to get round to creating it, however each time I've googled "Surrey Club cricket" it brings up the obvious result of Surrey CCC :/ I don't want to create a pointless stub which just mentions how many first-class matches it played, some background would be nice! I think it has enough potential and notability to exist independently of the Surrey county cricket teams article :) Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always imagined it as a posh gentlemen's club of some sort! I'll drop BlackJack a line :) Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I've replied to AA about the Surrey Club on my talk page but my investigation inevitably brought up the enigmatic "Mr Houghton" who was engaged by Montpelier Cricket Club in 1845 to create The Oval. I know nothing else about this gentleman, not even his first name. Do you have any info about him in books about Surrey? Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the W. Houghton in this scorecard is the same man? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find something about Mr Houghton in David Lemmon's excellent The History of Surrey County Cricket Club (see Surrey County Cricket Club Bibliography section for full citation details). Since the man's initial matches, it's almost certainly the chap in the scorecard. "From the outset The Oval was managed by W. Houghton, a chemist from Brixton Hill, who had been President of the Montpelier Club. In the initial euphoria his management had been accepted as giving all that could be desired, but by the beginning of the 1849 season, with the club £70 in debt, it was apparent that all was not well and there was disagreement between the management and the Club itself".(p18) "Hon Frederick Ponsonby forwarded the idea that the Club's financial crisis... could be solved if six memberts were allowed to take out life-membership at £12 each. The idea was eagerly accepted... Houghton, however, was antagonistic to the Club, and he was conducting affairs in a way that many found offensive. He staged walking matches, poultry shows and other events which lowered the character of the ground and which were not to the liking of those living close by... There were moves afoot to build on The Oval, and a bill was prepared by the solicitor of the Duchy of Cornwall to that effect. It was Prince Albert, acting for the young Prince of Wales, who intervened, and The Oval was saved... John Burrup... had succeeded Denison as secretary in 1848... He realised that the only way in which Surrey cricket could survive was to rid itself of the association with Houghton... Under his direction the executive resolved to play no more matches at The Oval and began negotiations for a ground near Coldharbour Lane, Brixton. Houghton realised he was beaten and was glad to come to terms. He handed over the lease to C. H. Hoare, A. Marshall and Henry Mortimer, acting on behalf of the Surrey County Club who obtained a new agreement for 21 years. This dated from 1855..."(p19) There's no mention of the "Surrey Club", but I'm wondering if Houghton might have set that up as a rival to Surrey CCC. However since it started in 1846, when apparently all was still sweetness and light between him and SCCC, probably not. JH (talk page) 09:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. Trouble and strife. For a moment there, I thought I was reading about Yorkshire again! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now also looked up Houghton in Nick Yapp's A History of the Foster's Oval (Pelham Books, 1990, ISBN 0-7207-1925-9). His account is substantially the same as Lemmon's, but he tells us that Houghton's first name was William and that he was the Treasurer of Surrey CCC when the club was founded.(p10) He also says that the first match to be played on the Oval, on 13 May 1845, was between W. Fould's XI and W. Houghton's XI, with the first game there involving the Montpelier Club being against Clapton on 17 July. He gives the scorecard of the latter match from Lillywhite's Cricket Scores and Biographies of Celebrated Cricketers and quotes ot as saying "This is, it is believed, the first match that ever took place on Kennington Oval. The extent of the ground is 10 acres, and, as the name implies, oval in shape... during the winter of 1844-5 it was arranged that the Montpelier Club should remove to the Oval, and the Club very generously gave a large sum of money from their funds to enable the new proprietor make the new ground good for cricket by laying down with turf about 4 acres in the centre..."(p39) There's obviously material there that could be used to extend the history sections of the Surrey CCC and Oval articles as well as that on the Montpelier Club. JH (talk page) 17:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:CDTPP gave me these links including one fascinating photo from 1860: Lambeth and [www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=4975 British history]. As I said to him, I never thought the gasworks were that old. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This scorecard from CricketArchive is the 17 July 1745 game and seems to be the earliest that CA have from The Oval. They don't have the 13 May game in their list so it looks as if no scorecard has survived. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd spotted those links from User:CDTPP on your Talk page. Fascinating stuff. I suspect you're right about the earlier scorecard not having survived. Yapp gives the later scorecard but not the earlier one. From what he quotes from Lillywhite, it seems they weren't even aware that the earlier match had taken place. JH (talk page) 18:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No scorecard seen yet, but a search of the online British Newspaper Library archives has found the following paragraph published a few days after the 13 May match - from The [London] Standard, Monday 19 May 1845 page 3 "THE SURREY GROUND, KENNINGTON The new cricket ground, in the Oval, was opened on Tuesday with a day's play between two eleven's chosen from the members of the Montpelier Club. The day was unfavourable, but the play was very good. We may take this opportunity of stating, by way of contradiction to the statements which have appeared in some other journals, that this ground will be appropriated alone to the purposes of cricket." RossRSmith (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. I haven't got round to getting it yet, but will do so very shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not all make sense for a day or two. I'm trying to tidy it up to take to FAC. I'm more or less happy with the length (a few more words off wouldn't hurt with the two forked articles now) but I need to make sure it does him justice as a batsman and (for want of a better word) a "force" in cricket. I've a few sources to add to the article, and then should be ready. I'll take out that "lacks flamboyance" as I've just realised it's a load of rubbish anyway. (Forgive me if I've told you this one, but George Macaulay, not exactly a lover of batsmen, once pretty much applauded a shot that Hobbs hit off him, and praised him to the heavens whenever he hit a good shot) Sarastro1 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully a little clearer now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Real life rather hectic at the moment. On that 1919 match (it was actually his benefit game, and our old mate Jack Crawford rather than Knight), I'm not sure it is justified in the main article, as it hardly ranks with his performances in 1925, or against Australia in 1911-12, 1926 or 1927-28, or South Africa in 1909. But it is in the "later life" article, where I think it fits more comfortably. I've reworked large chunks now, and as I can't think what else to do, I'm heading for PR with a view to FA in the not-too-distant future. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the other Jack, I recently got hold of some old Wisden reprints, and one of the early 1920s ones mentions that Crawford wasn't available as he was up north somewhere, but it rather unfortunately doesn't say why, and just laments his unavailability. I must add it to the article at some point. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this one was Blackjack's, and he did a really good job on it. But I've reverted, and cited some OR of my own as I've found a source which gives his baptism date two months before our IP suggests he was born. Thanks for the heads up, it was not on my watchlist but I've added it now. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mahmood, the English flag is just for simplicity as to explain in the infobox would be quite a palava, wouldn't it! I know it doesn't mean much, but on the IPL pages, he's listed as English. As for Smith, I presumed he was out for the rest of the season, and assuming like most o/s players, they don't return after one season? The Madras (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Well I apologise, I didn't know that, I'll go and put him back in then. The Madras (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood - would it be better to put Pakistan as the nationality and "English qualified" in the notes? The Madras (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was Don of Glamorgan who played for the Players, not David. Silly me.......! Thanks for spotting it. :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have access to the British Library Newspaper Archive, but I was doing some digging there on young Jack (I still hope to go for FA at some point if I can dig out a little more information and tidy it up a little more) and found, in a regional newspaper, complete copies of the 1909 correspondence between Crawford and Alverstone. I've also pinned down some more career details which I will add: he went to New Zealand as a cricket coach and then was a master at Repton when he returned to England, hence the "up North" reference in Wisden I assume. If you are interested in the letters (I doubt much of that will make it into the article), I can email you a copy. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent with newspaper file attached. Hopefully... Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up my contribution to Cranleigh -the Winterfold House article looks much better where you put it. As a cricket enthusiast have a look at EHD Sewell a page I put together recently - you may have a contribution. Sewell also played rugby. My preferred winter game. Kind regards Long Ben Every (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you! I wanted to tell them myself, but had grown too weary of the diverse cultures of Ashes pundits! Would you prefer a beer, or a cookie? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sadly I don't like beer, so I'll opt for the cookie. :) JH (talk page) 09:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed the nice work that you have done at Tony Forrester and thought you might be interested in this new page that I have started. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what I can now, if you care to have a look. Is there anything obviously missing? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the above link appear as red link, click on it, and the page will appear nevertheless. Sometimes there's a lag with new pages. Kraxler (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Let me know of anything else you spot. Gubby's given me a fair bit of trouble, and is currently too long for my taste. But to be honest, I haven't found him as disagreeable as I expected; probably better than, say, Walter Robins or Freddie Brown. I think there have been a few, slightly unfair hatchet jobs on him, and having dug I'm none too impressed with the way Frith deals with him in the Bodyline book. Not to say I'll ever be a fan, and his role in the D'Oliveira affair and his dictatorial approach as chairman of selectors were dreadful, but still not as bad as I expected. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maurice Harrison-Gray may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Gray was also instrumental in helping, in 1938, to unite the two warring bridge organisations (the British Bridge League (founded in 1931) and the National Bridge Association (founded in 1933).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. During the last three weeks I have covered Category:Bridge writers in several respects. See my long report on its talk page.

I see that you have replied to some of my talk page notes. Thanks. I have not followed my Watchlist closely and have not generally noticed your replies yet. --P64 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I started getting seriously interested in bridge, in 1970 - I played Vienna, from his and AJ Smith's books.

I once met his son, Oskar; as a chemist, not as a bridge player. Small world. Narky Blert (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion last year where you said this - (You're right about Azhar Mahmood of course, though it still seems strange to see "England" against his name.) JH (talk page) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC) - where we basically agreed to list him as Pakistani.... I think? The Madras (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is odd, considering the guy really is Pakistani and has played for Pakistan, although has a British passport. I'm pretty sure it was left as Pakistan as the flag, with "British passport" written into the info? The Madras (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! The Madras (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for help there. Been on holiday meanwhile. Will do more soon but busy now. Regards FYB 10:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveyardsback (talk • contribs)

Have you seen this? I knew this series existed but had never seen the books before. They're not bad, and it was finding Crawford's book that dragged me back to editing for a bit. It's a bit unfinished (literally: it was an unfinished project, so it looks like there would have been more about his life) but looks to have a bit of good stuff. It backs up your theory that Crawford was a spoilt brat as he had a few clashes in Australia. I'll see what I can add to the article, and we might get it to FA in the end! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've chucked in what that book has to say, and have conceived a distinct dislike for Mr Crawford. I'm pretty much done and might get in some more eyes with a view to this elusive FA. I'd be grateful if you'd cast your eyes over it to make sure I've not done anything too thick! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Hart (which is vague on the New South Wales/Victoria business, so I'm not too sure) compares Crawford to Botham, of all people. KP? Maybe but I'm not sure Crawford ever felt genuinely victimised. Too full of his own importance, maybe. Boycott?

On the professional captains, Rhodes certainly captained Yorkshire quite a bit when the usual chap was absent. And possibly even when there were amateurs in the team. CricketArchive does not have all his games as captain, I don't think, which I've taken up with them before. And of course he was usually in charge whoever was in the team! Sutcliffe, I'm not too sure about. Possibly a few times, but AB Sellars tended to play all the time. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the notifications keep popping up! I've asked a few FA people to take a look at Crawford with a view to FAC at some point soon, and I mentioned you in the message as I think you've put as much into this one as I have. If/when I nominate, I'll put you down as co-nominator. All your help is very appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's now passed FA. Thanks for all your help on this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably somewhere. The Yorkshire minutes, for example, are held in an archive, and paying a visit there is one of the things on my real-life "to-do" list. I'd imagine the Surrey minutes similarly exist, maybe even still at the Oval. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately true about OR. You might be lucky though; a few things about Yorkshire made it into the Yorkshire Post, which is available through the British Newspaper Archive. For example, it gives the full text of Lord Hawke's famous "Pray God no professional..." speech. A few committee things creep in too. Perhaps there's something similar somewhere for Surrey. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for favouring my edit. So very sad as he was SUCH a lovely man. Perhaps the most charming opponent I EVER played against though I rarely got a good board against him. and to drop a name, Robson gets a mention in dispatches too. But I'm told that he'd been ill with cancer for a while, and it may even be a bit of a release.

Me again! I think that Albert Craig was one of yours. I don't know if you are subscribed to the Cricketer Archive but here is a link to an article about him. Let me know if you can't get it and I'll email it to you. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So these persondata templates do have a purpose. I honestly didn't think they did.

Thanks for pointing out this purpose in your edits to the article on Rory Hamilton-Brown. Bluebird207 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, but is it true that Wills is the only player the fixture's history to not have attended either university? I think that's notable in itself. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a good reason why you're not an admin? --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have replied on your own talk page, but someone seems to have set up a redirect so that any attempt to go to it ends up here! Hopefully that will soon get fixed. The idea of being an admin doesn't appeal to me at all. I find the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia uninteresting, though I realise that much of that bureaucracy is necessary. When somebody quotes some mysterious set of initials as being a Wikipedia guideline my eyes tend to glaze over. I can also do without the making of enemies that becoming an admin would almost certainly result in sooner or later. JH (talk page) 10:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you seem to have hacked it yourself! I wish you'd warned me that trying to reply on your talk page would be a waste of time. Anyway, Chag Purim Sameach, Freilichin Purim. JH (talk page) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I need to fix that today! Understood re adminship, although I'd like to point out that you're clearly very au fait with most of our important policies and guidelines. Have a good weekend. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I must have been daydreaming. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your adding of the new book to Crawford; have you read it yet? I'm going to, and have ordered it. Looks like more work for poor old Crawford. I think it paints him in a pretty bad light too. I'm around a bit for a while, so I'll see what I can do when I get it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming round to your way of thinking about Crawford: he was an arse. There are a few juicy bits in the book that I plan to add. It's worth reading, by the way. But he doesn't come out of it amazingly well. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a lot of fun finding out about him, isn't it? One thing that strikes me is that what constituted wild and unrestrained humour in those days often seems pretty unfunny now... and also that if Brooks had been around today he'd probably be mayor of London, a chat show host, or under a curfew with an ASBO. Johnlp (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the book that was reviewed in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1898 and I quoted (ref No 11) from the review in the article. Good luck with finding more examples directly from the book! Johnlp (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a second Booth book called "Master" and Men: Pink 'Un Yesterdays, published in 1926/27 (reviewed in the Saturday Review on 29 January 1927), and Booth wrote a book about London in the Nineties in 1929 and another volume in the early 1930s that sounds as though it rehashes Sporting Times stories. I'll see what I can find in various libraries I sometimes frequent. Johnlp (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just about there as he's an award-winning writer and also has the OBE. It's always difficult when someone has several strings to their bow and isn't absolutely without-a-doubt notable on any single one of them. BTW I watched Surrey completely trounce Somerset in T20 at The Oval last night. Some of the batting and fielding was outrageously good. Johnlp (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem about questioning me. Perhaps you know a bit about GEORGE, and could help also at Comparison of file systems? I edited there with this change, differentiating between a computer file system "George 2" (now unlinked) vs. the operating system George 2 (now linked to GEORGE (operating system)), when I really know nothing about either. I came there just as a matter of helping in general task of disambiguating; previously there was an ambiguous link George 2 which goes to a disambiguation page listing various King George's. If you know of a better phrase/name for the file system, or can improve the Comparison article in any other way, please feel free! Anyhow, I'm glad someone is paying attention. :) Keep up the good work. cheers, --doncram 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:2015_ICC_World_Twenty20_Qualifier regarding Let to know No result or Abandoned. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please help me to resolution by your comments at DRN. Srinu ^{(Talk | contrib)} 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You made an excellent point on Talk:S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) regarding an opinion to keep the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) could do with hearing that. Bobo. 00:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jhall1. Matt Hobden, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 00:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Matt Hobden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Matt Hobden scored 65 not out in a Sussex County Cricket Club record tenth-wicket partnership of 164 with Ollie Robinson? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Hobden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to W. G. Grace may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• News of the match "spread like wildfire and created a sensation in London and throughout England".<<ref>Harte, p.102.</ref> The satirical magazine ''[[Punch (magazine)|Punch]]'' responded to it by
• •&nbsp;a){{note label|a|a|none}} As described in [[W. G. Grace#Grace's first-class career statistics|Grace's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another book...?!! How can we go for so many years with nothing on this ****, and now there are TWO biographies on him??? It's nearly killed me trying to update the article with the first one, but now there's another! And no doubt if I read that one, and update the article, some swine will bring out a third, or a history of Surrey in 1909, or an expose of Lord Alverstone or something. Have you read this new one? Looking on Amazon, I think it might just be a re-hash as it looks to be smoke and mirrors with little new to add. But I suppose I might take the plunge and have a look... Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've finished updating the article with the first biography. Now I'll have a look and see if it's worth coughing up for the second. I can recommend the one by Michael Burns, if it's of any interest, but he uses the one by Nigel Hart that is available online for quite a lot of his information. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a bit of an excerpt, and it covers different ground to the Burns books. I haven't coughed up for it yet, but I probably will. Do you ever regret starting an article?? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Oval, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter May. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For improving my stub article on Sandra Landy up to seriously good start class. Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an article you created and contributed to considerably in 2008 (namely Mike Edwards), has a lot of detailed stats but no sources - 9 years with no sources for these statements, especially in a BLP, is far from ideal. I'm not sure if it's convention to not source stats or insert references at every point for sports people/cricketers but the sourcing is not what I would expect for a normal biography. Perhaps, seeing as you know your way round cricket data, could you see to backing up the stats with sources? thanks Rayman60 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at a few other Surrey cricketers listed on your talk page and many of them seem very undersourced. As mentioned above, I am not familiar with cricket profiles and sourcing conventions, but I would've expected them to be similar/identical to normal biographies, and ordinarily upon seeing articles like these, I would challenge and remove a considerable amount of the unsourced content. I would certainly question the viability of the information contained within should I happen upon one of these articles looking to learn about any of them. thanks Rayman60 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Controversy," in the Spalding article, Spalding's guardianship over Zedtwitz is mentioned, but since the Baroness von Zedtwitz broke with Spalding in 1901, when her son turned 5, it's not clear what influence Spalding might have had.

Hello John, I'm coming to the end of the Surrey player redlinks and gathering a few strays. It looks as if a trick has been missed with this one because, as you will know, there were two players with the name. One was the very well known 19th century batsman who had a couple of brothers who played; the other was the lesser known 1960s wicketkeeper and it is this one that has the article. There is no article for the famous batsman. I'm sorting it out but I think there will be a number of incorrect linkages meant to refer to the batsman but in fact linking to the keeper. Could you cast your eye over the whole thing and make sure you're happy with it? Sorry for inconvenience. All the best, Jack | ^{talk page} 12:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I've moved things around so that Richard Humphrey is about the 19th century batsman. His namesake is in Richard Humphrey (cricketer, born 1936). There are also the batsman's three brothers at John Humphrey (cricketer), Thomas Humphrey and William Humphrey (cricketer). Let me know if I can do more. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: Thanks, Jack. I'll take a look at all the links to the two Richard Humphreys, to check that they all point to the right one. JH (talk page) 18:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sally Brock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Horton (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) 09:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JH - If you have time and interest, can you perhaps look at a draft on my sandbox User:Viking1808/John T. Mitchell (whist and bridge player) as you have said you have a copy of the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. The text under "Personal Life" is from a chat room source I would not trust entirely or quote on Wiki. Nothing is set in stone, and your edits could help it move. Thanks in advance Viking1808 (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. The Mitchell article has now gone for review. Let's see how it flies! Viking1808 (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll probably never be as prolific as in those days (even harder to find good cricket coverage now that all the streams are geo-blocked, for a start), but I still try to find the time. Sam Vimes 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for fixing that up, what happened was a user/bot had grabbed that *article* number and used it as his cricketarchive *profile* number in Wikidata, which then triggered a duplicate profile error. I fixed it, without noticing it was an article link, not a profile link. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he'll get a Lions call this winter and wouldn't be surprised if he was called to go with the full England team to Sri Lanka in spring 2020. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could well be right. JH (talk page) 17:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Anonymous427's change to the 2006–07 Ashes series article, the "3" comes in because that company sponsored the series. I've no problem with you reverting the change, and would support the article remaining as it is now, but I thought you ought to get an answer to your question. – PeeJay 19:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.) And what a stupid name for a company!) JH (talk page) 19:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! That's my mobile phone service provider you're talking about! – PeeJay 21:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I was trying to 'thank' you I accidently pressed rollback, I am fine with your reasoning of your revert. Red Jay (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He didnt do anything that made him notable in Riga. Categorisation is supposed to relate to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: - thanks for replying. 95% of Wiki articles seem to use it for where the person was born, regardless of whether they did anything notable there. That doesn't guarantee that that usage is right, of course. JH (talk page) 15:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We categorisers dont approve of that! Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 1, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 1, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the cricketer, "about a rather arrogant but massively talented cricketer who had a dispute with the authorities and dropped out of the England team. Not KP, but Jack Crawford who played in the first two decades of the 20th century. A somewhat forgotten story but an interesting one." in collaboration! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you keep vot on Hubert Preston page. Are you are that Surridge sports is also under AFD? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidstewartharvey You're welcome. I didn't know about Surridge Sports. One problem I can see is that the article is actually named "Surridge Sport" rather than "Surridge Sports", which is how the company is referred to within the article and I think is the correct name. I also noticed that there's no link to it from Stuart Surridge's own article, which is something you might want to fix. JH (talk page) 18:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to see how a name-dropping sentence that says something entirely unencyclopedic: "Something unusual seems to have been happening" deserves to disgrace an article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Abductive It would be good to be able to read the whole New Scientist piece, as no doubt Dennis Wheeler's remark would have had some analysis to support it. But if an eminent British climatologist thinks it was something remarkable, then that seems to me to be worth recording. I don't see how it in any way "disgraces" the article. (And no, it wasn't me who put it in the article in the first place.) So I suppose we will have to agree to differ. JH (talk page) 16:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says nothing, and an appeal to authority is a bad argument. Abductive (reasoning) 18:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JH. Hope you are okay. I realise I can just be WP:BOLD but I'd like to know what you think about this before I go ahead. You'll remember in our discussion about merging cricket season reviews into histories that you urged caution and said, rightly, that we should keep reviews of seasons that were significant in the game's development. We agreed that all reviews from 1864 should be retained for that reason. I have a problem with 1744 English cricket season and I expect the same will become true of some other years.

You can see 1744 is a small article with an RPS of 4.15 kb (715 words). On the face of it, nothing special and I admit I thought it probably couldn't be expanded so why not just merge its Laws and scorecard bits into the period history? Then I found there were problems with the sources cited because they fail WP:RS. I decided to contact a friend who is a member of the MCC and other cricket groups to see if he can point me to a good source for information about the 1744 code. He can, and he's sending me scans from the books by Ian Maun which are in the bibliographies of these articles.

We talked about the merger of these articles and he pointed out a few that should be considered special cases, like 1787 when the MCC was founded. But there are whole periods like the 1750s, 1760s and most of the Napoleonic Wars which he thinks we should merge. He says 1744 is definitely one of the special cases. Besides rules and scorecards, he tells me it was the season when cricket first became pre-eminent in British sport. This was because of the England v Kent match on 18 June which caused a massive stir at the time. That isn't in the current version of the article.

The August 2018 version is considerably more informative and we think there is content which should be restored. The text in the table about the 18 June match should ideally go into a narrative section, like the first scorecard match on 2 June. Besides the match itself, there are pieces of real historical interest about charging admission, keeping crowd order and the commemorative poem. I'm assured that the sources are all good although there are two which fail WP:RS as they're self-published, but they were used for only six citations (whereas the current version had no less than four sources that completely failed WP:RS and I removed those earlier today). I think I would redesign the rather elaborate table as a standard wikitable and place the notes in the end column – I'm building tables of that sort in Churchill war ministry and they do the job. I think I'd reduce the list of names to those with articles who must be the notable ones. As for the Laws, Maun has reproduced them in full so the summary list in the early version should stand up to scrutiny with Maun as the source.

I won't get the Maun scans for a few days so there's no rush with this but, as I say, I'd like to know what you think first. The merger is an interesting job but it's hard work. Thanks for your time and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:No Great Shaker I'm fine, thanks. You too, I hope. Yes, there was clearly enough going on in 1744 for it to merit its own article. I'd suggest that a brief summary of that season should still appear in the merged article for 1726-63 (or whatever the period was), with a "See also" link pointing people to the detailed article. Rowland Bowen wrote an article for Wisden 1965 (p135) entitled "Cricket in the 17th and 18th Centuries", which might come in useful. I'm not sure if he wrote his before or after his book on the history of the game. It's available online here: [1] In the same Wisden (p145) is "Dates in Cricket History" by H.S. Altham, which also appears in the 1978 edition, possibly in expanded form. It has quite a lot on the evolution of the Laws. From 1978, it's online here: [2] You'll see it has quite a lot on 1744. Love's poem about the big match is worth mentioning, as it's quite famous. (Talking of the Laws, I've just noticed that our article on the Laws of Cricket has an alarming number of citations from that same source that fails WP:RS. JH (talk page) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JH. Fine too, thanks. Those Wisden articles are just what's needed. It still surprises me how old cricket's history is – in comparison, there is really very little to be said about football before the 1850s. I'll do as you suggest with a "see also" from the history back to each individual review that is retained and include a summary of the year's events in the history. I hope the Maun scans will provide the needed WP:V at the Laws article. I gather his books have won various prizes for research. Well, thank you very much once again. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, JH. Just to let you know I've got the scans and the scale of the work is an eye-opener. Scholarly would best describe it as it is a comprehensive reproduction of every known reference per calendar year, plus original sources and some explanatory notes (actually, I think there may not be enough of the latter). The full text of the 1744 Laws is in an appendix. I've made a start on the 1744 article and the Laws section in the history. Maun is going to cover everything but I'll need a bit of time to study it all and decide how best to apply it. That's it for today, though. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:No Great Shaker Excellent! The banner at the start of the 1744 article saying that the article needs to be merged perhaps should be removed before someone takes you up on it and then deletes the article! Regarding the 1729 bat, of course a bat shaped like a hockey stick makes perfect sense given that bowling at that time was all along the ground. I've sometimes wondered if cricket might have had bowls and stoolball as its two parents. JH (talk page) 09:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of clearing the notice. Done now. It would make sense if bowls came first, as that is a target sport, and then someone with a stick intervening to try and stop the ball reaching its target. John Major discusses all this at the start of his book and concludes that cricket is one variation of something he calls club-ball, others being golf, tennis, hockey and rounders/baseball. He also mentions stoolball. It's interesting and it would be good if we could somehow find out. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I’m afraid I’ve reverted your addition of the above to the alumni for Monmouth School for Boys. Before taking this to GA, the Alumni section was full of unsourced entries. A lot of time was spent sourcing every single one. Do please add Mr Johnson back in, just put a Reliable Source with it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martin Johnson (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York. 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) 06:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit. There is no need to "avoid redirects". Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JH, and thanks once more for your help and encouragement with this review article. I think it's finished at last unless other sources can be used but the Maun extract looks comprehensive. I've tried to keep everything in summary form but with the main features of the season given what I hope is sufficient coverage. I think it certainly was a pivotal season and I'm reliably informed (though it would be WP:OR to say so in the article) that the big match on 18 June was a real groundbreaker for cricket. Please let me know if you have any feedback which will certainly be useful. Thanks again. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:No Great Shaker Thanks. It was a pleasure to do a bit to help, but 90% of the - excellent - work has been down to you. I think the attendance of the Prince of Wales at that big match shows how pivotal it was. Love's poem was also important, of course. I think it would be safe to go further than we do, and say it was the first significant piece of writing on the game, whether poetry or prose. But of course that would need a citation. JH (talk page) 16:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your contributions to The Library, greatly appreciated :) StickyWicket (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StickyWicket My pleasure. I surprised myself by quite how many cricket books I had accumulated over the last 50-odd years. And that's excluding ephemera like magazines and benefit brochures. JH (talk page) 08:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my who's / whose edit on the Lord's article. I tried it both ways in preview, could not work out which was right. I'd reckon myself a reasonable writer and punctuator a lot of time but just couldn't sort that one out! --Bcp67 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bcp67 You're welcome. I think "who's" is only used as an abbreviation for "who is" and the possessive is always "whose". JH (talk page) 18:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spencer Ponsonby-Fane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Ward.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates on the Woodcock article. Have only just now come across the news of his death. Fine man, from little personal knowledge I had (met him one day walking to the MCG during the 1982-83 Test match), and superb writer. Generous too, helping me in the late 80s when our regional museum in Tasmania had an exhibition about trout fishing. He sent us a couple of photos he'd taken, including one of Botham with his catch. In my opinion, John Woodcock is not well enough known and hopefully, we'll see perhaps an anthology of his work appear in the next few years. Cheers from Launceston, Tas.RossRSmith (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RossRSmith Thanks. He seems to have been a very modest man who preferred to keep a low profile, which perhaps explains why he isn't that well known outside of readers of The Times. JH (talk page) 15:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jhall1. Just wondering if you have any books which might go into some detail on Victor Cannings? I'm currently expanding his article, but sources are a little recent. StickyWicket (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: There's a couple of brief mentions in the "Counties: Hampshire" section of Barclays World of Cricket, both on p384. "In 1950 'Shack'... was joined in the county side by V. H. D. Cannings, a Hampshire man by birth who had had a season or two with Warwickshire. This was to prove an important capture." And in the next para, concerning 1951: "Shackleton and Cannings were already one of the best opening attacks in the country, both craftsmen at using the seam." For book details, sea the Library section of the Cricket Talk page. I was hoping to find something in "Arlott on Cricket", as he was a Hampshire man, but no luck. A slightly belated Merry Christmas! JH (talk page) 10:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankd for those, I have mentioned in 1951 how they were considered one of the best opening attacks in county cricket. Had expected a cricketer of Cannings' importance to be mentioned in more Hampshire-specific sources, but weirdly isn't! Belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! StickyWicket (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added a note about Tutu living in Cranleigh. Could you correct the reference date please, it currently reads 1938. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Murgatroyd49 Thanks for spotting that. Now fixed. I copied and pasted another reference as a "boilerplate", but in editing it the original's year slipped through. JH (talk page) 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JH, and thank you for your message. Hope you are well and keeping safe. I made a mistake in merging that article. It just needs a bit of work to bring it up to scratch. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:No Great Shaker I'm fine, thanks, and I hope you are too. JH (talk page) 21:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, thanks. Very busy, though, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JH. I don't know if you recall but, two years ago, we mentioned this chap when we were discussing the GAR of History of cricket to 1725. I've just been on the phone with a friend who's come across this while he's been researching the history of sport in Norfolk. Not only a mention of Paston but a photo of his actual letter. So, I'll put it to good use and will see if the main story could be useful in the Fuller Pilch article.

It's funny this should crop up today because, yesterday, I was reading an article about MCC which mentions its foundation in 1787 and the opening of the original Lord's. I'd say that was a very important event in cricket's history so I've taken the merger tag out of 1787 English cricket season. I'll put that next in the list and see what I can do to improve it. Not sure when but I will get around to it.

Hope you are well. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:No Great Shaker Thanks. That Norfolk Record Office article is fascinating. Unfortunately my eyesight isn't up to reading the contents of Sir Robert's letter! I agree that the 1787 article merits its own article.

I'm fine, thanks, and I hope you are too. JH (talk page) 15:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good too, thank you. No, my eyes can't handle that letter, either, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no chat! I've emailed you on a non-WP related Surrey matter (I've lost your email, so I've sent it to the email linked to your account here). Sarastro (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think that you could add entries to disappeared lists. I have my hands full with editing and can only do so much at a time. I would be very thankful for any help that you could give me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Davidgoodheart I'm afraid that disappeared lists isn't really an interest of mine, and also I don't really have the time. I only noticed the Paul Stern one because bridge is one of my interests and I had originally created his article. JH (talk page) 17:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm just wondering if you might have some book sources which might be able to expand his article a little more. Might see if I can get this to GA, but will definitely need some expansion and a little more detail prior. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AssociateAffiliate I must admit I've never heard of him, which doesn't seem very promising, but I'll look in the indices of my most promising books. JH (talk page) 19:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AssociateAffiliate Sorry, I looked in half a dozen of the most likely books, but he didn't get so much as a mention. JH (talk page) 20:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. He is a bit of an information black hole, considering he's a Test cricketer (albeit those matches gained Test status later on) and was quite an important administrator. StickyWicket (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AssociateAffiliate Your best bet might be to contact the Hampshire CCC archivist/librarian, assuming that they have one. JH (talk page) 08:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Best wishes. 2.99.210.156 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Foot (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Softly, Softly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heather Knight.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Describing it as a large village is subjective, there is no objective definition of what a large village/town/city is. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Murgatroyd49 I'd say that calling a village "large" when it has over 10,000 inhabitants is hardly subjective, but it's not important enough to be worth prolonging the argument so I yield. JH (talk page) 09:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just convention not to use such terms on wikipedia. The problems inevitably arise at the margins with disagreements over exactly when a settlement can be described as large (or small). Easier to let the reader decide for themself. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your note. A couple of my chums in the ACS helped out with the research for this one. I expect we could add much more. If you spot anything that needs fine-tuning, or if you have anything about the Surrey teams of the time, please feel free to join in. Thanks very much and all the best. Batagur baska (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Cricket Newsletter – Issue I, December 2024 • Published by the Cricket WikiProject • • About the project • Newsroom • Subscribe • Archives •

Annual newsletter to be lauched [edit] WikiProject Cricket's annual newsletter titled The Stump Sapient is slated to be launched in December 2024. Following is a list of things that are to be included in the newsletter. Your contribution by editing the newsletter is appreciated. Project news: Project news from WP:CRIC including the list of Awards presented in 2024 and the final results of Contests held in 2024. Article news: Article news from WP:CRIC including list of FAC, FLC, FPC, PR, GAN, ITN, RD etc. from 2024. Cricket news: Summary of International Cricket events took place in 2024 from T20 World Cups to WTC pathway. You're receiving this message because, you've been added to the mailing list and will receive the newsletter. Tell others about the newsletter as well. Thank You! Upcoming contests [edit] Cricket Picture of the Year 2024: Nominations will open up in mid-October. Cricket WikiContest 2025: More details will be revealed soon. Visit the contests page for the latest information. Ongoing discussions [edit] A discussion about merging the child WikiProjects WP:IPL, WP:BPL, WP:PSL and WP:LPL back into WP:CRIC as taskforces is currently ongoing in the project talk page. • Contribute to the newsletter • Subscribe to the newsletter • Join the WikiProject • Project discussions • Contests • You're receiving this message because, you've been added to the mailing list and will receive the newsletter. Tell others about the newsletter as well. Thank You!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Picture of the Year 2024 Nominations open from 15 to 31 October 2024 Submit your nominations here • Organized by the Cricket WikiProject • • About the project • Contests • Mailing list • CPOTY 2024 • • Contest coordinators: AssociateAffiliate and Vestrian24Bio •

– MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Following the discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, set of new task forces have been created and has been added to the WikiProject banner as well.
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/ICC cricket task force
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Women's cricket task force
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Africa cricket task force
  4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Americas cricket task force
  5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Asia cricket task force
  6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/EAP cricket task force
  7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Europe cricket task force
• Everyone interested in the topic are welcome to join the task forces!
• Also, you are requested to mark the articles under the scope of each task force by adding the relevant parameters to the talkpage banner:

  |ICC=yes for ICC cricket task force

  |Women's=yes for Women's cricket task force

  |Africa=yes for Africa cricket task force

  |Americas=yes for Americas cricket task force

  |Asia=yes for Asia cricket task force

  |EAP=yes for EAP cricket task force

  |Europe=yes for Europe cricket task force

This message was sent to you because you have been added to the WikiProject Cricket's news mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jhall1, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]