User talk:Marplesmustgo

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Petrb (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for identifiing your modification as vandalism while it wasn't, next time please do not just remove piece of article without filling in why you wiped whole section Petrb (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Metropolitan councils control 1903.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Metropolitan councils control 1903.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

		Red Link Removal Barnstar
		For creating articles on outstanding John Player League pages. Well done and keep it up! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:1995 English cricket season

Template:1995 English cricket season has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:1996 English cricket season

Template:1996 English cricket season has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2000 English cricket season

Template:2000 English cricket season has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BB

You bad boy. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Marplesmustgo, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1977 Benson & Hedges Cup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asif Iqbal and David Steele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redistribution of Seats (Ireland) Act 1918, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louth (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1981 Benson & Hedges Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Rose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1906 election map

Well spotted, the map was not all my own work. Also, I should have sought permission as I had for the Scotland map.Graemp (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motions of no confidence

Thank you for starting 1886 vote of no confidence against the government of the Marquess of Salisbury. You may wish to comment on some of the suggestions which I have made at Template talk:Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom. Alekksandr (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Maryland, 1848

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United States presidential election in Maryland, 1848, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://us.wow.com/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Delaware,_1848.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1982 Benson & Hedges Cup

added links pointing to David Evans (cricketer), Brian Rose, Peter Denning, David Shepherd, Paul Parker and Peter Wight

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1984 Benson & Hedges Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve O'Shaughnessy. 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) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1925 County Championship

Please do not blank pages, as you did to 1925 County Championship, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1986 Benson & Hedges Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Ellison. 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) 15:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1989 Benson & Hedges Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eddie Hemmings. 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) 10:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northwood. 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) 10:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marplesmustgo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tour summaries

Hello there. Great work on the tour summaries which have needed doing for a long time. I took the liberty of adding the Wisden match summary to the scorecard link in each of the matches under South African cricket team in England in 1947, so you get both the stats and the prose account. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Marplesmustgo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Secretary to the Treasury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julian Smith (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) 09:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1984–85, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoff Lawson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topics for ANI

this diff In which you used a racist slur to refer to another editor and this diff, for which you used an IP log in to again refer to an editor using a racist slur are being reported to ANI. I'm required to leave a notification of the incident report here. You have also been informed of the abusive behavior here on your IPs talk page. Edaham (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI NOTICE

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding use of racist and abusive language. The thread is Use of racist slurs in edit summaries of a conversation about a sporting event. The discussion is about the topic Talk:New Zealand cricket team in South Africa in 1994–95. Edaham (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your grossly abusive approach to interaction with other editors is simply not acceptable. If you continue with more of the same after this block expires, you should expect an indefinite block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be the voice of reason and calm, when my attempt to add the 8 or so cricket tours (out of 800 or so, since cricket tours became a thing in the 1870s) - given these tours took place in the 1990s in immediate post-apartheid South Africa, not in an obscure outpost of cricket - are not deleted. Any decision to this effect is arbitrary and rational. Boing! [1] Marplesmustgo (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block and cricket

Hello, and yes, I agree that Americans are by and large ignorant of cricket, its rules, and its traditions. You seem to have done very good work on the cricket pages, and I can imagine it is frustrating to have that work either reverted or wrongly-edited by Americans. The thing about Wikipedia is that we are supposed to make every editor feel comfortable about editing (yeah, like that works, but the key is "trying"). Americans are touchy nowadays about being called names, even when the name isn't a slur or demeaning let alone when they think it is. So maybe give them all a benefit of a doubt, politely point them to links about cricket rules and etiquette, and then hope that Wikipedia editors have enough good sense to at least understand a little of what you have just linked. Bottom line, please be more polite and realize that even edit summaries are communications to fellow Wikipedians, and then pray that they will move on to rugby pages. You are far too productive and good an editor to lose because of feelings being hurt. Thanks for your fine work here. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're also touchy about people generalizing us and our sensitivities. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unacceptable attacks include "ignorant American cretin" here, "gormless twat" and "moronic prick" here. Those are totally unacceptable, and you absolutely don't have to be "touchy" to find them offensive - and implying that that's all it is is also unacceptable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are all wrong to say about fellow editors here (although I personally wouldn't find them offensive or at least not complain about them up-line). That's why a block is totally justified, and I'm just trying to say hello to a fellow editor in trouble and explain that no, those things are not acceptable, and if the behavior continues then the editor may be banned from Wikipedia which would be a loss to the project. Call me a good cop in this situation, but trying for the same result: a change in communication towards "assuming good faith". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you're trying to help, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not give a damn for your nationality. What I mind is the irrationality of deleting the 8 or 10 tours of post-apartheid SA as Wikipedia articles when, frankly, every tour (800 or so) in cricket history by an important side (i.e. a Test side or an international side) has a page on here, even tours which did not feature Tests, has a page here. It is irrational that the creation of the pages for those 8 or 10 tours has been deleted. Marplesmustgo (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Favonian (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have blocked you for disruptive editing, including personal attacks, incivility, non-collaboration, and battleground mentality. I came very close to indefinitely blocking you. If you persist after this block expires, the next block will likely be indefinite. Based on your conduct, I strongly urge you to remain civil in any comments here while you are blocked, including in any appeals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]

1) I am not at all sure if I can even reply to to you, given my block.

2) You seem to not understand what is going on here. Adding information, which I have tried to do, is being reverted as soon as it is added. This is hardly acceptable. It is not as if I am trying to add spam or nonsense. I am trying to add facts and, for whatever reason, having it reverted as soon as added. Furthermore, it appears to be a point of principle amongst a certain group of posters that facts added to a certain topic - i.e. Test cricket in South Africa in the 1990s - is to be reverted asap. How should one feel at this? Marplesmustgo (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your rudeness and your insults, I really don't know why I should try to help you, but I will. If you have an issue about some Wikipedia content (which in this case appears to be about some cricket tours), here are some things you should not do:

Don't edit closed archive pages to try to continue the dispute there - for one thing, people are not going to see it.
Don't harass, attack and insult people, and don't order people around.

Here's what you should do:

Start a new discussion on an appropriate page, not on a closed archive page - for example, the talk page of the relevant article, and perhaps ask for help at WP:WikiProject Cricket.
Be civil and polite, be constructive, and also listen.
Discuss it calmly and seek consensus, and accept that consensus when it has formed.

I can promise you, if you carry on with your current approach when this block expires, you are almost certain to be blocked indefinitely. The choice is yours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And with this, are you not prepared to act if I object to things, and my objections are deleted from the pages they were written on, and it is then presented as if there is no objection? It is difficult to think that there is not a certain group of users whose opinions are privileged, and if their opinions are challenged, the challengers are either blocked, or their comments deleted as if they had never been posted. Goodness me, it is easy to have a consensus if objectors are blocked or their comments deleted! Marplesmustgo (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, to further this, do see the page of User talk:Onel5969 where my comment is deleted with a comment that I am an "uncivilised moron" - for telling others to not delete pages I create. Marplesmustgo (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've given you my advice. Take it or leave it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have given you my reasons why blocking me is absurd. Revert it or have the alternative. Don't just dismiss it smugly when I have given you reason for the action. Marplesmustgo (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more constructive approach might be, once your current block is done, to take one of the tours which has not yet been written about - say, the West Indies tour of 98/99 (which is massively significant given the history of SA and WI cricket) - and actually create an article about it which does something other than throw stats at the user. Or you could take the Indian tour of 92/93 which exists as a very, very poor article and develop it - the text from the History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000 article would be an improvement - we're in the ridiculous position of having more context in the parent article than in the supposedly more detailed child article.

In other words, show us what you can do rather than shout at us that it's so unfair. Develop a reputation as someone who can make sensible choices and write reasonable, sourced articles. You might then have more chance at winning an argument. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should do exactly that - and it is wrong to pretend the articles or data I add are just "stats thrown at the user" - if, when I did, the articles were not immediately deleted and I blocked for it. What you call a shout of unfair is a howl against verifiable data, deleted. [[2]] is a nice juicy example of what happens when I try. Marplesmustgo (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked for your article additions, you were blocked (as a view of your block log clearly shows) for "Personal attacks or harassment" and "Disruptive editing: including personal attacks, incivility, non-collaboration, battleground mentality". When your current block expires, you will need to change your approach to interaction with others if you want to continue as a contributor here. I sincerely hope you will change that initial approach, and that you will have a long and constructive time here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So edit in a way which demonstrates that you can create articles that are of a decent standard then. I've clearly shown you what can be done with a few reasonable sources. For the article you link to I've added three reasonable sources as a starting point - that took me, iirc, less than 15 minutes to source and add. That's nothing - the Australian tour article took me a day on and off to work up iirc. But I solved all the issues anyone else had with the page in 15 minutes simply by knowing where one source would be and by finding two others. And this is before we even get to the dope smoking which is a key notability point for this article I would say. It's a long way from finished, but you've been shown a way of creating articles which do more than add scorecards and which actually summarise what occurred - and there are few of those about cricket on this place I'd say. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dope smoking? What on earth are you talking about? There should be no objection, in the absence of an extant Wikipedia page, to one recording the results of the Test matches in any given series. Where does dope come in? Uncantabrigian (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three New Zealanders were suspended as a result of smoking dope during the tour. It's one of the most notable things about it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Marplesmustgo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1984–85 Four-Nations Cup moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 1984–85 Four-Nations Cup, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (1929 United States gubernatorial elections) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 1929 United States gubernatorial elections.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MainlyTwelve}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1984–85 Four-Nations Cup (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:1984–85 Four-Nations Cup and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:1984–85 Four-Nations Cup, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and will be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About 1984–85 Four-Nations Cup

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 1984–85 Four-Nations Cup a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to know nothing about cricket, and it is disgraceful that you were allowed to veto my article on the 1984–85 Four-Nations Cup while knowing nothing about cricket or even knowing that some sources exist behind a paywall. I don't know what gratification you got from trying to veto my article but that veto has been removed. Shame on you. Don't meddle with Wikipedia articles that deal with subjects you don't understand. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve West Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 1985–86

Hello, Marplesmustgo,

Thanks for creating West Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 1985–86! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add clear references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Re|Boleyn}} You will note every potted/condensed scorecard in those pages has a place for the 'scorecard', which is usually a link to a CricketArchive or a Cricinfo page with a full scorecard. That essentially is a footnote although it does not come over as such.

Each of the international pages I am beginning at the moment also seems to have at least three references in the references list:Wisden. Cricinfo, CricketArchive. These function at footnotes even if not marked as such.

Each page I create at the moment therefore has three clear references for the tournament or series as a whole, along with further references for individual matches.

Good enough for me.Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 1988-89 Sharjah Cup

Hello, Marplesmustgo,

Thanks for creating 1988-89 Sharjah Cup! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the words 'Wisden report' and 'Scorecard'. They act as inline citations even though in Wikipedia they do not show up as such. There are therefore plenty of references given. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nehru Cup (cricket), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asoka de Silva (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) 09:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (1989-90 Champions Trophy) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 1989-90 Champions Trophy.

User:Onel5969 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

It would help if you put what sport this tournament was about in the lead.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'cricket' shows up 13 times in the article. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian election maps

Australia hasn't used FPTP since 1918 so why are all your captions including claims every subsequent election used it? Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The captions are not claiming that. The maps show clearly it is the primary vote, TPP not being available until 1983. Marplesmustgo (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest: I don't see the value in these maps. Whoever won the state is, as the caption points out, utterly irrelevant to the election (it's not like a US election). Maps showing who won an electorate would be valuable; maps showing who won a state don't tell us much. Frickeg (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the issue Timrollpickering raised, and have corrected it. With regard to the point Frickeg raises, we have no electorate maps for Australia between 1903 and 2007, and so these maps serve the same point the maps on Canadian federal election pages serve; to give some indication of the distribution of the vote across the country. Some information is better than none. Marplesmustgo (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that I agree in this case, and for the record I think the Canadian ones are fairly bad as well. I don't mean any disrespect to you here - they're well done and I certainly wouldn't have the skill to make them look so nice - but they are fundamentally inappropriate for the electoral system, and actually misleading (if I looked at that map, I would assume a proportional system - hence the disclaimers basically saying "this map doesn't actually mean anything"!). They also use different shading for strength of vote (never a good idea for the main electoral map), and worst of all are based on primary vote which gives a hugely wrong impression of actual results in a two-party sense (vastly understating Coalition strength in Victoria throughout the 1950s-70s, for example). No information is better than misleading information. Frickeg (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should enormously welcome someone with greater skill than me turning these Paint maps into SVGs, like Canada. I do not see they are misleading or that they give a mistaken impression for Victoria in the days of the Santamaria Party. For a start we have no TPP vote until 1984 so this is all we have to go on. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Marplesmustgo

Thank you for creating 1976 Indiana gubernatorial election.

User:Dps04, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dps04}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dps04 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese bot, go away. I neither want praise nor condemnation from a bot from the vile Chinese Communist dictatorship. Why don't you go and hang yourself? Marplesmustgo (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Marplesmustgo

Thank you for creating 1970 New Hampshire gubernatorial election.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please add the Elections and referendums Wikiproject to the talk page of future artiucles you create like this. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East Cornwall (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Just wanted to thank you for creating individual pages for many elections! It's also something I'm interested in - do you have a plan for which years you are covering, and which types of elections? Would be interested in potentially working together on this. Elliot321 (talk \| contribs) 01:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8

Categories in 2017 United States gubernatorial elections

Should

[[:Category:2017 elections in the United States]] and
[[:Category:Gubernatorial elections in the United States by year]]

be included if they are already in

[[:Category:2017 United States gubernatorial elections| ]]

? Or should we be doubling them like that? —GoldRingChip 22:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do leave it alone, as it conforms with the previous 200 years-worth of 'XXXX United States gubernatorial elections' pages (the XXXX's substituting for any year from 1810 to 2016) Marplesmustgo (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. I don't want to rock the boat here, but what SHOULD it be?? —GoldRingChip 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been restoring my changes, (e.g. here) but I still don't understand… aren't they redundant? —GoldRingChip 15:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are different things. If I could draw a Venn diagram I would show they are different things, but just because certain things interlock in a Venn diagram does not mean one covers the other, and indeed in Wikipedia just because one thing is a subset of an another doesn't mean the subset gets excluded. Why have a separate category for, eg, US Presidential elections when they all fall under US elections?

It is also quite suspicious you send me this when a rather arrogant poster is trying to get rid of these same categories from annual gubernatorial election pages I have just posted.Marplesmustgo (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: This editor is overcategorizing. Please go over to my talk page for more....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip, this editor "William" is an arrogant man who cannot cope with the fact that every page of the form "XXXX U.S. gubernatorial elections" is a member of a certain category, except the ones he, William, strips from that category. Please restore them to the norm. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1802 U.S. gubernatorial elections

I reported WilliamJE for edit warring. I'm not involved in the dispute so there's no need to try to defend your actions. Both of you are behaving inappropriately. Both of you should have discussed on the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting. I strongly advise not making any more reverts. Sundayclose (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to undo your most recent revert immediately. There's no guarantee, but it might help you avoid a block. Sundayclose (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't know which revert you're referring to, but I don't see I have said or done anything wrong or block-worthy. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose, the point I make is that every page that takes the form "XXXX gubernatorial elections", where XXXX is any year from 1904 or so (I haven't kept track of where this arrogant poster has got to) is a member of the category "Gubernatorial elections in the United States by year". I do not see why pages for years before 1904 should be removed from that category. With any reasonable explanation I might have left it alone. In the absence of one I impose the right. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of whose right or wrong. As I said, I'm not involved in the dispute so no need to try to explain. The issue is violating 3RR. That can get you blocked. I urge you to undo the last revert and raise this issue on the article's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really a regular Wikipedia user and if I am banned for a rule I don't understand, or for not going to "ANI" (an acronym which I don't know what it means, so be it). The fact is this arrogant fellow is wrong and should stop stripping the relevant category from certain pages. Can Wikipedia stop this? Or, given he is a regular user and I an infrequent one, does he get his wrong way just because I don't even know what the channels are to appeal his decision? So much for the open nature of this place.Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except now you should understand because I have explained. Read WP:3RR, and undo your last revert and raise the issue on the article's talk page. That's all I have to say. It's up to you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months 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 ~~~~}}. – bradv🍁 15:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marplesmustgo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is utterly disproportionate and completely childish - it has been used as an act of malicious revenge rather than in good faith. This is a 3-month block resulting from a single comment on the userpage of a user who has stopped posting.

Decline reason:

I have extended your block indefinitely. You are welcome to argue that it should be shortened back to three months, but you won't get there making requests like you did here. Yamla (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm glad you understand the reason for your block. I only wish you would understand why that kind of behaviour is a problem in a collaborative editing environment. This block isn't disproportionate at all – in fact, after your previous block you were told to expect an indefinite block next time. Regardless, if you can convince another administrator that you understand why you were blocked, will not do it again, and will instead make productive contributions, I will not stand in the way of an unblock. – bradv🍁 06:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment alone is enough to justify an indef block. Clearly, this user has failed to grasp the reasons for their blocks. I wouldn't endorse an unblock unless they acknowledge their poor behavior and stop trying to excuse it by going on about cricket test matches. —DoRD (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely object to being blocked on here for three months, and then, apparently indefinitely:

1) The charge against me is "Personal attacks" and "harassment". No actual evidence of wrongdoing has been presented.

2) If the charge is this post, then there are defences:

a) That user is someone who blocked me utterly wrongly and needlessly for a month. That user has now, having had certain admin privileges denied to him, gone off in a very public huff and no longer posts on Wikipedia. I felt there was a certain irony in someone who could block a user for no good purpose for a month flouncing off because his own posting was restricted.

b) Even if you think me gloating at that was a bit off, there were many ways of resolving the issue. My post could have been deleted, I could have received a ticking off, I could have been asked to apologise. A three-month ban, then extended to indefinite, was unwarranted.

3) If the charge is against some other post I should be told what post and what the issue is.

4) If the charge is "going on about test matches" perhaps DoRD might explain the problem? There is a very real issue on this site that tours of post-apartheid South Africa post-1992 are not recorded on this site. I haven't actually "gone on" about that subject for about 18 months, nor have I used it in appealing this ban; though I don't see why "going on" about it is a problem.

5) It will be noted I am working on a useful series regarding American gubernatorial elections. I don't see that that work, beneficial to an encyclopedia, should be held up through one throwaway remark.

6) If I am banned indefinitely, where is the incentive for me not to sign up under other names and continuing? What is your justification (if you take the view I will be blocked and banned at every turn for defying your unjust ban) for banning the posting of valuable work?

Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to sock will only backfire against your case. If there was even the slightest chance of your indefinite block being overturned before, well, now I am completely sure that will never happen. Sro23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:1972 DUMMY.png

The file File:1972 DUMMY.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

File marked as "useless outside of enwiki", meaning its value is limited. Given that this is orphaned, I see no reason for the file to exist.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. House Blaster^talk 00:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]