Talk:Michael Gough (cricketer)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by AssociateAffiliate in topic Controversial Decision of Rohit Sharma
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Gough (cricketer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330201852/http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2014/media-releases/83319/icc-announces-match-officials-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015 to http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2014/media-releases/83319/icc-announces-match-officials-for-icc-cricket-world-cup-2015
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Frequent Vandalism
editThis article is currently facing frequent vandalism due to a recent incident. Should this be semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauras Ranade (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's logged at WP:RFPP and WP:ANI, so hopefully it'll calm down soon. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He don't like Indian crickets so specially and specifically Rohit Sharma 157.39.224.105 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Controversial Decision of Rohit Sharma
editReason why this is worth noting. 1. This decision is taken through DRS. on-field umpire's wrong decision may be acceptable. 2. He changed the Decision of on-field umpire without surety.
many other umpire's Wikipedia pages consist this type of content. --Anandjpanchal (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- One bad decision that had zero impact on the game isn't really worth noting. If it was in the final, and it cost the side the trophy, then maybe it would be worth adding. I'll raise this at the Cricket Project for more input. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Have a read of Wikipedia:Referee/Criticism. Umpires make 1,000s of decisions, some may be borderline or even outright wrong, but we don't need to mention them here unless they are clearly worthy of note. Spike 'em (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly not worth covering on the article - it's a single incident in a long career and ultimately inconsequential. The whole shebang is daft. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly not worth noting. Why? Because bad decisions happen all the time. Has this or will this have any lasting consequences beyond the WC? No. StickyWicket (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)