User talk:Loganberry/Archive6

World War One to World War I

Since 'World War I' is the name of the article, it seems to me that having one uniform reference to that article name is preferable to having many. Easier for the casual reader to catch on to what is being talked about ('this' war, not some other one) And 'I' was far predominate in usage even before I made my changes. Thanks. Hmains 03:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Joginder Rao

I am considering removing the "paraplegic" remark from this article. The obit in Indian Cricket says only that the injury ended his cricket career, and not that he was left paralyzed. According to IC, he took up golf and represented India in Pakistan and France while Wisden says that he took part in two wars. All this would have been impossible if the injury was as bad as CI implies it to be. 02:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin1107 (talk • contribs)

Re: Kevin Jarvis (Cricketer)

Hi, Yes you remember correctly, Kevin Jarvis is my Dad. That's a very substantial edit so I'll say thanks on his behalf. It's something I should have done a while ago but have still failed to find time for. As I was very young for most of his career I've passed on the link to him and asked him to have a look over it. I'll let you know what he thinks. Thanks again. sijarvis 11:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

remove erroneous apostrophe - sorry for the liberty!

Thanks for correcting my bad apostrophe in Talk:Test Match Special. I'll join you in your mission to stamp this kind of thing out! in recompense. PeterGrecian 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Thnx 4 telling me where to go

Brilliburger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliburger (talk • contribs)

Donald...

Hmmmm... I could have sworn that was in MOS somewhere! :) If it's not there I suspect it might be in a guideline somewhere else. As far as I know, most style manuals recommend no initial or concluding ellipses (e.g. http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaEllipses.htm). I know, for instance, the Chicago manual also says this. Mikker ^(...) 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blacon

I am the author of Blacon article to this date. The image was photographed and processed by me on August 24th 2006 on my camera, and as such, I have exclusive and explicit copyright to it. I relinquish all copyright under the GNU Free Documentation License, and offer it to the public for free acknowledged reproduction. I am Tony Swaine (Twinney12) and my email is [removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinney12 (talk • contribs)

Hi! Thanks for the suggestions for the Blacon Wiki, I have altered bits and added a footnote about the image.

However you altered North_West_England and changed it to England. It is more appropriate to have the North_West_England because it is a valid Wiki link/subject and is more focussed than the 'England' link. Also that is where we are!! I take your point about the 'folksey' tone of some of the Blacon page, and have corrected the tone somewhat.

Skier vs. Skyer

My "correction" was based on strict English rules and ignorance of that specific point in cricket. Actually, I was hoping someone would jump in, and you did. d:) But to those who don't know cricket, or don't know it well (as I demonstrated), there needs to be something there to indicate it's pronounced SKY-er rather than SKEE-er. I'm not quite sure how to do that without turning that little entry into an essay. If the "skier" spelling is more common, maybe you could say "skier (pronounced "skyer") or something like that. Wahkeenah 13:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's a fair assumption that the term "skyer" or "skier" in this context arose verbally before it showed up in print. It's funny that people have trouble with "innings" vs. "inning". Both are coined present-participles of "in" and both denote a set of at-bats. It's just that baseball decided to call one round of at-bats a single "inning". I think of the singular-plural British use as being equivalent to the baseball slang term "ups". A baseball team has a half-inning of at-bats, which are a team's "ups", as in up-to-bat. The term "frame" is often used to denote a baseball inning. I could go on about this. The point is that although the words are similar and are used in a similar way, baseball "inning" and cricket "innings" have a slightly different shade of meaning. Wahkeenah 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New Motorsport Nav Bar

Hi there,

Being the original perpetrator of the navigation bar on the Cadwell Park article I’d just like to say yours is a vast improvement. It was just something I played with at the time to allow easier movement between circuits.

Good work :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocjh1 (talk • contribs)

Donald Bradman

Nice edit. --Dweller 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Astley, Worcestershire

Thanks for prompting me to remember my obligation to include references to my sources - I've done the necessary on the Astley, Worcestershire article. I also owe you thanks for correcting the licence information on the geograph image I'd uploaded and used on that page (you corrected 2.5 to 2.0). In view of that, I've gone through (using AWB) and corrected the licence on the other hundred-odd geograph images I've uploaded, which all had the same error. Cheers - Euchiasmus 20:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

English cricket

Well, the sites kinda look the same. That beign said though, I'll make sure to follow that policy, I wasn't aware of it when I made the edit. (From AWB's winsow it looked like I was capitalizing part of the article rather than an externl link, sorry). --Wizardman 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/Loganberry/Archive6, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:AIF Cricket XI (AWM D00685).jpg

Hi, the record of the image in the Australian War Memorial's online database has a copyright status of 'clear' (to verify, please go to: http://www.awm.gov.au/database/collection.asp, click 'collections search' and then do an advanced search on the ID number D00685). Given the age of the photo it will be out of copyright in both Britain and Australia. According to the email I recieved from the AWM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_Dowling/Australian_War_Memorial_Email ) it's OK to use such images for non-commercial purposes. Moreover, I don't think that the AWM really has any say in the matter given that the image is listed as being out of copyright on their own website. There was a discussion of this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Cowrapowcamp.jpg where it was agreed that the AWM doesn't really have the right to impose conditions on such images. --Nick Dowling 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the image tag. According to British copyright law this image is out of copyright in Britain as it's over 70 years old and the Australian laws may apply anyway as it has been published in Australia. --Nick Dowling 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

you

you Are a fucking arse hole and a fucking piece of shit and i hate you u fucking cunt.

Does this count as an Editor Review? =;P Loganberry (Talk) 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)