Talk:List of England Twenty20 International cricketers

Featured List Removal Candidate

This article's Featured list removal candidate page is still open at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers. I encourage any contributors to visit the page in an attempt to resolve any outstanding comments before the nomination is closed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of date

OK, enough. Bencherlite^Talk 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when I said "OK, enough", I meant it. I didn't mean "Please carry on sniping at each other inside a collapsed box." I've had enough of this bickering appearing on my watchlist. I'm removing all comments added since I closed the discussion. Get off this article talk page; if you want to continue the discussion somewhere else, feel free, but "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of England Twenty20 International cricketers article", as you should both know. WP:LASTWORD is worth a read sometime. Bencherlite^Talk 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Every sentence bar one in the second paragraph is out of date, as are most of the captions. Also how can this article not mention the fact that England won the 2010 World T20? Finally, the note makes little sense as Lumb and Yardy weren't on the United Arab Emirates and Bangladesh tour. --88.111.62.165 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) WP:SOFIXIT, you're experienced enough. Once again you go to all the trouble of checking the facts, but none of the trouble of bothering to fix them, which is a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC) It's actually very easy to check all the facts and probably took less time than your response above. If you want to respond here, rather than improving the article, that's your choice but as is mine to point out the errors rather than correct them. --88.111.62.165 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, don't worry, I think we all know you no longer wish to contribute as constructively as you "did before". Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) If TRM asks someone to remove a full stop that's perfectly fine, but when somebody else points out a flaw it's considered unconstructive. With hypocrisy like this, is it any wonder that people get so frustated with this site's editors that they chose to leave. --88.111.62.165 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Chalk and cheese. I get asked to review lists and I do so, thoroughly, and I don't leave cryptic notes, I tell people what I think they need to do. What I don't do is tag featured material, leave cryptic clues as to I think is wrong with them, edit anonymously and admit to not wishing to edit Wikipedia as construcitvely as you used to when you used your account. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I think my comments above are very clear, but if you need clarification you can always ask, rather than assuming I'm being deliberately cryptic. If we're going back over old comments, how about looking at what you said in this article's FLC about updating. --88.111.62.165 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Seriously, your hit-and-run comments as an anon IP are really rather disruptive. If you have specific issues then please be specific. Not to worry, I'll make the changes tomorrow. How can I talk to an anon IP who changes his IP every day or so? Why not just log back into your old account that we're all acutely aware of, and start being properly constructive? I'm not sure why you think you're being anonymous? And it would be so much better for all of us if you started fixing the things you know that are wrong. Perhaps you've forgotten what editing a wiki means. Collaboration. Not hit-and-run anon cryptic comments. But once again, cheers, we'll fix up your "concerns". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I hope I've addressed your concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) The article is out of date so I added the approriate template and left the reasons on the talkpage, I really don't see how that can be considered disruptive. My comments can't have been that cryptic as you solved all the issues, bar one. You have assumed that I'm not using an account, there's advantages to using both an account and IP address, why limit yourself to one? --88.111.34.112 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you'd be "generous" enough to tell me which issue I have left to solve. Once again, please try to work collaboratively, this means explicitly communicating your reasons for tagging the page. This isn't supposed to be like the Da Vinci Code. You use multiple IP addresses (presumably because you don't have a static assignment) which makes communication with you very difficult, not to mention that since you have an account, one which is very obviously yours, there seems little point in skirting round the issue. I can't fathom why you appear to be attempting to avoid scrutiny by editing anonymously. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Did I get it right this time? Did I? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) You did get the right one. I really don't see how my initial comments were that cryptic, I could have listed which sentences were out of date but as so many were there seemed little point. It's obvious to you, yes, but not for everybody else, and this is just one page of many I have edited, the rest of my editing is completely anonymous. Looking at WP:BENEFITS, all bar one (the watchlist) of the things listed I really don't consider necessary for what I want to do here. In fact one of the supposed benefits "More easily review their own contributions" is a disadvanatge in my eyes, for example looking at your editing I (and anybody else) can see you got less than six hours sleep last night and you've pretty much spent all your day on a computer. As an IP, I'm supposedly the one who has a lack of privacy but how many edits have I made today? Only two? --88.111.57.95 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Yawn. Of course "less than six hours" doesn't equal the 7 hours 26 minutes I was away, but perhaps your fact checking has finally hit the skids. And it may have crossed your mind that I work in computing? Perhaps not. And that the work I was "constructively" working on today turns out to be the worst massacre in England since Hungerford. That's important. Snide tagging isn't. But whatever. Look forward to seeing you tagging more featured work with your "less than constructive" attitude in the future. For someone who claims to have retired, you're around here quite a bit. My work here is done. For the time being, of course! The Rambling Man (talk) Well I had assumed you had enough of a life that you didn't check Wikipedia as soon as you got up, perhaps I was wrong. I said you had spent all day on a computer, I didn't pass any judgment so there's no need to get so defensive. --88.111.57.95 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment on the content, not the contributor. Are you my mother, how do you know when I go to bed and when I get up or what I do for a living? And what does it have to do with you? If you think documenting the second-worst massacre of civilians on English soil since Hungerford means I don't have "a life" then that's entirely your choice, I happen to think it deserved some serious attention. I look forward to the next cryptic tagging of yours, with you on-going "less than constructive" attitude. If you need to be reminded which account you have "retired" from, just let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC) The point I was making referred to the privacy argument regarding accounts, if you tie yourself down to one account you open yourself up to people tracking such details, I never commented on what you do for a living. The massacre you refer to has nothing to do with the time you got up or how soon you checked Wikipedia, because it hadn't happened then, so why bring it into the discussion? I retired many months ago and am now editing again, so what? people change their mind. --88.111.57.95 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Well enjoy. The rest of us who want to edit entirely constructively (unlike your self-confessed desire "less than constructively") will do our best to interpret your drive-by anon IP-hopping featured-article tagging activities. Nothing more to say, is there? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Well if you're making claims that asking somebody to remove a full stop is "editing entirely constructively" then I think this discussion may continue. --88.111.57.95 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Well if you were aware of the WP:MOS which discourages double full-stops and discourages full stops in sentence fragments, and then you read WP:WIAFL where it says lists need to comply with the WP:MOS, perhaps you'll get a grip on where my reviews come from. At least I explain what needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) So you couldn't have removed the full stop yourself? --88.111.57.95 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Subsequent off-topic conversation removed. BencherliteTalk 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Joe Root

You have Joe Root with 482 agg runs after today ....it should be 488 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.204.41 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of England Twenty20 International cricketers. 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/20150714131440/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbowling
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/individual/list_captains.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Bkeeper%3D1%3Borderby%3Dplayer%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dfielding

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) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of England Twenty20 International cricketers. 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/20170715215924/http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/caps.html?country=1%3Bclass%3D3 to http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/caps.html?country=1%3Bclass%3D3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170917034430/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/batting.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/batting.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170917034404/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/bowling.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/bowling.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam

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) 16:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of England Twenty20 International cricketers. 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/20150714131440/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120722053454/http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3;team=1;template=results;type=bowling to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbowling
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120715185815/http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/individual/list_captains.html?class=3;id=1;type=team to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/individual/list_captains.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120720002922/http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3;filter=advanced;keeper=1;orderby=player;team=1;template=results;type=fielding to http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=3%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Bkeeper%3D1%3Borderby%3Dplayer%3Bteam%3D1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dfielding
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170715215924/http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/caps.html?country=1%3Bclass%3D3 to http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/caps.html?country=1%3Bclass%3D3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170917034430/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/batting.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/batting.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170917034404/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/bowling.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/averages/bowling.html?class=3%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam

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) 15:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)