User talk:Quantummeruit

Hi Quantummeruit, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Test

Hello Quantummeruit, I see that you have been active in commenitng on this article and added the text:

• Sachin Tendulkar (36) given not out by Steve Bucknor - Tendulkar was struck lbw low on the pad in front of the stumps by the second ball of the 79th over of the Indian innings bowled by Michael Clarke. Bucknor adjudged it not out. Tendulkar went on to score 154 not out.

to the article. As you will know from the Talk page, I was in favour of including this edit of yours as I believe it presents an objective account of all of the umpiring mistakes which occurred during the match, some of which went against Australia, but most against India.

I see that this has decision has now been deleted again.

Unfortunately my wife seems to have erased my footage of the match from my SkyBox here in Europe (although I am trying to get a copy from a friend) so I have not been able to review the recording and reconfirm all details. Your description of the Tendulkar decision matches my memory, but I was wondering whether you have seen the decision discussed in any media commentary? In any event, if you are confident of the facts, I would encourage you to reinclude the decision in the article. If you want to reply to this post, please add a message on my Talk page. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 07:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your post. Your references are excellent. I did in fact find the Cricinfo reference myself today so have already reinstated the dismissal in the article (although I expect those minded to be selective may remove it again). I am turning in for the night now but maybe it would be a good idea to add your references as a footnote to the Tendulkar decision in the article if you are at the start of your day. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Ponting

The section you have added is way over the top in terms of detail required in a biographical article. Most of it doesn't even relate to Ponting. All the information you wish to include is in the Second Test article. This article should certainly mention the controversy, but as a summary and point readers via a link to the main article. I suggest that you read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on Biographies of living people and Undue Weight. I am removing the material again, please do not re add it in the current format. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert it again. Wikipedia has a three revert rule but surely you can condense the section down. I agree with your concerns about balance, but the beauty of wikilinks is that the detail on any topic can be referred to via a link rather than a rewrite of material from elsewhere. Secondly, how does Bucknors decisions, the use of technology and so on relate to Ponting's actions. A better version would discuss the topic generally, along the lines of

A series of controversial incidents in the Second Test at the WACA in 2008 saw an accusation from the Indian captain, Anil Kumble that Ponting's team was "[not] playing in the spirit of the game". There was a call from prominent English Australian journalist, Peter Roebuck for Ponting's sacking as captain, however he was defended by Cricket Australia Chief Executive Officer James Sutherland and other members of the Australian press contingent, such as Malcolm Conn.

This is a hell of a lot briefer, is still balanced, provides a link to an article on the controversy and does not have the whole Ponting article unbalanced by one incident in his career spanning nearly 15 years. Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)