User talk:Jguk/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12

Australian cricketers[edit]

Hello, could you have a look at a question I posted at User_talk:Sam_Vimes#Australian_cricketers please. - Iantalk 06:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continues there. - Iantalk 08:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei Fred Bauder 14:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The current BC-BCE edit war[edit]

It seems to me that the best way to squash an edit war is to agree to revert all edits to the situation pre Soltan state. I fully understand why you have gone beyond Soltan's edits towards making pages BC. I might react in the same way in your shoes but if you are right that Soltan is a troll then that is exactly what he wants. Where Soltan has provoked active editors to editing pages in a consistent way then we should respect those wishes. I respect that you have good reasons for prefering BC (even if I don't share them) but what we need now is a compromize to avoid an edit war. Does that sound okay to you?Dejvid 18:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many if not all the pages what Soltan worked on were not consistent before he started editing. In that respect Soltan was "within his rights". What made it provocative was for him to do what he did to a host of pages that he had never touched. The rule is not quite as consistent as you describe. It is intentionally fuzzy in a typically Wiki way. (Perhaps it should be clearer but it isn't). It basically leaves it down to us to work out a compromize and at the moment a revert to the state pre the recent Soltan spate of edits seems the only way forward. That means leaving the pages isn an inconsistent state (except where editors who were active on those pages have got involved). Dejvid 19:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no issue at all with reverting SouthernComfort's edits if they broke the arbitration decision. What I do have an issue with is reverting edits and then using excuses that are against policy. Removing BCE-CE in an article because its addition or change violated the compromise in the manual of style is perfectly acceptable. Removing BCE-CE in an article because you think our readers can't understand BCE-CE is going to wind up with you back before arbitration. Ambi 06:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guidelines most certainly do not say that BCE-CE can be removed because you believe that many readers do not understand it. You may be well be in the right in reverting there - I frankly don't much care, but when you use such blatantly against-policy reasons for reverting, it makes you look like the one in the wrong. Ambi 07:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cease-fire on eras[edit]

I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may wish to comment on this, especially as your name appears there. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I focus on spelling, because differences in punctuation and grammar are difficult to detect automatically. Spelling standardization is easy. I've recently standardized a large number of UK-related articles (see, for example: [1]). I've discovered that the spelling in US-related articles is usually very consistent, but in many UK-related articles it is not. I think that consistent spelling gives an article a more professional appearance. If you know of any articles that desperately need spelling standardization, please let me know. SpNeo 03:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My problem is that I know so much about Microsoft Jet that it's difficult to make a good lead section... can you point out the problems you see with the lead? I'm trying to resolve the objections. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doh... I got busy and didn't reply (lots of controversy to deal with, I know you know how it gets sometimes... ). I don't have IRC access! Anyway, any chance of a quick summarisation of what you find difficult on that article's lead section? I will do my very best to improve it... - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kevin Pietersen[edit]

Hi, i got your message on the picture i added for the Kevin Pietersen article. I got it from his official website and there doesnt seem to be any copyright notices on it tho, so im not sure what tag to give it. Selo 16:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i'll email the site to see if its public domain. ive also added the link Selo 17:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Blimey, that was quick!

Quite right, though, that the ACS is relevant to records and stats.

All the best.--JohnLeach 14:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never thought of that - thanks! -- Iantalk 14:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 runs, but only 1 game[edit]

Enjoy it now while you can my friend! I'm predicting 3-1 series result (Aussies to win of course). Do you wish to make a prediction at this late stage?

But in respect to the List, you must have read my mind as I was just sitting here pondering that idea. Why not! - Iantalk 13:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But 1st, do you think the picture licensing is going to be a problem? - Iantalk 14:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moin Khan page[edit]

Sorry about that. No I have not contacted either Kamran Abbasi or Cricinfo. I thought that giving the link would be enough. I wasn't really sure of the rules. Please tell me what to do. --Rehanyazdani 02:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Observing the ceasefire[edit]

Thank you for your note about this. I was about to contact you to see if we could attempt a conciliation. Let me reply to your question first. You ask: "Is there a general ceasefire on date notation or not?" Maurreen suggested a ceasefire on July 29 and I think it is a creditable effort to bring some sanity to this absurd conflict over notation for eras.

You go on to say: "Recently someone tried to break the ceasefire on Fu Hsi, so I reverted them to the pre-ceasefire state." I think you are mistaken about the "pre-ceasefire state." The survey on the Fu Hsi talk page was completed on July 24, five days before Maurreen's call for a ceasefire. Based on the consensus, I made the change to BCE/CE that day and I believe it was in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras and Wikipedia: Consensus.

You reverted to BC/AD notation on July 25, stating that my change was contrary to the MoS. Jonathunder reverted back to BCE/CE on July 26. Meanwhile we discussed this on the talk page and I asked you to explain how my actions were inconsistent with the MoS. You didn't provide an explanation, but you did observe the consensus (at least to the extent of not reverting Jonathunder). Then on August 6, FeanorStar7 violated both the ceasefire and the consensus established on the talk page. He was reverted by Kaldari on August 7 and you waded back in with a series of five reverts on August 7 and 8. I won't comment on your battle with Sortan. If you think that Sortan is a troll, do you not see that by trading reverts with him, you place yourself on the same level?

That is what I would like to talk to you about. I've noticed what I think is a serious lowering of your standards in the past several months over this date notation business. You were once a respected editor with several featured articles to his credit. It seems you have let your POV get the better of you on this BCE/BC business. I'm not sure why that is. I've read all your posts carefully but I cannot figure out what is behind your actions. Your rationalization of "think of the readers" has, as Ambi has pointed out, nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia policy. I note that you are offended when people refer to what you are doing as a "crusade." Is that perhaps hitting too close to home? Is it a religious thing with you? Of course, you needn't feel you have to respond to such a personal question. But by all means please do reflect on this. If we could establish the basis of your POV, we might be able to work something out. Surely these cannot be happy times for you, can they? I can tell you I've been troubled by this problem. Wikipedia will only come out ahead if we can sort this out. How could we work on that? Sunray 09:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You say it is not a religious thing for you. Are you not a Christian?
As to this rationale that people won't understand BCE/CE, please see my response to you on the Dates and numbers talk page.
Finally, as to the technical solution that you are proposing: It will not work, IMO. Technology is never a solution to human communications problems. That is because it is "the medium; not the message" to re-work something a countryman of mine once famously said. I'm afraid we will still have to get the message right. However, the good news is that if you and I can work it out, others will be able to as well. Sunray 10:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
What, then is behind your campaign? I speak of the intensity with which you uphold it. Your statements to the effect of "think of the readers" were not among your original reasons for your opposition to BCE/CE. It was a rationale that was aquired later. There is something else behind the intensity of your position on this. What is it? Sunray 14:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my omission: I managed to add List of countries with nuclear weapons to every page I needed to but then neglected to remove it from WP:FLC itself! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal styles of
Papal styles of
Pope Paul VI
Monarchical styles of
Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary
Styles of
James V
Presidential styles of
File:Ie pres.png
Styles of
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Unverified cricket images[edit]

Hi, There's a few photos you've taken (such as [Image:Grand Stand at Lord.JPG]) in Category:Cricket images with no copyright tag. I'm trying to sort them and others between that category and Category:Unverified cricket images. Would you mind updating the images with an appropriate copyright tag please. Regards -- Iantalk 06:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These foreigners seem to get attracted to the project, don't they[edit]

I don't really mind much - the guy has a) written much more than I could ever manage and b) eased my workload for the next four days. You've gotta wonder what attracts all these non-Englishmen to write about English cricket, though (how do you know he's Canadian? IP check?) Sam Vimes 06:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hate to nose into things, but it might be a Canadian, whoever you're talking about. We have large British and India populations. -- user:zanimum

Sesame Street on FAC[edit]

Hi there, you supported Sesame Street becoming a featured article by in 2004, I was wondering if you'd mind looking again at the article, and possibly supporting the current campaign? Thanks for your time! -- user:zanimum


Just curious. What happened to the barnstar I'd given you? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know - what has happened to it? jguk 10:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you may have inadvertently removed it while updating your user page. It needs to be brought back from the archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'll have to try to retrieve it sometime. I think bish gave me some toilet paper holder thing sometime as well, jguk 11:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the bat barnstar, but I'm puzzled, what "sterling" contributions have I contributed to? I've not done much these days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anyways I humbly accept the bat. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Past glories. Also, if you look at List of Indian Test cricketers you'll see how much more work we need doing on Indian cricket. Where are these 1,000,000,000 Indian cricket fans to help improve our coverage?!?!?!?! jguk 12:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, its a myth that 1b people are cricket fans. Residents of some states hardly know what cricket is all about. They prefer football. I wanted to ask a question: Do some of England's footballers and rugby players follow cricket? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Some do. They've already shown Sir Alec Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, enjoying today's play at Old Trafford. Steve Harmison has trained quite a bit with Newcastle United too.
Also, many of India's 1bn population don't speak English or have access to the internet, so they won't be contributing either - but it'd be nice to find some more Indian contributors to WikiProject Cricket (and we're missing active contributors from all the other Asian Test nations, the West Indies and South Africa too), jguk 12:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, User:DaGizza just signed up for the project from India. It's a start. Sam Vimes 12:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks from me too! I'll take it out in the garden and have a hack. Once I get someone to bowl at me, that is. ;) Sam Vimes 12:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I've just started reading Ramachandra Guha's A Corner of A Foreign Field - The Indian History of a British Sport. All very good so far - just read a re-assessment of Lord Harris's contribution to Indian cricket - I imagine a Bombayer like yourself may have a view on it - perhaps you'll let me know. I'd love to write a Social history of cricket sometime. I've already read about it in the English and Australian games, a bit in the West Indian game and have a book on the New Zealand game from this angle - I'll have to bring it up on WP:Cricket soon and see who else might wish to contribute, jguk 12:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Jon. No, I have been rather busy the last few weeks. I was at Edgbaston last Thursday-Saturday, and at Old Trafford Friday-Saturday, and am only just recovering. I have a secret project coming up soon, starting as soon as the Great Welshman polishes off the evil imperial marauders. As to the page content, it was:

An admin on wikipedia with knowledge out of this world. Sam is a fond exerciser of extreme sports and speaks esperanto and latin fluently, and all this at an age of only 16½.

I am still bemused. [[smoddy]] 22:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blank page deletion[edit]

You're gonna have to help me out here. You say the page "Category talk:Allied Bank cricketers" is not blank. But did you check? When I click on it I find nothing but a link to "Category:Cricket subcategories|Allied Bank cricketers"

Now If I click on this link I find a page titled "Allied Bank Cricketers". And here you are right. It is not blank. But this is not the page I'm trying to delete. The page "Category talk:Allied Bank criketers" is the one and they are not the same page. The one I'm trying to get deleted is listed on wikipedia help page as blank, requesting cleanup, (which is the only reason I touched it.

The same argument applies to the other pages you reverted, so pleae take another look. If you still think they should not be deleted perhaps a statement such as "Please click on the link below for information on Allied Bank cricketers" should be added. And I would appreciate if you could then explain it to me and have these "Category talk" titles removed from the WP cleanup page so others won't fall into the same trap. Xtrump 09:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

immediate answer needed.[edit]

I need an immediate response! Would you say Surrey-East Berkshire-Buckinghamshire-Hertfordshire is 'London' ? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, if I had to make an infobox on "London" (just London, I know there are many terms: Greater London, City of London etc), would it be correct to include the area/population/density of the territories I mentioned + the city area, or would just the city area suffice? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dick Barlow, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.


I have a couple of presents for you: Image:English cricket team 1873-74.jpg and Image:English cricket team 1861.jpg. Sorry about the quality. -- Iantalk 07:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Jon

I know you were leading some kind of drive to improve the usability of WP articles. I think there was some dispute about what level was appropriate. You may have seen this before, but I found a statement on Meta from Jimbo that reads like a policy statement on the matter:

2. Vocabulary -- The language level of Wikipedia is or ought to be aimed at the level that a college student can understand.

Hope this is useful.

Cheers, [[smoddy]] 13:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all useful, I'm afraid. I have no idea what Americans mean by "college" - as with most terms connected with schools, terminology means different things in all parts of the world. As you know, even here "college" could refer to any school, an A-Level or BTEC college, a university college (as at Oxford, Durham and Cambridge) or a specialist college for post-graduates (especially for those following a particular profession). As often with Jimbo phrases, a statement like that will mean all things to all men. Kind regards, jguk 18:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, fair point. [[smoddy]] 19:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Anticipation[edit]

My text for the history of the game 1721 - 1730 actually includes a bit about John Chitty's 1729 bat, so for a picture to appear before I've had chance to load the text is excellent anticipation. I reckon you just hit me for six (and lets hope for a few more by England on Thursday). All the best. --Jack 19:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Jon. The straight bat was devised during Hambledon days (possibly by John Small) in response to pitched deliveries which began in the 1760s. A classic example of the evolution of the game. I will be loading a lot more about the olden days in due course but I'm afraid I've caught up with my research for now, which has reached 1730. All the best. --Jack 20:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

royal babies[edit]

Have you visited VfD's of Prince Sigismund of Prussia, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia, Prince Felix of Denmark and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. They are different cases of royal children, whose notability is questionable (for different reasons), and theior articles tend to be full of royal nursery crap, lamentations, hollow information etc. 14:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oldest cricket bat[edit]

Thanks for the bat and good luck for Thursday. -- Iantalk 07:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article 1888/9 South African cricket season, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Mike Procter photo[edit]

Hi jguk,

I'm trying to clear up some of the Unverified cricket images. I notice you uploaded Image:Proc3.jpg which I believe you took from Do you have any reason to think that the image is usable under a Wikipedia-compatible licence?

Thanks. Stephen Turner 16:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, let's make that all of the images on International cricket in South Africa (1971 to 1981). Thanks. Stephen Turner 16:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any thoughts on this, jguk? Otherwise I'm probably going to list them on WP:CP. But I'd prefer to give you the chance to comment first. Thanks. Stephen Turner 08:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date era style[edit]

Yuezhi is now where it was before the revert war over eras hit that page. Please do not keep reverting people on that. Our style manual says the date form in that article is fine. Jonathunder 03:00, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

You may have been asked this before, so please excuse me if it is unwelcome, but would you like to be nominated as an admin? I suspect strong opinions may be expressed either way, so I would entirely understand if you don't want to go through the process. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All very tactical! I'll look at it now and post it tomorrow morning. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably not the best place to start it actually: I've moved it somewhere a bit more private. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually moved it so the history is intact, but I can cut and paste whne I put it up. I'm still quite keen to do it tomorrow, but the bank holiday may get in the way of UK voters, I suppose. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a bit surprised: User:Sam Vimes has always struck me as entirely well adjusted (for a Norwegian who likes cricket and took the name of a Pterry character). I suspect some people may be a little upset at how active Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket has been of late. It is not as if there is a limited amount of admin power, which has to be given out sparingly, or that "normal" editors don't ever need the customary mop and bucket, shield of steel, and sawn-off shotgun. I think any editor in good standing could and should be an admin - it just makes it easier to write an encyclopaedia when you can fix cut and paste page moves, revert vandalism with one click, block repeat vandals, etc. There is not a lot an admin can do that can't be done anyway, if slower, by any editor, and it is all pretty much reversible. There is pretty good peer review by other admins, and "rouge" admins tend to be hassled (although rather too little, actually). I have never liked the popularity contest that WP:RFA has become ... but enough filling of your talk page. Que sera, sera. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, jguk 21:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rouge admins? Are they the ones who run amuck with lipstick? Sam Vimes 21:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, hello. Something like that. Sorry, I am afraid it is an in-joke rather than a typo.[2] -- ALoan (Talk) 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to be away for a while from lunchtime today - would you like me to put your nom up, or would you prefer to wait? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's leave it a while - there's no real rush, jguk 12:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference desk - could we use your help?[edit]

I read on the reference desk talk that you had some experience with making those day to day changes fro the VfD. Could you elaborate on your ideas more on the reference desk talk? It might be something we could implement. There's also a WP:RD/ALL page you might want to check out too...Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 23:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You haven't gone I see. Iantalk 11:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a feeling you'll enjoy it. (Aussies playing like New Zealanders) -- Iantalk 12:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Brookie here -thanks for this - i'lllook at with interest. The curate's egg 19:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for the screen dump - great! The curate's egg 19:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Studd bros[edit]

Great Info boxes - thanks - don't forget Kynastonif you have time! :) The curate's egg 19:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the invite :-) I obviously don't know how to put my name in the Participants table, so please put me down as Peripatetic of Bangladesh. Thanks again! --Peripatetic 19:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accusations of "troll"[edit]

On more than one occasion I have seen you give edit summaries such as the following: "Sortan is a troll (see his user contributions) - revert on sight)." I've looked at his contributions and am unable to see what you mean. I note that he has done a great deal of vandal patrolling and has obviously opposed you tit for tat in your BC/AD campaign. Other than that, he has made edits on a variety of subjects. Calling someone a troll is problematic. It's really just name calling, isn't it? Your accusations seem to me to not be in keeping with Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia: Civility, but perhaps I've missed something. Could you please explain? Sunray 00:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence you have presented is, at best, circumstantial. I see no proof of sockpuppetry. It is one thing to suspect a sockpuppet, quite another to make accusations. I would tend to take the individuals's contributions at face value. Sortan has, no doubt agravated you as he has been inimicably opposed to your project. But unless and until there is proof via some formal Wikipedia process, it is irrelevant, surely. As to calling him "a troll." As the article on that subject makes clear, to call someone a troll is simply an insult, like calling them "scum" or "riff-raff." I think it would be wise to avoid it. Would you be willing to cease referring to Sortan in these terms, Jguk? Sunray 07:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
You mention User:NoPuzzleStranger. That account went through a process and was blocked. I'm not saying don't pursue a similar process, if you wish. What I am saying is that until there has been some sort of due process, I don't think you should be justifying your edits by referring to someone as a "troll" or a "sockpuppet." I would respond the same way to Sortan. The project I was referring to is your BC/AD campaign. At times you changed date notation despite a consensus amongst users on a particular talk page. Sunray 08:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've responded to your latest comments on my own talk page (to keep it together). I appreciate your explanations. I feel that I understand you much better. Perhaps this will mean progress. :-) Sunray 22:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-08-29/Portal_namespace -- it exists! Nice to have your idea of portals for readers embraced by the software. :) --Ngb 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although you might want to compare Category:Portals and Category:Wikiportals, as well as all the pages at [3]. I would try to get a handle on it all, but I don't know where to start. [[smoddy]] 11:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the tour, he stayed back in England and took a Ph.D from Cambridge University. He passed the final Bar from Middle Temple.

Got this info from one of his obits. Jahangir did his BA from Lahore and spent four years at Cambridge. Practicing as a lawyer and taking a doctorate at the same time sounds a trifle unusual. Do the above lines make sense ? Tintin 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He stayed back after the 1932 Indian tour of England. Though he played a couple of matches for MCC in 1937, he last represented Cambridge in early 1936. Yeah, it might have been that he completed the doctorate in 1936 and stayed on.Tintin 16:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]