LiamE

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We are so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 15:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC) Can someone tell me what "groups" of Grizzlies are called? My daughter is doing a project, and I have no idea what the answer is!!Alvareznicky (talk)

The Dauer 962 was used in GT1 class racing, which at the time required that a homologation run of 25 units be produced in road-legal form and sold to the public. The 962 was allowed to compete, so it must have met the regulation. The list of automotibe superlatives seen here gives the following defintion of a production vehicle: 1. 20 or more examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition - cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible

2. They must be street-legal in their intended markets and capable of passing any tests or inspections required to be granted this status

3. They must have been built for retail sale to consumers for their personal use on public roads - no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible The 962s that were sold as race cars were built ONLY to be sold as road going cars, not to be entered in competition.

The 962 meets the above listed criteria and thus qualifies as a production car. Also, my source read as follows: "Nearly 150 were sold and because of such a large customer programme, every component was available off the shelf direct from Porsche" Apparently it's your reading comprehension that's in need of some work. You owe me an apology and you need to revert back to my edits!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please see my comments on the McLaren F1 page. Feel free to create an account! --LiamE 10:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi LiamE, I've seen that many of your edits are cricket-related. There is a Cricket Project to improve the standard of cricketing material on Wikipedia (players, teams, history, tactics, everything!). You may consider joining it. Thanks -- DaGizza ^Chat 10:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a brief note to say Welcome on Board, jguk 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have put the POV tag on the Wasim Akram article. You have given the reason that there are POV statements and unverified claims. Can you please highlight/list which claims are unverified?. I have compared nealrly all statistics with cricinfo and those seem genuine to me. As far as other statements are concerned, sportsmen's bios are generally written by their fans and nearly all of them are full with praise for the person. Wasim is no ordinary cricketer. He has many records to his name. He also had that X factor which made people like Andre Agassi and David Beckham popular. (Yes compare them with Sampras and Zidane.) So, it is no surprise this article praises him.

Zs131

Indeed Wasim is a very special cricketer and its tricky to write a bio without superlatives but the article goes a bit too far. Compare the article to Donald Bradman's - who was a far better batsman than Wasim was a bowler - and you'll notice the language is less colourful but more encyclopedic. I hasten to add I did not put the POV tag on the article originally - I only put it back after it was removed without POV issues being addressed. POV isnt about verification, its about bias and the article as it stands is partisan. I'll point out some specifics on the page later on tonight. --LiamE 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is the huge fuss at Talk:Dartford about anyway? bruce89 17:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is no fuss just an IP troll that keeps adding silly stuff and linking to random pages and then feigns disgust at being reverted. Unfortunately he keeps mentioning a couple of teachers of the grammar school there by name, saying HIGHLY libelous stuff etc etc. Just a FYI, virtually all the other IP edits over the last few days to that page are the same guy. Its a Tiscali IP range, he obviously hasnt got a fixed IP address. --LiamE 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi LiamE, Thanks for that, I stand corrected! Last time I believe Bill Frindall! rob77

hey liam, i really wouldnt know i was just basing off what i saw in the article, but if youre working on it go for it and good luck!! Mdawg728 00:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for wrongly deleting the sentence about WA being the only man other than Murali to take 400 wkts in both Tests and ODIs. Pure error on my part. I've edited the reinstated sentence slightly, since as it stood it looked as though Murali held the ODI record, which he doesn't, but you're right: it's correct and notable, and I was wrong to take it out. Mea culpa. Loganberry (Talk) 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is what I get for editing at 2:00 in the morning. Thank you for pointing it out and not being nasty about it -- Cybersquire 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw Bob Taylor play numerous times and I think he is the safest and surest keeper I've seen. My dad thinks George Duckworth was probably the best ever based on reports about him, but he thinks Taylor was better than Evans, who he saw lots of times. If you read very old match reports, there's good reason to think Jack Blackham might have been the best.

Having said that, I am thinking of replacing Taylor with Adam Gilchrist who is getting very close as a keeper and is of course way ahead as a batsman. Gilchrist has impressive dismissal/match rating which is difficult to ignore.

I have always held the view that you should pick the best wicket keeper regardless of runs scored (or not), just as you should always pick your best bowlers. For example, I don't agree with England picking Giles just because he might score 25 ahead of Monty who might get Ponting out for 106 instead of 196! I certainly don't think they should pick Jones ahead of Read unless they are are sure is the better keeper (personally I don't think there's much between them).

It's an interesting discussion point but it has endless possibilities. There have been dozens of top-class keepers and we're really spoiled for choice. Best regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Liam. I was wondering if Reiffel was a better example of an all-rounder than Warne - he averaged 27 with bat, or does that push him over the line. Also Gillespie, Kumble, Agarkar have somewhat higher averages - around 18 I think....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

how do i join? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thugchildz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

LiamE, I just added couple of long-winded comments to the discussion page of the Second Battle of Ypres. I breathlessly (OK, hopefully) await your comments there. Esseh 08:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Printers- Mackay of Chatham. Printed hardback reference books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

Ahh okay - I think there was some in Sittingbourne too come to think of it... but I'm sure you'll agree papermaking > printing in the history of Kent. --LiamE 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi., i redid Dhoni's page wrt ODI career. I will finish rewording the test career shortly. since the pov material has been removed, i am taking-off the tag. In case you disagree, leave me a note on the talk page and i shall be glad to respond. Kalyan 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re [1] - was then the record for a losing side, now bettered by Lara and Flower. Tintin 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thats one of those records players don't really look to "better" isn't it! I'll have a go at wording it in. --LiamE 13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Oh, right - I see. I was just trying to find a reference for you - have you one for the twenty-first to pass 900 then, rather than 21st on the list (which will obviously change in time as he or others pass 909). I was also wondering whether being the 21st to do something makes it particularly notable? don't know. - we could even have a 'Batsman with an ICC ranking of over 900 points' navibox!

–MDCollins (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of having removed any comments from anyone's discussion page Pendragon39 02:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update... history indicates the owner of that page removed your comments Pendragon39 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, In case you aren't watching it, I agree with you about the Gooch/Gower thing and have had another go - I'm sure you can do better if you want to try. –MDCollins (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I could do the same but i dont want to get into fight. I'll replace Mr. Khan to Imran or Imran Khan.Neutral Ray 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was Arthur Shrewsbury, who I'm currently researching to expand his stub. --Jpeeling 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

[2] after MCC took over responsibility for England's overseas tours at the start of the 20th century the captain was invariably an amateur ... until 1953 [1952]. I just picked one of the stubs from this page to expand. --Jpeeling 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Just silly". Isn't it sillier to repeat as truth (it says, "cricket is the second most popular…") a claim that has no authority? Thanks for your assessment of my contribution. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Misunderstanding: your original reversion specifically mentioned ref (and only ref) number 4. I honestly didn't notice that there were 8 other citations! I'm just looking at them to see whether any of them are more authoritative. I took umbrage initially, but I'm giving the umbrage back now. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I think I agree with you: it should definitely be more specific. I also think that the given citations do not substantiate the statement, but merely restate it. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

See also: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments Shortcuts: WP:UP#CMT WP:BLANKING Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. 24.247.215.55 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That only applies to users pages, not those of IP addresses. Please feel free to create an account so you don't get messages not intended for you. --LiamE (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Clearly Wikipedia policy allows for user pages to be cleared, and there is no distinction between IP user pages and account pages.

24.247.215.55 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you can show me the distinction I will retract myself, but I am unable to find it.24.247.215.55 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Either A) the warning were for you and your reason for blanking was false, or B) the warning were not for you and it is a shared talk page. It would seem B is most likely. If it is A and you have noted the previous warning fine, they are not current and can be removed. The talk page for an IP address is simply not a user talk page. You have no ownership of it. Again, please create an account to avoid these issues. --LiamE (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. You can find it spelt both ways all over the place but I was fairly sure it was "ii" - I went to the Grand National which he won and the racecard showed it that way. But I think I'm going to too much trouble over a single letter really, and perhaps I ought to get out more!!--Bcp67 (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times&action=history

yet again someone is trying to remove the Radical, with even more absurd arguments. take a look if you have time.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious about your "Hammer time" comment. I'm not a native English speaker so perhaps this is the reason I don't understand? Best regards Ulner (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information! Really funny reference! :) Ulner (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were recently involved in a discussion with regards boxers nicknames. There is a continuation of that discussion with specific reference to Audley Harrison on the BLP page here. Please feel free to add your opinion there once more. Regards. Vintagekits (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your comments on Vk's page. It is unclear whether you were referring to my mention of emails from Vk. If so, my offer remains to forward you the content of the emails I was referring to. Suffice to say, under no circumstances would any editor consider them "reasonable responses". Rockpocket 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add nonstandard references like you do to Supernova articles with the table "database references" outside of reference sections, not in reference sections, and looking unlike any other article.

These were created by banned User:CarloscomB, who never ever responded to queries on why he would not conform to the usual Wikipedia article formatting (it's what got him banned). Copying them just makes more copyediting needed articles.

76.66.192.35 (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, WP:REF tells us how to format references, which the table you use does not conform to. Further it unduly emphasizes SIMBAD, which your articles are not overly reliant on, leading people to mistake the primary reference used. As for my amusing comments, it's not very amusing to return articles by CarloscomB to the regular WP:LAYOUT format, since he even lays out encyclopedic information after footer/category/interlang link portions of articles. One of the articles had your table placed outside of an existing references section, so having two references sections doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Your cricket articles are written with a tabular reference form for a single reference outside of the other references, so why would the supernovae articles? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not saying do not write articles, I am saying, please don't use the weird table. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Read this..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml

The LFA is listed as wet NOT very wet.

Read this..... http://www.topgear.com/uk/tv-show?LapType=Power-Laps

That list has not yet been updated with the LFA time but shows conclusively that very wet, wet, damp, partly damp and mildly moist laptimes are indeed noted differently. Any close up of the power lap board shows VW, W, D, PD and MM respectively for the various conditions. THE LFA IS LISTED AS W NOT VW WHATEVER HAMMOND SAID.

Really this just seems like deja vu with the LFA time at the ring. You hear an offhand remark and take it as gospel. Frankly as almost your entire edit history seems to be trying to promote the LFA beyond the cedibility of the sources I am begining question your motives. Do you have any connection to Toyota or Lexus? I'm begining to wonder.

My suspicions aside, stop edit warring. If an edit is contentious take it to the talk page of the article to get consensus. If you fail to get consensus let it go. --LiamE (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not blind. Don't think you are either. Go watch the current fastest "very wet" lap record keeper, the M3 CSL's so-called "vw" lap[3] according to your Top Gear link. There's hardly any water spray at all. Clarkson says it's "damp" but decided to call it "wet" in the end due to the car's use of "near slicks". Nowhere was "very wet" ever mentioned and yet the webmaster decided to put "vw" on the website. The hosts are witnesses of the Stig's laps. The Top Gear webmaster who updates Top Gear's website on the other hand isn't. Words directly from the witnesses, the Top Gear hosts, are first-hand. Words from the Top Gear webmaster, who interprets condition on his own will even though he was not at the scene seeing the the real condition, are second-hand at best. The hosts' words are obviously truer than the webmaster's. -- Blhsing (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes there is an innacuracy regarding the M3 CSL on the top gear website which does say it is VW when the board and presenters clearly said it was a damp track on near slick so they gave it a wet lap. That lap by the BMW has always been listed as a W on the actual top gear board. I agree that should read wet not very wet as this is what the TGPL board has always said. That does not change the fact that the LFA is also listed as a W on the board itself and thus by the same logic must be listed as wet as it is on the board. The article is nothing more than a reflection of that board and therefore it is the best and indeed only source that should be consulted to settle dispute. --LiamE (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really don't understand why you'd rather believe in the 2nd-hand remarks of the webmaster when videos of the Stig's laps and the hosts/witnesses' comments of almost every car on the board are readily available on YouTube and other video sites. Yes the Top Gear website is convenient but is also proven to be unreliable when you cross-reference it with the actual footages on the show. Words of the hosts are first-hand, spoken by people we know. Do you know who the webmaster of the Top Gear website is? I don't. And I doubt if you or anyone does either. So why bother with the website when the videos are right there? -- Blhsing (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes you are quite right the video is there I take that over second hand sources. As the video CLEARLY shows the LFA is listed as a W that is how it should be listed. No if, no buts. The board say wet, the aricle need to reflect that.--LiamE (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The video of the M3 CSL shows that Clarkson writes a "W" not "VW" either. Oh well whatever. I"ll leave the "very wet" remark in the footnote if that makes you happy. -- Blhsing (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have requested an admin puts back the tag you have removed. [4].  Dr. Loosmark  11:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The problems is that the Nürburgring lap times cannot be seen as a yardstick because it's impossible to know in what conditions the cars are nor is there any independent timing as far as I know. And what prevents a manufacturer to "doctor" their cars before doing a "test"? Is there anybody checking that for example a car is withing regulation for a class or that a road version of a car is really a road version of the car? Really, these lap times are nothing much more than PR.  Dr. Loosmark  13:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but in my view the only factor which would give real credit to such private tests is an independent, recognized body such as the FIA sanctioning the tests. I still think that a general purpose Encyclopedia should not have articles on such trivialities as some private tests by Sport Auto or whoever. That's a topic that belongs more to various cars and racing webforums where the fanboys of various cars can argue their car is the best/fastest/coolest/whatever.  Dr. Loosmark  14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. However, reading the chapter, Peebles makes no claim that Zel'dovich invented inflation. If anything, he said that Guth was responsible(first page). Chasrob (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Peebles did not say Zel'dovich was the first of anything. Several physicists before him commented that microscopic zero-point fluctuations could balloon to macro size, ie inflate, and they could be precursors of Zel'dovich.

My point is that its a potential 'minefield' to remark of a 'first' here unless its a direct quote. However, cite the book if you are convinced. Chasrob (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

My favorite cricket 111.88.53.188 (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

my favorite cricket 111.88.53.188 (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply