User talk:Anifail Aneglur Iawn
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
It's possible that I might eventually see anything left here and, if it's really important, might even find a way to reply to it
WP:CTBE, and more
[edit]While you were correct, as per WP:RS, to remove a self-published source, your edit summary is an egregious untruth, shall we say, and also a breach of WP:CTBE, one of many. The community has very kindly restored my account, and so far I've mainly been involved in restoring sourced coverage of 18th century cricket which had been indiscriminately removed by yourself in direct breach of WP:PRESERVE, a key component of WP:EDIT.
As was pointed out to you in no uncertain terms by an administrator in this post, your editing is "not a good look". The thrust of that message is not only your disrespect for PRESERVE, but also your "practice of standing on rights" as regards cosmetics like CITEVAR, and yet there have been countless instances of you breaching both that and DATEVAR yourself, often quite blatantly, as in this case.
I have no desire to get involved with WP:ANI, as I prefer to tackle issues head on, but if another editor should decide enough is enough, and does take you to ANI, rest assured they will have my full support.
Enjoy your wikibreak, and let us see if you can present "not a bad look" in future. By the way, I like your new name. Jack (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
A few points about WP:PRESERVE
[edit]Regarding WP:PRESERVE, you should read and understand the page nutshell, especially: Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong"
. Lets consider 1726 English cricket season, which has been promoted to WP:GA status. The information in the GA version is pretty much what you will find in the 2017 version, and with essentially the same sources.
Using the 2017 information, and by converting the somewhat uninviting match table to prose, the article had real GA potential, which has just been achieved without too much effort. Trying to improve the December 2020 version, which may politely be described as a "bad stub", would have been a real headache. The 2017 version had RPS 1799 B (306 words). The December 2020 version had RPS 876 B (147 words). So, in a blatant breach of PRESERVE, you halved the size of the article by removing several sourced sentences.
Not only that, you introduced a sentence into the lead which told the readers that: Details of two elven-aside matches are known.
That was spotted by a member of the ACS who shared it with several people, including myself. It certainly caused general merriment at the merriest time of the year. The member said you must have used Tolkien as your source because, looking at the term, it really can't mean anything other than "no elves were playing". Perhaps, if you used the preview function, you might not commit such howlers to main space.
WP:PRESERVE is a key part of editing policy. If content is reliably sourced, or if it seems to be verifiable, it must be kept. Obviously, you can shift it to a more appropriate section, rectify any spelling and grammar errors, tag it for a citation, and what have you. But, the content must be kept unless you are prepared to start a discussion and gain consensus supporting its removal.
Please exercise due diligence when editing. Jack (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are you really starting your return to (non-socking) editting by continuing your years long vendetta? You did so whilst socking, so rather than threaten people with ANI threads, how about you let sleeping dogs lie? Spike 'em (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Have answered this at the poster's own talk page as it is irrelevant to the points made about PRESERVE. Jack (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Please return...
[edit]Hi. Be nice to see you return. You have been a big part of WP:CRIC for many years, providing many excellent contributions... only condition, return as BST haha! AA (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nomination of List of English cricketers (1851–1860) for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of English cricketers (1851–1860), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English cricketers (1851–1860) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
The article List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The whole premise of this article is false, as explained in the "Disputed content" section of the talk page. Using the two ACS handbooks as sources, to "verify" the CricketArchive claim about the origin of first-class cricket, is gross misuse. Even without that falsehood, the content is unreliable because a number of errors (e.g., Aylward) have already been corrected. If it is kept, the whole list should be converted back to a basic list of names pending a proper development of the information in the light of actual cricket history. Jack (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nomination of List of English cricketers (1841–1850) for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of English cricketers (1841–1850), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English cricketers (1841–1850) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!
[edit]_transparent.png?lang=en){kind=spacer}
|
Hello Anifail Aneglur Iawn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Wishes from Vestrian24Bio |
|
Click here to see the Christmas message I wrote...💞! Vestrian24Bio 09:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Anifail Aneglur Iawn!
[edit]
Anifail Aneglur Iawn,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Norfolk first-class cricketers for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norfolk first-class cricketers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Jack (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Suffolk first-class cricketers for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Suffolk first-class cricketers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Jack (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Berkshire and Oldfield cricketers to 1795 for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Berkshire and Oldfield cricketers to 1795 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Jack (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Essex cricketers to 1793 for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Essex cricketers to 1793 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Jack (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
The article List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Considering that players frequently change teams, this list becomes meaningless and difficult to track.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. -𝘼𝓷𝓳𝓪𝓷𝓐 𝙇𝓪𝓻𝙠𝓐 𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨 06:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
The article List of Quetta Gladiators cricketers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Considering that players frequently change teams, this list becomes meaningless and difficult to track.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. -𝘼𝓷𝓳𝓪𝓷𝓐 𝙇𝓪𝓻𝙠𝓐 𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨 06:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
I fail to see how a supposed breach of MOS:FLAGS is justification for using words like "utterly" and "whatsoever" in an edit summary, especially when you are addressing an IP or a new editor, who could so easily be discouraged from editing the site again. This is WP:BITE, which you have been warned about many times before.
Then, after Magentic Manifestations (MM) correctly reverted your nonsense, you responded with this presumptious, condescending, attempted put-down. Okay, that's not BITE, but it is a breach of WP:CIVIL. It's also a breach of WP:BRD because you should have opened a discussion about the issue, before invoking a potential edit war.
However, MM responded brilliantly with this pointer to MOS:SPORTSFLAG, which you should have read in the first place, before trying to dictate to everyone else what they should and should not do.
I'm currently reviewing 2025 Lucknow Super Giants season for GA, which led in a roundabout sort of way to the IPL season list. I always study an article's history when reviewing, and I found more examples of BITE by you when you tried to impose your "authority" onto a Gujurati IP who had been trying to improve and develop the article. The one which really stands out is this childish claptrap, by which you tried to belittle the IP with your "sarcasm"—the lowest form of wit (I forget who coined that phrase: Oscar Wilde, I think). But, guess what, you were wrong again.
The section header said "Fixtures and results". You removed "and results". In the edit summary, you declared with obvious contempt for the IP: "just fixtures really innit". Innit? If you would like to look at the section again, you will see that not only is it a list of fixtures, it also holds the results of each match, which means that it is indeed a list of both fixtures and results. Isn't it?
Changing the subject, I've been reviewing the County Championship club articles to see what needs doing. Seventeen of them are okay or better. One, however, brought to mind the tricerotops in Jurassic Park. I'm not saying it's marvellous now, after three days' effort to improve it, but I think it has a reasonable chance of being promoted to GA, which would be quite a turnaround considering what it was like a week ago. Which county? Well, have a guess.
No doubt your yapping dog will be along soon. Jack (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- You admonish him for not being civil yet refer to me as a yapping dog? How about I dig through your years of being abusive to other editors in your various incarnations? This is yet more grave dancing from someone claiming to be making a fresh start. You have hounded BST off this site, so what do you hope to gain by posting this? Spike 'em (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- When he comes back, which he will, I want him to STOP driving new editors off the site. That is what WP:BITE is all about. Many of the new editors could turn out to be very good, and much better that someone who thinks the chap behind the stumps is a wicket=keeper.
- And, anyway, how have I "hounded" him off the site? He had already gone before I was reinstated. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get on with improving the site's cricket coverage. Perhaps you'd like to help? Jack (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- As I said before: if you continue with article improvement I will let sleeping dogs lie. However, if you choose to continue your vendetta against BST then I will continue to call you out about it. Spike 'em (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- to quote someone familiar to this page, I think this applies to you:
you are a serial offender in terms of WP:GRAVEDANCING, which is probably the worst form of harrassment there is.
Spike 'em (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Quetta Gladiators cricketers for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Quetta Gladiators cricketers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.