Talk:Jonty Rhodes

message: a pic would be nice?
:It would. The problem is that freely licensed pictures of cricketers are not easy to come by; we can't just yank one from a magazine and claim it's fair use. Loganberry (Talk) 02:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: If you continue to move the image at Jonty Rhodes, against consensus and Wikipedia guidelines, you will be blocked from editing for disruption. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mel Etitis, Someone obviously showed bad judgement in giving you blocking powers to enforce your POV. The consensus you talk about consists of three editors who are hidebound in their conservatism and interpretation of guidelines. Block to your heart's content, and the only thing it will prove is your abuse of power which you should not have been given in the first place.  Paul venter 14:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I didn't say that I'd block you; I can guarantee, though, that someone will.  Secondly, it isn't only three editors; I counted at least five editors beside myself, all of whom disagree with you. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: To resolve your matter, please review Images Manual of Style, image choice and placement, and generally image help. -- Jreferee 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of Style: Images

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 17:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Or does the photo with the caption Jonty and wife look like a palm tree or something. Probably me. Never mind. --Tom 17:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it me?

message: It appears that there is one editor (Paul venter) who is disagreeing with the rest over the placement of a photo in the infobox. With the lack of any black and white ruling on the issue, we must base our decision on convention. Almost all of the bio articles on Wikipedia of at least this length have a photo in the infobox. As such, I believe that there should be a picture in this infobox. If Paul venter, or anyone who shares his beliefs, can find a rule or policy, or some kind of precedent, that contradicts my opinion, then I will be more than happy to change my opinion. Until that time, however, I must stress that the picture remain in the infobox. However, a picture of Rhodes in action would be much more appropriate for the infobox than a zoom-and-crop job on a photo which is used later in the article. Most importantly, however, let's not turn this into a revert war which will only serve to get people banned Bensmith53 08:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Request for Remediation

message: Hi. I edited the page yesterday to revert the date-links to unlinked versions (of which there were MANY) as per the new MoS recommendations (date-linking only benefits registered users rather than 99% of our readership). At the same time I removed some unreferenced statements ("widely regarded as the finest fielder in the history of the game"), as well as the factoid about him playing for Ireland (which I myself added way-back-when). As it turns out, Ireland has invited several players to play for them (including Hansie Cronje), thus the fact that Rhodes turned out for them is of no importance to Rhodes' career taken as a whole. I've also reworded some sentences to make it read better. Taken as a whole I think I've improved the article, however I was reverted by Dodger67 citing "over-zealous deletion". The only deletions I made were the Ireland factoid and the unreferenced statements (any editor is allowed to remove unreferenced material, the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to add material). The diff does seem big because every paragraph is affected by the date unlinking, but overall there is not much info removed. I'm posting here looking for consensus opinion of other editors. Thanks. Zunaid 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will concede that your changes to date-links are correct. I don't accept your reason for deleting the information that he played for Ireland. Why should such information be supressed? The statement in the intro paragraph "widely regarded as the finest fielder in the history of the game" is fully supported with citations in the main body of the article. According to the MoS statements in the introduction of an article do not need citations provided the same facts/opinions are presented with proper citations in the main body of the article - the relevant cites are numbers 2 and 5. Roger (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits/reverts of 20-21 January 2009 

message: The section is full of undated contradictory information. It seems like every time he changed to coaching a different team a "current" statement was simply added to the section without stating when anything began and ended. The word "currently" is completely meaningless in this context. Roger (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-retirement section. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jonty Rhodes. 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://archive.is/20120914002254/http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Cricket/245/91db30e579f94bffaf1cec30b25e254d/14-01-2010-07-34/Jonty_dumps_wife_for_girlfriend to http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Cricket/245/91db30e579f94bffaf1cec30b25e254d/14-01-2010-07-34/Jonty_dumps_wife_for_girlfriend
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified