Talk:Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy

message: I would suggest a different name.  New Years Day Test match suggests it started on 1 January when it actually started 2 January.  "Second Test, India vs Australia, 2007–2008" sounds a little overblown.  Any ideas (and no, "Bucknor's Match" is not NPOV :-)). -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another new name.  Well done to the editor for being bold, but perhaps with so many people editing this article it may have been worthwhile consulting on the talk page first.  How do others feel about the new name? -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Move it back to the old style, to be consistent with the series. HAving said that it doesn't matter whether, "Second Test" goes before or after. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Border-Gavaskar Trophy is the name of the series. Rafy (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is but on Wikipedia, the convention is to use XXX cricket team in YYcountry in Year-year, which is why the old naming was used to keep things in an orderly manner in line with teh naming conventions. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support a change to the original name as suggested by Blnguyen.  Consistency in naming is important, otherwise you don't know where to find related articles, or how to name new articles when they are created. -- Chuq (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I have suggested that the article Bucknor-Benson dubious decisions be merged with this article.  The other article is severely limited in scope, the title is hopelessly POV and makes it difficult to maintain NPOV in the content. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I would advise against using the Cricinfo commentary as a reliable source.  This is not meant to be a slur against Cricinfo or Jenny Thompson and George Binoy, who all do a marvellous job.  There is also little real need as all the controversial decisions have been discussed ad nauseum in the Indian and Australian press.  Cricinfo commentary certainly should not be used as the arbiter of whether a decsion was correct or not, and definitely should not be used to accuse players (e.g. Ponting) of cheating.  If there is an insistence on using Cricinfo commentary, then the comment should be attributed to the commentator, in the form of  "According to the online ball by ball commentary at Cricinfo, Ponting did not catch the ball cleanly" or similar.  An opinion on an umpiring decision is an opinion only and should be attributed to someone or some people. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, will do. Darrowen (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I seem overly critical and paranoid about POV, but the best way to keep the vandals away, and to avoid deletion, is to keep this article as NPOV as possible.  So far, so good. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think if the Cricinfo comment says "Snicko/Hakweye says yes" about 2 overs after the incident, then it is a RS for Snicko/Hawkeye. I agree that taking their "live comments" as fact is not a good idea. We might as well quote the scientific stuff. Hawkeye isn't guaranteed of being correct, but it does use the same algorithm for all players, unlike the umpires. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In being reasonably generic, Hawkeye doesn't take into account a number of important bowler/pitch/weather specific factors, which make it an unsuitable substitute and also because it isn't good as a substitute also an unsuitable verification of the millimetre accuracy umpires seem to be pressured to have. Ansell 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricinfo commentary 

message: A full scorecard would be a great addition to the article.  Someone who is more up on wiki formatting may be able to put a decent full scorecard up. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make a start on it now, unless someone else has already done so? Schumi555 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there a template anywhere for cricket scorecards? The only one I can find is over at WikiNews. Schumi555 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started to create one here, feel free to complete and use. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scorecard

message: Two of the major controversies in this match could both be seen to hinge on pre-tour agreements between Ponting and Kumble. The anti-rascist stance agreed by the captains has been mentioned briefly, and I have just added a brief line at the end of the Ganguly dismissal regarding the contentious catches agreement, but I can't help but think that perhaps these agreements need their own section...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben from brighton (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need this section? I have removed the Dhoni instance from the Controversial Umpiring Decisions, because it was not controversial because of umpiring, but because of the appeal Ricky made for a grassed catch. I suggest this new section (if it was added) would be a good place for that as well as another mention of Michael Clarke's catch of Ganguly and not to forget Ponting's catch of Dravid in first innings (to have a balanced view).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the Dhoni instance should be included somewhere in the article as it was a major talking point in the media (along with the Ganguly dismissal). It also relates directly to the captain's agreement on low catches that Ricky Ponting has been pushing for years and is also a mojor talking point in the media. Gazzawhite (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, someone agrees with me here. I am new to Wiki and do not know how to create new sections/contents under Articles. I do not want to mess up a nice article by experimenting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-tour Agreements

message: Good article, good to see it come on the first page...
thanks wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.44.160 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The biased way that this article has been written actually made me laugh. The way this reads, you'd think that there has never been some controversial decisions made in cricket before! Among my personal favorites in this article: the dubious claim that the number of mistakes compared to other tests was unusually large (source for this anyone?), and the part where it conveys the opinion that without the bad decisions, india would not have lost the test (original research aside, doesn't anyone here have a time machine I'm not aware of?). 124.187.200.13 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of mistakes was unusually large, thus the uproar. Also, considering India had 1.1 overs left I think say if Dravid or Ganguly were not given out India would have survived past the final over spells of Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds. I think denying that the umpiring had a major effect on the result of the match is just plain false. Darrowen (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mistakes are made in cricket matches all the time. The mistakes in this test drew a large amount of attention and controversy, but does this mean there was an unusually large number? Unless you can find a reliable source for this, then no. Additionally, you don't have a crystal ball and neither do I, so we cannot start debating how things would have turned out if some decisions had gone a different way.--124.187.200.13 (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that unless there is a reliable source for the unusually large number it should go. But what is clear is a large number of sources have suggested India wouldn't have lost were it not for the mistakes. Personal opinions of these claims are irrelevan Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree on that. Personal opinions will create another war on this article and it will become a target for vandalism. But, since a large number of sources all over the world have agreed on this, India would not have lost the match but for the mistakes. The unusually large number of mistakes is because of the controversial aspect of them. A few of them were very big mistakes. Mistakes in LBW decisions happen every time in every match, so ignoring them also we have 8-9 glaring mistakes.
OK. But on most fronts I like the way this article is shaping up. Darrowen (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well said.124.187.195.248 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how many times you've seen people given out caught when the umpire had no vision of bat or glove for the length of the delivery... Darrowen (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mistakes like this are not new to cricket, it was the behavior of the Indian cricket team that made it blow out into such a big incident. I think Australian journalist Jim Wilson said it best: "the Indians have a reputation of being serial whingers."--Selaw Ymmij (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the "whinging" of the team was more based on the accusation of one of their players as a racist without evidence and the basic claim that Sachin Tendulkar had been lying to the match referee. In India, racists are frowned upon, particularly after 200 years of imperial rule in which colour was more important than anything else. For the Indian public, the accusation that one of their much-loved cricketers was a dirty racist was considered an affront to the honour and integrity of the nation. But Jim WIlson's views can be incorporated into the Australian reaction section. Darrowen (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Just in case people are unaware, I always find this as a good place to start when you want a rounded view of an issue. Darrowen (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surfer 

message: "(see below)" looks ugly and is unnecessary in text everywhere that a controversy is referenced in the summary. The summary is a statement of fact, and people will get to the controversies in time without being directed there multiple times. Ansell 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for self-references in place of citations 

message: I do believe that they are Australian citizens, and at the least, permanent residents on Sydney's eastern suburbs (Wentworth area). Having said that, they might be considered to be non-Australian due to their playing days. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both citizens–see  and .  While mention of their non-Australian cricket background is OK (for example Larwood and Sobers are/were Australian citizens but to call them Australian cricketers is incorrect) considering them non-Australians because of their birthplace is not right.  Anything they said and wrote was by an Australian and for an Australian audience and should be considered Australian reaction. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a bit of a gross generalisation - they are ex-non-Australian cricketers and their opinions constantly reflect this regardless of their new nationality or place of residence.  I hold dual citizenship but if I was to begin a journalism career in London, it would be remiss to assume that because I hold nationality and am living there, my opinions are based on my current geographic, than the 20 odd years I spent growing up in Australia.  If anything I would say generally their opinions are designed to be a mild form of incitement! Crx2gen (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is your (and others) opinion only, and that is the point. The facts are: They are Australian and their comments were for Australian audiences on CH 9 and in the SMH.  You don't agree with them; fine, I don't agree with a lot they have said either but calling into question their Australian-ness is not on. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Greig has been moved and Roebuck is now 'English Australian', which I don't recall seeing earlier when I read it (and can't be bothered checking the history).  Can I assume this is agreeable, or even your work?  Either way opinions are opinions, and if you you want to get picky, the facts are they are ex-foreign naturalised Australians, working for Australian owned, internationally distributed broadcasters/newspapers.  This could go on to the death and has nothing to do with my apparent disregard for their 'Australian-ness' and everything to do with not presenting their comments in the correct light.  I guess the best way to view it for example would be through the eyes of someone who knew nothing of the controversy or Greig and his history.Crx2gen (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roebuck and Greig 

message: While WP:EL allows links to YouTube, I am concerned that the videos in question breach copyright.  If that is the case, then the links must be removed.  See WP:COPY "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."  Unless it can be demonstarted that the YouTube vidoes do not infringe on the creator's rights, I intend to remove them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the YouTube videos are good references as they are effectively (if you run them on mute) primary sources. You can look at those replays and see that Lee had bowled a no ball, something I didn't know about before. Darrowen (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute that they are great references, but I don't think they meet Wikipedia policy and they have the potentional to expose the Foundation to legal action.  Unless we can find versions that don't breach copyright, I think they should go. -- Mattinbgn\talk  —Preceding comment was added at 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube links

message: Hooray.... Everyone's favourite olden-day Australian cricket hath spoken! Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good old Neil, he never lets his "fans" down. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something to add to the Harvey article I think! Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neil Harvey]] 

message: Quoting from the article, in the section relating to the Ganguly/Michael Clarke catch:
:He [Ponting] had earlier unsuccessfully claimed a similar catch off M.S. Dhoni, when TV replays show that the ball had been "grassed".
I would suggest this statement is not NPOV. The television footage, as is often the case with these types of catches, is arguably equivocal as to whether Ponting had completed the catch without "grassing" the ball in the process. Unless you have a citation from the umpires as to why they chose not to award the catch, the statement as given is pejorative and unfair. Anecdotally, the umpire might not have awarded the catch because he was not convinced the ball struck Dhoni's glove. Fact is, umpires on the field make decisions based on multiple criteria, and unless recourse is made to the third umpire, which was not the case here, these have absolutely nothing to do with TV replays. The success or otherwise of the appeal does not determine Ponting's belief that he made the catch, or that his appeal was anything other than legitimate. -- Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape·net has forgotten his Wikipedia logon... 128.250.151.82 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponting "grassing" a catch from Dhoni 

message: I question whether offical Channel Nine people such as the CEO or an attack video should be mentioned, since Channel Nine are Cricket Australia's partnership network and have a lot of financial ties with CA, thus is would be obvious COI in their comments and would be very upset if India quit the tour. If their perspective is included, I don't think it should be included as "independent Australian" comments, but it should be in the Australian team/Cricket Australia camp. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that too, but don't you reckon that Nine would be loving all this controversy, and that a more likely COI is a desire to keep the dispute bubbling [bad faith I know].  They're walking a fine line between doing that and not provoking a tour cancellation.  The media interest for Perth next week will be huge.  —Moondyne 08:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel Nine 

message: I changed this "Included in his final report were the words that "I believe one group is telling the truth", possibly implying that Tendulkar and Harbhajan were lying in their testimonies."
to this
"Included in his final report were the words that "I believe one group is telling the truth", implying that Tendulkar and Harbhajan were lying in their testimonies"
obviously Procter was telling that Indians were lying...
Sai2020 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change

message: I see in the Progress of Play section, for Day Four - the word "monkey roll" used for the celebrations that Harbhajan did. I think it may be not be NPOV, someone is just trying to add that whole racism twist to the double rolls that Harbhajan did celebrating that wicket.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey Roll 

message: Why are we having a dispute over Roebuck's citizenship. The article says it all, "our country", he's talking from the POV of an Australian. So get over it. Darrowen (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is talking from an Australian point of view but he has only ever played cricket against Australia, not for it. He recently decided to become an australian. The main issue is the original concept to divide the article up into International and Australian perspectives, and he fits in both effectively. Personally I think he just likes to rant, as the Australian pointed out he has no evidence for his crazy claims and is even anti-religious towards Hayden who is doing as well as any batsman ever without causing a political fuss to anyone else... Ansell 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ansell why are you moving Peter Roebuck's comments? 59.182.64.94 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Roebuck 

message: I've semi protected the article for 24 hours because of the amount of revert warring, POV pushing and general vandalism, much of which is coming from IPs and SPAs.
I'll be offwiki pretty soon, so any dissenting admin can feel free to overturn this without needing to discuss with me.
A word of warning to experienced users - revert warring is not good practice and if you contravene 3RR you risk being blocked. Many reverts in the name of reverting vandalism are not reverts of vandalism. Please tread carefully, as incurring these kind of blocks is silly. 
Finally, I recommend perusal of WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protected 

message: : Another view appeared about the word used is that it could be an expletive (Teri Maan Ki ***) used in northern india's state of Punjab where Harbhajan belongs to which means "Your Mother's ***". | India claim lost in translation Use of this expletive can be seen in this youtube video made last year where voice over has been put on Shahid Afridis incident with Gautam Gambhir. The expletive has been used by both of them many times. Both of them are from areas near Punjab and understand meaning of this. A person from Punjab is more likely to use this expletive than "monkey" which belongs to english not likely to be used in high tempers. | Afridi vs Gautam Gambhir .. Full Maa Bhen 76.241.22.9 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This view is not of Harbhajan himself but is generated by media. 76.241.22.9 (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost in translation 

message: Wide world of sports (of Channel Nine) is partnered with Cricket Australia. It would be surprising if WWOS says something against the australian team. 
Even in the commentary of Channel Nine, they didnt mention that Michael Clarke's catch was not taken , they ignored it saying "Not a lot of people care about it, so why are we getting different angles to find the answer.". 
Whereas the Sunil Gavaskar of Star Cricket (India) said "NONSENSE! UTTER NONSENSE!".
This shows that Channel nine was totally conservative, 
we should put Channel Nine's views in Australian Camp Section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.44.160 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shows how biased indian commentators are. Sorry but incase you don't know, in cricket the fielder must claim the catch, where as for edges its the umpire who must make a decission. The fielder claimed the catch, end of story. Also its apparent that Australia channel nine gets HD televion, while India doesn't seem to. There were pictures in HD resolution of the catch from ground level, and it was taken above the ground by about 15 cm... its sad that this nonsense continues.--58.111.143.164 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess if fielder claiming the catch is end of story we dont need umpires and then all such catches would go to the fielder and bowling side. I guess you have never seen any incidents where claimed grassed catches were revoked in the past. What do you have to explain about them? Or you think that has never happenned in your memory and need to be given references? (cough *Rashid Latif* cough). You must be joking about the HD resolution thing. So you are saying the resolution of indian stone age televisions is > 15 cms. and who is looking at television? I am looking at the you tube links given in the main artical (and my laptop screen is Full HD 1080p) and if you suggest that in HD TV signal a 15 cm space appears in between then maybe you are looking at something else. We are talking here about the MS Dhoni catch claim by Ponting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcbJOkeyKBA and Gangulys catch by clark grounded after the turnaround. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xz1T9-x6eY . I wonder if you would have different ideas if it was a catch on an australian batsman. For me if it was indian fielder I would still say it is grassed. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text:   has reference for catches being referred to third umpire. Ansell 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think 58.111.143.164 is the one that may be misinformed, probably by the apparently unbiased Channel 9 or similar Australian media. The captains struck a deal that they would trust the fielders for a catch this series. India is the only team to have agreed with Ponting on this ideal. But this does not mean that the fielder's view is correct over the umpire's. The umpire should at least first ask the square leg umpire before asking the fielder and trusting them. Also, regardless of where your HD TV shows the ball entered his hand, the question is whether the ball came into contact with grass while Clarke's hand came down. Also, the umpire was not equipped with an HD TV and needed to trust his instincts, not those of Clarke. If it would've gone to the third umpire, it would've been given not out. That's the issue. But I think the media may be whitewashing this in Australia. I remember actually once Michael Slater grassed a catch and the umpire gave it not out, then Slater came up to Rahul Dravid and swore in his face, telling him to go and walk. But replays showed he had grassed it. So that proves you can't trust fielders, even when they are so adamant they took the catch that they shout at the batsman. all in the "spirit of the game" of course. Darrowen (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was in Mumbai in 2001, the last of Australia's 16 in the previous sequence.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thats why they have Tony Greig (barracks for the other side a lot) and Mark Nicholas (english) on the team :)... They might be trying given those two as evidence. Then again... this article may polarise ones opinions on the issue. Ansell 08:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think I'm going to bother trusting Wide World of Sports again, who have disgustingly tried to cover up an amazing match with an implication of ball tampering (judging by the comments most Australians agree with that). Talk about stirring up trouble. As long as such media exists there will never be anger-free games between the two nations. Reading through the comments, it seems that many people want the match to be declared null and void simply because one team was swinging it more than another... Darrowen (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wide world of Sports 

message: Okay, I removed two of three paragraphs of a large Tony Greig quote because one was summarised already, and the other was a speculatory paragraph that didn't add anything to the page in value terms. In any decision there is going to be someone who believes their statement is correct when the judge says it isn't. Why is Tendulkar special in this case? Is Greig just trying to create controversy? The reason for removing that particular paragraph incidentally was that it was summarised already, with all but the Tendulkar reference already on the page, and now duplicated. What do others think? Should we leave the quoted paragraph about white and brown men and Tendulkar being called a liar? Ansell 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important because it's a cause for much of the Indian people's unhappiness with the decision. Procter's report stated that only one party was telling the truth in his view. Implying clearly that the other was lying. Darrowen (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greig commentary 

message: Should there be a section for the Aftermath of the Controversy. There have been some quite unusual scenes at the WACA from shake hands before the match to aggressive fast bowlers apologizing after turned-down appeals etc. Even the articles by Waugh where he says the Australians are not sure now about when to appeal. I think we should add something for that as whatever is happening, it is happening as a part of the Reactions to the Sydney match 167.131.0.194 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly has been a big change in player behaviour compared to the last match but it seems to be too early to come to a conclusion. It has only been two days. It might be better to wait until the series is over or at least until this match is over. --Mankar Camorantalk 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player behavior in the Perth match 

message: Will all the effort in compiling Racism related stuff go to waste now that the charge is not proved. We surely need a (sub)section for the appeal and the result and of course the reactions to that. 167.131.0.194 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Racism Allegations 

message: There are too many quotes in this article. It makes the whole article look messy and makes it longer than it needs to be. We need to sort through the quotes and find the important ones to incorporate them into the article to make it more succinct. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many quotes 

message: :Image:Harbhajan hattrick.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Harbhajan hattrick.jpg

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "friendly" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080113094254/http://www.smh.com.au:80/text/articles/2008/01/09/1199554741537.html to http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2008/01/09/1199554741537.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080105130526/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22996291-2882,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22996291-2882,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ... at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Mark_Benson's_role_in_the_contentious_Sydney_Test_versus_India --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss Mark Benson's role...