Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:18, 3 October 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages from Mootros

Hi, KnowIG. I welcome you to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Misplaced Pages! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mootros (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray

I advise you to stop edit-warring and discuss your edits on the Talk page. Before you do so, you may want to review our guidelines on names in articles, the type of language recommended and achieving neutrality of tone. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Andy's racquet. Why does it say it is a Youtek Radical when it clearly isn't? Do a search for "federer paint job tennis", for example, in Google before you comment with 'WTF' in your edit. Andy uses a Youtek Radical because Head says he does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.18.142 (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Year-End

It doesn't make sense to put the ranking the rankign refelct the performance of a player in the past 52 weeks, and doesn't reflect anything. So are you saying that Federer is leader in the points collected in the year. If yoy look at the itf website and search for Federer ir states that he is 2nd in the race and that Roddick is 1st. And Del Potro is the 5th player to collect the most poitn wheas he is not even in the top 20. So placing the rankings doens't make sense.

Honey i have been doing longe rthan you have and i was the one who edited the 2009 barclays year-end championships i know how it works. I don't know why you think that the ranking reflects thae race because it doesn't.

Wow you have done some hard work. good luck on that.

You stop what you what you are doing this page is created so that they don't to need to go to their pages and how dare say i don't know how to write i have written many Tennis pages. Your ego is bigger than who you are. And really using the words i implore you you better go out of your house and start having a life. It was edited by many experience users and you just remove all of that. That page isn't my work alone it was a coollaborative work.

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Note: being "right" is not a sufficient reason to edit war. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to that- if you continue the edit war, I will block you because the article is now on the Main Page. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

KnowIG

The eral thing is that i didn't get upset over losing the eyar i got upset by the fact that you change the tournaments name for example the Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open you reverted to MAdrid Open if you can change it back to Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open they i'll be fine with it. --Dencod16 (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay then were good, We just the best for this tennis pages and immature for both of us to go along with this kind of thing for so long. I sincerely apologize. --Dencod16 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood completely. Just write the tournaments name just to pay respect to the main sponsors of the torunament that year. --Dencod16 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope we don't get to this kind of stupid argument again let's just both meet in the middle i hope in the future. Looking forward for your help on tennis pages and on being editors of wikipedia. --Dencod16 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tretorn Series

Tretorn is the Official Ball of the Challenger Series Tour and the sponsor of the Tretorn SERIE+ consisting of the premier ATP Challenger Series tournaments – all with prize money of $100,000 or greater. The Tretorn SERIE+ thus unifies an elite series of tournaments across much of Europe, as well as Asia and North Africa. Much like the ATP Masters 1000 events has done with top-tier ATP tournaments, the SERIE+ will provide cohesive branding to each event. . 2010 Israel Open has a $100,000 prize money.

Its just frustrating that they don't really have good editors, they have made so many errors on rankings they need to improve their site a lot.

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eleventh Doctor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 11:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on http://en.wikipedia.org/David_Cameron. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Melonite 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron

I agree KnowlG, it can sometimes become confusing when an effective editing war is taking place. People are assuming the outcome of an event. I have requested the page is fully locked to prevent people from glancing into a cyrstal ball and just assuming the Queen will in fact ask him to form a government, she has every right to demand a new election to take place. Melonite 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition

Acting or not, Harman is the leader of the largest opposition party, so she will be addressed and paid as Leader of the Opposition, just as Margaret Beckett was. -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Runaway Train

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Runaway Train, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/Runawaytrain.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1999 Samsung Open - Singles

A tag has been placed on 1999 Samsung Open - Singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GiftigerWunsch 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from 1999 Samsung Open - Singles, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. While I appreciate that you added content to the article and removed the grounds for the speedy deletion, please be aware that you should not remove speedy deletion templates yourself; to contest the speedy deletion of a page you have created you need to place {{hangon}} and explain your reasons in talk. GiftigerWunsch 10:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

List of snooker tournaments

Knowl, if you believe this article should adopt a different structure please take it to the talk page to discuss it. If an admin catches you reverting on that article you'll be heading for a ban. The article is organised that way for a reason, but if you think it's not clear or there is a better way to structure it then please discuss it first before making unilateral changes. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Continuing to sign posts without a required internal link to either your user, user talk, or contributions page, may be considered disruptive editing and you may be blocked for the same until the matter is rectified. Please take note and uncheck the box in Special:Preferences that says "Sign my name using the provided wikitext" so the links are provided automatically. –xeno 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How obvious was that fine bully me but you won't get rid of me I'll censor you — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)

How? You're blocked, and if you like, this can become permanent. Meanwhile, either ask to be unblocked or serve your block. Further abuse of this Talk page will result in your access being removed for the duration of the block. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I am fed up with you and TT stiring things and then acting just because you don't like me pointing things out to you. ETC TT I warned him about language on editing as he kept swearing but does he get warned or banned no. Then I do something far less bad interms of language and you say I am berating you. Double standards/bullying you see from my point of viewKnowIG (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see, but insulting other editors doesn't help your case. Since you seem to be digging yourself deeper into the hole, I've revoked your ability to edit this page. See WP:GAB for the next steps available to you . Rodhullandemu 21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amy Pond. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ...and TreasuryTag (who I've also warned) has a point about edit summaries: "Undid revision X by Y" does not an acceptable edit summary make... TFOWR 13:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

...and please don't do this. Editors are perfectly entitled to remove notes on their talkpage once they've read them - indeed, doing so indicates that they have read and acknowledged the message. TFOWR 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

KnowIG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been targeted by TT, who seems to want to rid me from here KnowIG (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Instead of providing a reason for unblocking, you have made an attack on the other user involved in the edit war. If you make a further unblock request, please provide a reason for unblocking in the unblock template. --Deskana (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: I have left the blocking adminstrator a note on his talk page asking that he unblock you both and protect the page instead. Note specifically that I agree with the validity of the block; I simply think there is a better solution than blocking both the parties involved in the edit war. --Deskana (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTHEM. You were blocked for your own actions, not for somebody else's. --B (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Conditions for unblock

(this will also be posted on the other's talk page) I am willing to unblock both accounts on the following conditions:

1. TreasuryTag and KnowIG do not edit the Amy Pond article for a period of 48 hours, to start immediately after the unblocks.
2. TreasuryTag and KnowIG agree not to interact with each other for a period of 48 hours, to start immediately after the unblocks.

Any violations of these two terms will result in immediate reblocking for the remainder of the restriction or for 24 hours, whichever is longer.

–MuZemike 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I feel in both cases, this should be without prejudice to any other remedies which may be required in the interim, e.g. blocks for other breaches of editing privileges. Rodhullandemu 17:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the conditions proposed by both MuZemike and Rodhullandemu. GiftigerWunsch 17:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I need KnowIG to agree with the conditions, in which he can indicate by responding. –MuZemike 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that I support your decision here; perhaps I could have made that clearer. GiftigerWunsch 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Open Sud de France

Hello. With respect to Category:Open Sud de France, please re-create the category when you are ready to add articles to it. At this point, it's an empty category, and that's a valid reason to delete it. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference Generator

Hi, i saw you add a new reference to the Andy Murray page earlier. I thought i would just suggest this tool which is great for making complete references to include all the basic details. Ive only been using it a few weeks but it makes adding full references much easier and is clearer for everyone when looking at the reflist. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Uxbridge Cricket Club Ground

A tag has been placed on Uxbridge Cricket Club Ground requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Endofskull (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy and fixed some formatting problems, but if this article is to be retained in the long term it is going to need some evidence of notability and some verification by reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

the old pros

Not sure where you get all the info but I love the recent addition of some of those old pro events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Both of you (TreasuryTag, KnowIG) stop leaving messages on each other's talk pages. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A bubble tea for you

Armbrust _Contribs has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Talkback

I have changed the summary to not attack you so much but as to also state that the others have made fault before as well. Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I want to talk to you here. Can you tell me honestly why you have been making notorious edits? I can say they were disruptive. Have you been shown a bad example on the wiki? I want to work with you to help you get what you need so you can become welcome in the community and not having RfC's. I truly believe somewhere in your heart is a good KnowIG and that they are just in a shell. The other users that you were involved with are stressed by this situation and I want to help you fix it. Can you please tell me what is causing you to be this way. This is what RfC is about, fixing the issue. Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I am going to responded here if that's alright, so we don't have to keep flicking pages. I am a lovely person, just we have a certain person 'stalking and attacking me' here. Most of the things you have seen have been either things which have been provoked, manufactured or twisted by the user doing the RFC (I take it you know who started the RFC, if not please indicate). Now in my response on the RFC I said something about the person filing it hating me just for my spelling and grammer, and reverting making it difficult for me. Now if I right shit, which doesn't belong on wikipedia, lies or in the wrong tense then fine, remove it I haven't a problem with it. But Most of the edit wars have been because of the person filing the RFC reverting my edits instead of editing my edit to correct the spelling or grammer error. For all that person knows I may be a foreigner or maybe suffering from special needs. Look at the archive of Andy Murray's talkpage and see how other users helped me with certain types of language etc, so with respect I don't think language or spelling etc would be something you need to get involved in. I point out that the person accusing me of things has started 3 seperate arguements, this is not 1 continous arguement, and has not in any way shape or form given me any advice to help me, instead he is determind to get rid of me. But spelling and grammer is not a reason to get someone banned or to revert whole edits for the sake of it like that user has been behaving and then jumping one someone when a response comes.

Other examples have been where I have written something being accused of owning the article, I was accused unfairly of this about the River Song page, when it was Ratemouth who was owning the page. I even wrote on his page and even that has been called rude(my defo of rude is swearing, being hostile for no reason and finally name calling etc) this was firm but a fair edit (to get a point across to someone who is/was clearly up thie arse, so much they couldn't even see the simple tense issue and kept reverting everything), but when the person who has so much hatred for me calls it that there's very little I can do. I try and take on board and incorporate other's edits if I disagree with something, I DO NOT revert whole pieces of text if one tries to improve it, I just edit the bit I want to change, which a certain person likes to try and make out I'm rude and are warring for doing so when he reverts all my edits if he has an issue.

You know, yes some of the comments I've written are not good, obviously one does regret them as you look back on it and look very stupid. But the cause of most of those comments and some of the wars (If I was a bit more Wiki/internet street wise) have been when I have been set up/wound up by a certain user (Of course it's a lot harder to see other peoples games here).

But at the end of the day it has been made to be a lot worse. For example this is not vandalism "random numbers" This is sourced info which adds to the article. OK it's not there now, but it's definatly not vandilism, for example there was a bit on the Murray page(not written by me I must add, and had been there for sometime) about him and Scottish colours, it's not there now, but it's not vandalism. You see the point of things being made out to be worse here, same with spelling, if someone can't spell/or makes a typo it's not their fault, and that is not a reason to target someone.

But however, there are a couple of things like the comments I've written in retaliation when wound up I should hold my hands up to. Yes I should not have removed a reference tag, but TBH I was narked off by Armbrust owning snooker articles and starting to what appeared to stalk me. But when I removed the notablity tag from the RAF ground that's not vandalism that is notable as I wrote why in edit summery, so I am not holding my hands up to that one, and I have no clue why someone is calling it vandalism.

As I conclude, most of the 'notourious' edits have either been provoked or have been made out to be a lot worse. But when and refer to my response on the RFC you see people writing things like that and writing/doing things which are rude and antanonistic towards me, what does one expect, when one maybe nieve in the sense of how to deal with it in a wiki mannor. In my nieve way give as good as you get and don't back down, since most of the 'issues' have been pointless and trivial. But if you and I can get to an agreement where I don't feel unfairly treated like you said earlier, then I am more than happy to see what we can do. KnowIG (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Addition to response: See here bit random in terms of stalking, I fixing some flags and next he shows up, you see why one gets rather narked off with him. But anyway the main point why I am using this example is no comment in the edit summery, i see this type of thing all the time including on some undo button presses when it's clearly not vandalism and had other users do that to me. So you can see where bad habits can easily be picked up, but singling someone out as you said is not cool. KnowIG (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Further comment you see what I mean that user will not accept when he is wrong and is trying to blame me 100%. That is wrong, so any deal has to have consequences for that user, cause I will not tolorate this consent harrasement by him. He was told to leave me alone as per an unblock, he didn't aproach me directly but continued to stalk me and then reppeared on my talk page trying to provoke something out of me, which I tried not to fuel, hence now this pethetic RFC, reasoning from him and now him appearing on your talk back page making me out to be worse than what I am as per his agenda, and harrasing you to do something against me. Thank you KnowIG (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely see what you are taking about. After you have been mentioning those things I see what you mean. I will ask the other users to please simply fix your grammar and spelling rather than revert it. Something here (location) says something about there being a threat. I see none or no real stalking. Back to my point. If I can work out with the others about reverting spelling/grammar would you be willing to be more open, like if they do get reverted you will leave a note saying something like, "Hey, I saw you reverted my edit (article name). If it was for spelling or grammar I ask that you help and take care of it since I am not good with that." Just something short and simple to get the point across. Rather than the nasty comments you have left on talk pages before. OK? If that is OK then I will talk to the others. As for the thing on my talk page, I DO NOT WANT YOU TO TALK TO THE USER WHO LEFT THAT COMMENT. Tell me what you think and I will relay the message how I feel is sweet and true. Thank you. Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 22:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously that user on your page, I don't want anything to do with that person, but he keeps coming back at me trying to provoke or something, whatever the agenda is, I don't care and I don't want anything to do with him. I agree with everything else that you propose. Though I am concerned that it could (and it's just the one user that could go this way really) start a bit of a war if they revert for the sake of it when they know they should edit my edit, or I post the proposed message, and they do nothing so I revert to correct and the war stems from there then what do you do, what I'm trying to say is we have had no flexiblity on one side so far before the RFC, and sadly still no flexiblity from that party it seems, if you can work your magic Joe and get some flexablity/agreement then I'm 100% behind you. KnowIG (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

After I close the RfC and I talk to the other 2 users who started the RfC I am going to file an ANI about that user. It seems that they are harassing you more than you are harassing them. I am going to state that you do not want to have any contact with them and you don't want to have them contact you. Is that Okay? Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 23:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

that would be fine. Thank you. KnowIG (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This was from my talkpage from TT, will you accept these terms, I feel they are not unreasonable, here they are, "Yes, I will try to get along with him. No, I will not turn a blind eye to his rampant disruption. No, I will not agree to hold off all contact with him. No, I will not agree to the RfC being closed without some definite resolution, preferably in the form of him agreeing not to revert valid edits (of everyone, not just of me). Happy? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 12:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC) " Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Joe I know he is putting lots of heat on you, and I'm about to add to it, no I do not accept that. As I have pointed out my edits are made to be worse than what they are and his reaction to all of this proves that he has an issue which has nothing to do with the edits. This is the big issue 'agreeing not to revert valid edits (of everyone, not just of me)' when you and I have determind that most of the time I haven't started the war (I haven't undone a valid edit, I've added to it and then he starts the war), and it's been him reverting my edit so therefore I am not going to accept as it allows TT to do what he normally does. I will only accept these conditions. 1)He leaves me alone and doesn't contact me, nor does he file reports on me or goes to other editors and ask them to do this for him, another editor must independently, with no sign posting from him, get involved. 2)If he sees an edit of mine he is not allowed to undo it and must go to the talk page and discuss the issue that he has, if he says i have an issue with your edit cause mine is a valid edit so therefore I revert it (which is basically saying I don't like your edit only mine will do) or there is no consenus then he can not touch the edit. KnowIG (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you agree to only have contact when necessary. I think no contact is not reasonable, I think when there is a question that is respectful or a statement about a good job or something. Is that Okay? I will ask about the valid edit thing. Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What about these valid edits? can you explain these valid edits?

Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Right just between you and me, I tell you about this then go and give TT a slap cause he is doing everything and anything to avoid punishment here. As you can see it's only examples when he has not been involved which he can drag up, tells you something about his reverting style, and possibley just a lack of understanding on his part. Anyway....

1. I've held my hands up to that
2. Narked off by Armbrust apparent stalking constant editing of things right after. But his a nice guy I've no beef with him
3. I've already explained that as a valid edit it is notable why does TT keep coming up with that one.
4. Overally long article trivial things which did not change the article, e.g. things about last year and the seeds of players who were not one or two therefore side tracks the article and needed trimming.
5. Lots of others had edited that one before but hey, it's ok TT can single me out for bullying can't he?
6. The Serena incident from 2009 USO is not on the page so why should that be, I've explained why in the edit
7.At that point in time and this is still a fault with the ATP they have a website for the WTF but have not written anywhere the qualification rules, if it is ambigousous like it was then of course one reverts
8. Tense issues,she still plays for GB right? She hasn't retired all others have it blank don't need no. And the rest of it was POV and rubbish which does not belong to an intro, and does not make her notable, the amount of titles and wins against top tenners do
9, 10 and 11 already explained.
So as you can see TT is being alkward, and believe you me anymore of this valid edit nonsense and I will push for a punishment on the ANI.

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please note, this is not against you. It is for you.Joe Gazz84•_talk••_{Editor Review} 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Darius mess

I'm not sure what you want me to do/say. I go through pages of the category, check them, revert when appropriate, clean up otherwise. What list do you want me to contribute too? Pichpich (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• All I was asking you to do was if you make a bot revert then please try and find the page on this list and write a simple N or Y by it and sign. :) KnowIG (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah ok. But wouldn't that be crazy inefficient? I think User:Moonriddengirl/CCI 'bot stalk report is updated automatically. Pichpich (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It's updated whenever I manually initiate the reporting script. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah OK didn't know that, just a bit of a pain when you click on one to find it all ready done. Since the computer goes slow due to the sheer meatyness of the article. But thanks for the explanation. KnowIG (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

china open too low???

why? its one of the biggest wta event. its a premier mandatory event with 4,500,000 price money! actually its a high importance, so i change that.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tennis/Assessment#Importance Scale. Draw pages are marked low, which is what I did. So I will revert, OK? KnowIG (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

k i do it -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

i see u revert it. what a complicated importance scale!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Please, we are all heartily sick of trying to whip up "controversy" about Murray's nationality. There is no need to do this in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page. Instant reverts without discussion or consensus are likely to be seen as edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

AS I wrote in the revert leave it for reference. And I've told Britwatch to come up with proper reasons and proper solutions as at the moment his being obstructive and any reason he comes up with atm can be easily disproved. SO I say we leave it how I had it untill Brit comes up with something sensible. KnowIG (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you are currently involved in an edit war at Andy Murray. This is a friendly reminder that WP:3RR applies, and that you may be blocked from editing if you revert more than 3 times within 24 hours (and I note that you've already reverted 5 times in the last 24 hours), or for edit warring even if you haven't technically broken 3RR. Pfainuk talk 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted at least once to stick references in, and 2 more times when I was creating a section as you say easy to get to 3RR KnowIG (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

are five reverts within the space of 24 hours. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)