User talk:KnowIG

Welcome to Wikipedia from Mootros

Hi, KnowIG. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. [1]. 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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 [TALK] 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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 [TALK] 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^talk 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for Persistent disruptive editing, of which you have a sorry previous history including (but not limited to) abuse of other editors, and removing Talk page comments from other editors.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 21:26, 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

You have been blocked for a period of twelve hours for edit-warring on Amy Pond (in the most pathetic edit war I've ever seen). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 [TALK] 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 [TALK] 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is I DO edit quietly. TT who I have asked to stay away from me and frankly refuses, sits there bullies gets blocked goes oh sorry won't do it again and carries on. I have nothing to do with me and he sits and stalks me and NOT ONE user has gone hang on a minute this is unfair lets slap him down as I have edited quietly until he appears. Ifd he is an admin can we strip him of it as his a terrible example

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 ^Talk/_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 [2] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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 ^Talk _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

Hello, KnowIG. You have new messages at WP:RFC/KnowIG.
Message added 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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^user•_talk•^contribs•_{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^user•_talk•^contribs•_{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^user•_talk•^contribs•_{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^user•_talk•^contribs•_{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^user•_talk•^contribs•_{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^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What about these valid edits? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] can you explain these valid edits?

Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{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 Wikipedia: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^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KnowIG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 16:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 Wikipedia: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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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)

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] are five reverts within the space of 24 hours. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I give up with Wikipedia this place is retarded. I explain and what do we get, oh year the fucking example above, this is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia. No wonder why it's a joke. FUCK THIS KnowIG (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What's going on

KnowIG (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Seriously WHy have I been blocked?

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 1 month

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Following a review of the ANI discussion noted above, and your non-admission of any issue regarding your behaviours and indeed the attempt to divert attention to perceived problems with the reporting editor, I have withdrawn your editing privileges for a month. My intention is to remove you from the project so to allow the normal editing process to re-establish itself. If you return to your disruptive behaviours once the sanction expires then it will be apparent that the source of the problem is you, and you may then be blocked indefintely - and if you attempt to sock around this block there will be the same result. If, however, you return and contribute appropriately to the concerned articles and elsewhere, then the project gets a good contributor. It is up to you to decide whether you want to take part in a collegiate and consensual editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I appologise for any rude outbust today it's totally unacceptable.

Decline reason:

Even in this situation, where you are strongly motivated to demonstrate that you can follow the civility rules, you are unable to converse with other editors without calling another editor a 'nutter.' I therefore don't have any confidence that, if unblocked, you would consistently talk civilly to other users. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 October 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.

Strictly speaking, that's not an unblock rationale. User:LessHeard vanU obviously had reason to execute this block. I won't decline your request but I would advise you to remove the request and post your concern as a talk page message. I will forward your message to whatever forum you request. Regards Tiderolls 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK removed the bit I think you want removed. Can you ask him to show how I'm disruptive, I do not swear apart from the user on here earlier and that was rather deserved as that was pointless, yet again it's my talkpage, so no one can complain really. All my other edits have been in good faith and constructive, so I repeat ask him to show why how I am disruptive KnowIG (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've informed LHvU that you have concerns. It will his decision to come here or not. The reason I advised you to remove the unblock template is that misuse of the template can result in loss of editing your user talk. Not that I believe we're anywhere near that happening, but you approach nearer with every unblock template. Especially if they don't address the issue of the block. As as aside, I would also mention that this is not your page, technically. What happens here could affect the project as a whole so there are wider concerns. Again, just an observation. Tiderolls 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted but I think you can understand ones reaction there, one explains something and then gets it shoved back in their face, which was hardly helpful. Anyway thank you for your help KnowIG (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do understand. I also believe that you are sincere. Sincerity alone is not sufficient, there also a requirement for compliance with policy. We all reach points where we feel we cannot, for lack of a better term, retreat. The trick is to avoid those "points". I think you already know this so I apologize if my post seems patronizing. Good luck Tiderolls 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the request forwarded to my talkpage - you are disruptive in that you have (or appear to have) no interest in addressing your own behaviours, and instead attempt to divert attention to the issues with others (not saying there were not issues, but they have been dealt with). The concerns with your behaviour are not, however, limited to the instances brought up at ANI but are of a historical nature - by which I refer to the RfC. Given that your behaviours are of a long standing concern (and not that of only one editor, either) and yet your response to them being raised is to indulge in diversionary tactics I believe that only an extended absence from the project is going to convince you to re-appraise your approach to the editing model. I hope this clarifies my rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but I fed up with people who refuse to sort things out and I'm being bullyied by TT but hey nobody gives a dam, he gets blocked 2 mins later his out doing it again, stalking me and bullying me, It's completely not fair and a month is definatly OTT when the USert TT causes most of the issues. An eye for an eye, so I think he should be blocked as well for a month or just let me go if your not prepared to be reasonable. Most of what he comes up with is what he manufacters and doesn't take in the whole context. His word is not suported properly, and he has an issue with me whuch no one has dekt with. KnowIG (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you notice i don't cause trouble this bad image is when I've been provoked usually by TT and don't give me crap of me not looking at my self cause I'm being honest it's not my fault if you can't see it and want to let a nutter be an admin KnowIG (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have proved for 3 months that I can be rational and polite with others. When TT turns up and makes my life hell what do you expect me to talk him, God?

Decline reason:

Above, you call an admin a "nutter". This edit summary, which is a violation of WP:NPA. You're blocked for a very good reason - you have zero ability to separate reality from the internet, and feel it's ok to lash out rather than follow established WP:DR processes. Someone else's actions may explain behaviour, but it can never excuse it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 3 October 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.

Can someone uinblock me for god sake It's COMPLETLY OTT.}}

I don't give a dam but it's people like you who need to get out more, he is a complete and utter nightmare cluttering my talk page with rubbish for each scheme he comes up with. Now please stop twating about

SO therefore you can go and protect me then from that person,, but you don't focusing on punishing me.

{{unblock reviewed|No reason was given in why I was blocked to start with. When looking at reason given it says no reason}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

It's excessive, inhumain, OTT. I have done nought in comparisant to others, if your reasonable I'll be reasonable to you. Simples. It takes 2 to tango folks

Decline reason:

By your repeated failure to accept the block and the statements you have made on this page since your block, I do not see that you understand the reason behind your block, which means you will not be unblocked. If you continue requesting unblock, your editing privileges to this page will be revoked. Once you actually address the issue that caused you to be blocked and refrain from acting in such a manner, you may be unblocked. But "Why should I shut up whatever I say is NEVER going to be good enough for you jobworths" doesn't make anybody want to unblock you. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:53, 3 October 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.

You are in danger of falling foul of multiple bad unblock requests which may result in you losing the ability to edit your talk page or an extension to your one month block. Four requests in a few hours is excessive. Take a step back and calm down for your own benefit. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should I shut up whatever I say is NEVER going to be good enough for you jobworths

One reason would be so that you could return and help us with this project. Tiderolls 22:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Well pardon me for trying to help, I will not bother next time. Amidst all the argy bargy and name calling I felt you had made some very useful additions to wikipedia over recent months. I am just concerned that your activities today were placing you in danger of a permanent ban. Please yourself, you just carry on doing what you are doing. Good luck. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

AW thanks guys i just don't want to b outcast for a month from someone bullying me , and yes this is anger tonight

If you're at all confused- you're expected to be nice. All the time, to everyone. Even when they aren't nice to you. You're blocked because you weren't being nice, a lot of the time, to a lot of people. You won't be unblocked unless someone is totally convinced that you know how to be nice, all the time, to everyone, and that you will. Right now, no one is convinced of that, and nothing you're saying helps anyone believe it. Your choices are (a) make a really believable case that you have learned how to be nice (this is the really difficult one), (b) keep asking for unblocks without making such a case, and get your talk page disabled, or (c) just log off, wait out your block, and then come back in a month and try to do better. I've seen people in your situation make all three of those choices... which one you choose is totally up to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

only cause you don't listen or take anythimg into context. Yor mentality is oh block what for oh right never letting him out. I saw TT say sorry and got let out I say sorry and you refuse double standards. THIS IS WHY WIKI IS PATHETIC

Yes, thanks- that is a good example of the reason for your block. I think the best thing for me to do is simply not respond on this talk page any more, and let you have time to reflect. It's clear there's nothing I can say that will be helpful to you right now, and the information you need will still be here when you're ready for it. Have a good evening, or whatever you're having in your time zone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But I don't see you sorting the trouble makers out, why punish a victim. KnowIG (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC) P.s. Can someone sort this page out Tennis at the 2010 Commonwealth Games – Women's Doubles look at the source massive error needs fixing and seed numbers need putting in KnowIG (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help this guy please Matt279 (talk | contribs) he is adding tennis scores but as he is new has no idea how to put tie breakers in. Someone help him. This is why I should not be banned for a quiet frankly in human amount of time

Stop playing the victim: it took 2 to tango, and the other had already been blocked. Also, understand the difference between WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. If you had took 2 seconds to read WP:GAB and accept that your actions were inappropriate, you would have been unblocked long before now. Unfortunately, we'll see you in a month instead. Also realize, this block applies to you and not just your userid: if you create another id, or attempt to edit anonymously, you will be blocked indefinitely for WP:EVADE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I took responsablity its not my fault your blind check the first appeal. Then tell me how I have not taken responablity. I expect nothing but a load of crap of you though

I'm not an admin, but I have witnessed a great number of block/unblock situations. Generic "I'm sorrys" aren't likely to be convincing, and practically every response you've given on your talk page since that first appeal shows that you weren't looking to change your behavior, but only say what you thought you should to be unblocked. --Onorem♠Dil 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that everytime of everyone else and what do they do revert to type. How am I any different. I'm not just that this lot are scared

Look ... I only have your best interests at heart and I am trying once more to help here, so read this carefully and understand it. If you hadn't realised it yet, this one month block is going to stay and you must accept that. If it were me I would avoid even looking at wikipedia for the next 30 days because it will only upset you even further - and the more upset you get the more you will make rash comments and the chances of you being permanently excluded will increase. Find something else to do until your block expires then come back quietly and edit in your chosen field of interest. Don't worry about the articles, they will still be there in a month and you can correct them then in your own time.

The alternative is to carry on doing what you are doing, but I hope you will see the sense in my suggestion for the long term. Fisherqueen said some very sensible things above (and like me was trying to help you) but instead of taking them onboard you bit her offered hand of friendship in anger. She is one of the most sensible admins on wiki and always talks sense. Please realise that not everybody is 'out to get you'. My best advice to you is to step away from the computer and take a break and I hope you can realise that it is for the best. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is I DO edit quietly. TT who I have asked to stay away from me and frankly refuses, sits there bullies gets blocked goes oh sorry won't do it again and carries on. I have nothing to do with me and he sits and stalks me and NOT ONE user has gone hang on a minute this is unfair lets slap him down as I have edited quietly until he appears. Ifd he is an admin can we strip him of it as his a terrible example

You've been told to stay away so leave me alone TT cause your gonna regret it

I hope it's not quite to the point where a 30 day block is guaranteed at this point. I do believe though that 30 days would be a short block if you continue to react to the situation as you have from the start. I'm not always a fan of the way that TT handles himself at times either, but their actions don't justify your actions. If you have a problem with TT, dispute resolution is this way. Your actions were blockworthy. Stop trying to blame someone else or justify them because of what someone else did. They were your own actions. There are avenues to discuss someone else's behavior that don't have to lead to getting yourself blocked. --Onorem♠Dil 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As Treasury Tag said (before you deleted him) no he is not an admin, nor is he likely to be one (and I am pretty certain he would not wish to be one anyway). But I see I was wasting my breath - you didn't walk away from the computer and are still knee-jerking in anger ... you are not able to put this down are you? It will be painful watching you self destruct as an editor unless you eventually see the light. Good luck 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He deserves to be blocked permanatly. And no I'm not going to lie down and say OK. In the real world would you walk away from an unjust verdict and say OK. Answer no, why should the tinternet be any different. And think about it be for trying to be a wise guy...

I'm not asking you to walk away, but the "verdict" wasn't unjust. You are blocked because of what you did. Why you did it is a completely different matter, and had you handled it differently, the outcome wouldn't have necessarily been the same. I'm done here anyway. You don't want to listen to the people trying to help you. Best of luck in not losing your talk page privileges or increasing your block length from here out... --Onorem♠Dil 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I am of outa here too ... my forehead is hurting from banging it against a brick wall. Over and out. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I've had enough sod Wikipedia BYE!!!!!!!!

P.S. HWLP? all you did was tell me to calm down. It doesn't help nor does it help to get out of it.

why is st. petersburg low importance

why? i remove this.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As per the last time you asked about draw sheets KnowIG (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

but why doubles and not singles, and why this event and no others. that is really odd.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cause I can't tag everything....And want to do other things like put info boxes and rewrite/improve articles. KnowIG (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

however-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What? KnowIG (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tennis

Hi mate, Great work on the tennis articles, a much neglected area on wikipedia. Just one request - could you possibly construct the tables on articles such as 1987 Nabisco Grand Prix so that they have the same sort of information as the 2010 ATP World Tour article, i.e. links to the singles and doubles draws as well as the tournament. Please respond if this is ok with you. Thanks. 03md 03:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please can you respond. It would be useful if you could apply the new formats to articles such as 1994 ATP Tour that I see you were working on. 03md 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude nor be funny here, but I have a very busy week and was in a bit of a hole. So I needed a little bit of time to sort myself out and see where I was before I said yes or no, and that's why I didn't want to responed on Sunday, since the things giving me grief couldn't be sorted until now. My answer is yes I can and will sort out all the ATP pages, give me a couple of months. Plan of action at the mo. Tuesday tournament names for ATP and WTA 1994, and ATP and WTA 1995. Thurs finish 87 tournment table and fill in all gaps which I've left so far. And I need to go back to the Heineken Open as if you haven't noticed that's a state and a half most of the tournaments have the wrong sponsered name and now I've redirected about 6 to the wrong page as the generic name is Auckland Open not NZ!!! As I say I will do it but slowly as I have a couple of other things to do with deadlines, which I am well placed on but need to purge and are rather time consuming. I will also try and rope another couple of editiors in to fill out the draw sheets/do tournment pages for those that do not exist to try and get rid of the red links ASAP KnowIG (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I wasn't meaning to be rude either. I just often make proposals and ask for help and get no feedback, so cheers for responding. I am happy to help out with filling in the redlinks. Did you want me to do specific years? 03md 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Start whether you feel like. KnowIG (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have almost finished 1983 Virginia Slims World Championship Series - I've just created a table like the one on modern articles listing tournament victories by country and player. How does the article look so far? 03md 20:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Two end of season doubles comps. Confused.com. But oh well if that's what it was lol. Don't forget to put Fed Cup in which took place in July and are you going to put the Whiteman cup or whatever it's called in. Finally can you put the begining and end of year top 20 in. If the WTA rankings don't go back that far don't worry. KnowIG (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've realised that the Bridgestone tournament was a regular event (despite its name) so I will correct the stats. 03md 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For the Fed Cup, there were 16 first round ties in 1983 (no groupings at this time) so should I include them all in the table? 03md 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the Fed Cup played in one location over one week? So surely it would make sense to put it down like a normal comp, instead of listing each tie KnowIG (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Education cuts

I was in London today as well - it was quite mental. 03md 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to Grand Prix Tournaments

Hello I have noticed that references to Grand Prix tournaments (ATP seasons) are being removed by you on tournaments prior to 1990 almost all tournaments today are an evolution of events that existed either on the Grand Prix or WCT Tours, a template for reference to pre-ATP tour seasons exist and should be placed for historical context and accuracy as the Grand Prix seasons are being developed. Please don't remove them.. --Wales63 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No they shouldn't be there at all. You a have tournament box allowing people to jump from one tournament to another. You also on the year page have a link to a box of the tour for that year. The list of all seasons since 1970 season box should only go on the yearly page of the ATP/Grand Prix tours, that is the only place where that box should be used. KnowIG (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand that now. So references to them being Championship Series Events are being placed there now, is because the different tier level events that existed on the previous tours have yet to be developed? --Wales63 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

I don't believe calling other editors "pathetic" as you did here is in any way helpful. While the remainder of your comment may be valid, that is not. I urge you to strike that comment and remember to keep the focus on content rather than contributors. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish

We should come to a consensus on the standards of match reviews. You cut these articles quite short compared to the same round robin descriptions of last year.

“ In the first singles match, 2008 semifinalist Murray fought del Potro. Murray went up 5-0 over Del Potro, who took a medical timeout at 3-0, for a nosebleed. Del Potro went down 15-40, but eventually saved two set points and won the game. At 5-1, on the second break point Del Potro challenged Murray's apparent ace and won the break. Both players then held, giving Murray the first set 6-3. In the second set, Del Potro looked rejuvenated taking the first 3 games even breaking at love in the second game. Murray broke in the 5th game to bring it back to serve. The Argentine broke again and held to lead 5-2. Both players held, requiring a third set. The decider saw a change of roles as Murray broke in the second game at his second chance to lead 3-0. The servers held the next four games to 5-2. At 5-2 Del Potro went down 15-30, and then double-faulted, giving Murray 2 match points. Murray converted the second. ”

In the one paragraph excerpt we come across everything : nosebleed, ace, first challenge (which I also found useless but won't remove just because I think it so) even love games. There's no such guideline restricting the length of match details. In its current form those 4-liners don't say nothing. No turning points, no chances for the players to win game/set/match just the score and some trivia (30th win for Federer(?)... If Roddick reaches his 10th (he stands at 9), shall we include that one as well? Does it really count or make any difference?). Please consider not removing the half content but rewriting instead. I will also open a section for such discussion at the talk page of the article too. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See topic's talk page KnowIG (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered on talk page.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Evert stats

Hi mate, The Chris Evert career statistics article is incomplete and I having trouble determining how many titles Evert won in doubles. Our page says 32, the WTA says 18 but lists only 8, while ITF lists 17. 03md 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is the WTA only go back to 85 from the looks of it. I have had a look at a fan site and used the WTA info and I have her down for 29 (including her 3 GS wins)(which is what the fans had her for), just going to look to see how accuate the site is, by cross referencing. KnowIG (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed wins

• VS of Chicago, 74, 75, 77
• Brighton 83
• French Open, 74, 75
• Wimbledon, 76
• VS of LA 77, 79, 84
• Family Circle Cup, 77, 86

The fixin for dash

Thanks for cleaning up after me. How can I do it right the first time, so it reduces your 'cleanup'? Loner t (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If I use this

Main article: 1984 Volvo Masters – Singles

, in which I use "&n dash;" rather than "-", in the 1984 Volvo Masters page, then I get the correct dash and it matches the infobox as well. Is it all right to change the main page to make it consistent? BTW, Are you knowledge_is_good from BBC 606? Loner t (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. ;-). I see you on MTL as well. I post as 'laverfan'. Cheers. Loner t (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

KiG.. Thanks for the speedy deletion' marking for '1994 ATP Tour World Championships - Doubles'. <cheers>. Loner t (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Milan Indoors

Im not getting in text tennis with you regarding sponsorship of this event all SPONSORS are mentioned in the main article Milan Indoor and do not need to be added to every single tournament. Leave the pages alone!!!!!!!!!!!!--Wales63 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's very rude. All articles are how I've put it. And in the main article it doesn't have the years so simpley saying it's in the main article is a load of clap TBH. KnowIG (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm available right now if you would like to discuss this over the phone one to one--Wales63 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WHAT THE....What are you doing? Just think about it take your anger of Wikipedia. Calm down and nothing will happen gee wizz. If you carry on then it's up to you just reoply to my first point and stop leaving bitey comments. KnowIG (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hiya! Can I just say, firstly, that you've been doing really well, editing constructively without causing fights. No snippiness, no rudeness – an exemplary Wikipedian. Well done! However – this seemed a little over the top. I quite agree that the other editor's comment was unacceptable, and I will be warning them separately. But labelling things "pathetic" isn't really helpful either!

Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

TBF I've seen you do that in the past, perhaps we can both mature and become more friendly with each other in the future KnowIG (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide yo do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 1996 Bournemouth Open

Hello KnowIG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 1996 Bournemouth Open, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Makes more sense to redirect it. Thank you. GedUK  17:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Monte Carlo

Just wanted to leave you a note regarding the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters, as I see on 1986, 1987 and 1988 articles you list the tournaments as taking place from "Roquebrune-Cap-Martin in France" this is totally incorrect and would just like to ask you to pay more attention with the little things on the article so there's no misinformation, thanks. Afro (Talk) 04:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Er no it is from there as that is where the club is based, The club is famously not in Monaco :doh: KnowIG (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The club is actually less than 1km from the centre of Monte Carlo however despite being that close it is actually in the French controlled administrative area of Roquebrune-Cap-Martin. --92.28.98.23 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I only bring up this as sources do say such as ATP say it takes place in Monaco. Afro (Talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry XMAS (2010)

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png		Merry XMAS (2010)
		Armbrust is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Mōdraniht, Diwali, Hogmanay, Wren's Day, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus, Jonkonnu, or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. Best regards! Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ASB Classic

Hi, I don't see the point once the tournament has started, plus, too many sources kinda ruin readability. Put them back then, sorry about that. Have a nice day.

SA Open

Hi mate, Can you shed some light on the situation of the SA Tennis Open. The [French article] shows an ATP and WTA tournament being held but it seems the two were separate. However they both seem to have the same title. Our article currently lists only the reboot of the tournament in 2009 and 2010. I was about to create 1984 Triumph International but was stumped by this point. I'm not sure if the WTA tournament in 1984 was a continuation from 1977 and if the ATP and WTA were the same tournament or separate. Thanks. 03md 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good news the French site has mucked up a load of things, including this tournament. I would say they are separate since the Women's tournament was in April whilst the men's was in November. :) KnowIG (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already created an article for 1984 South African Open (tennis) which includes both the men's and women's details. I'm not sure of an appropriate name if they were seperate tournaments. I realised that User:Totalinarian had moved the pre-2009 event details to a separate article South African Open (tennis) and this shows the men's and women's results. 03md 01:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tennis articles

Hey, could you please use the right format for the tournaments? Thanks for creating those but it is not right. The doubles articles are not split in 2 halfs, it´s one 16bracket, add the proper categories please. Just check the already finished tournaments of how it should look and you are alright. Kante4 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC) A) says who. B) my catagorisation was correct. C) I think you find that many article support the 2 8 brackets and a final thing. KnowIG (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing aggressive. Ok, 1) No links to the draw 2) No categorization of the 2011 atp world tour/wta tour 3) In the doubles contests only 4 "teams" are seeded 4) 16team brackets for the doubles, except for the grand slams. I don´t want to pick on you, just trying to help. Kante4 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well no offence but it was coming across that way. Anyways I didn't create the page, I just did something with it so don't accuse me of not having links to the draws, because there was no links when I did something with it. Thank you. KnowIG (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the links are the same from the Singles draw, just change the mds to mdd and you have it, pretty easy. ;) I will also point that out to the other creators so that we are all on the same level. Kante4 (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk about aggressive... Kante4 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the page then....Then you would know the proper place to put that... KnowIG (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tennis

Because they are not really wildcards, they are direct-ins as they are the first two in qualifying draw as no wildcards were awarded they receive a direct entry if you look at the draw they are not labeled as WC. And if you read the full article you will read this

"Ranked No. 30 and No. 31 respectively, they gained direct acceptance into the draw after no WTA Top 20 wildcards were requested and will join Caroline Wozniacki, Vera Zvonareva, Kim Clijsters andSamantha Stosur in the event."

The statement direct acceptance.

Dencod16 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You have no sense of design can you look at what you did. Dencod16 (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC) It will be a good article maybe even a FA but the order you have is not logical nor does it help the reader as it jumps from pre tournament to tournament and back again KnowIG (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopman Cup

Hi mate, I have added a section to the Hopman Cup template for links to Hopman Cup team pages, which exist for the Davis Cup and Fed Cup and I thought would be a good idea for this tournament. It would be good if you could create some stubs and then add links into 2010 Hopman Cup. I was hoping they could document the players who have competed for each country in the Hopman Cup and the country's performance. I have created a template which makes it easy to add the articles. 03md 14:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The GB article looks good. 03md 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KnowIG. You have new messages at Cirt's talk page.
Message added 20:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Keith Elias/GA1

Please review Talk:Keith Elias/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you have completed the process of passing Keith Elias according to WP:GAC. I think you have left out some steps.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw you edited and did not properly pass this article. Could you please take care of it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at [[:2011 Australian Open – Boys' Singles ]]. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Stephen 12:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

'NOTE Just an aside. This edit looks very suspicious to this edit Think someone is trying to get round there block. KnowIG (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: AFD's

It's okay, it's my fault afterall for not adding needed infos on those articles beforehand. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 21:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Australian Open Boy's/Girl's Singles/Doubles Player Links

To answer your question, it was me that linked all the players. Surely there was a reason for my actions. Why? Well I would have went with your way of not linking the players as the red color does seem annoying to look at. However, last time I checked, the previous years of this tournament and even the other grand slam tournaments had players linked whether they had a page or not. Also, in the event that someone does create a page for a player, it won't be a much of a hassle to go back and add in the links for every tournament that player had participated in.

Since you've already reverted most of my edits, I won't waste my time on it as I don't oversee what goes on here and I'm still just a rookie for that matter. However, you should really look at the whole picture and have some common sense when it comes to these situations. Take care and happy editing! Scott523 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and I noticed you also reverted the first names to show its full name when the first name should be initialed in the early rounds until the Quarterfinals. Initialed first names in the early rounds have been that way in past grand slam tournaments. Scott523 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Junior tennis player

hello,

I think the notability guideline is way too strict... I think it should be changed to "To all players in the top 10 in the junior and/or pro ranking articles can be created and must not be deleted" or so... but now it's too strict. That's my opinion. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok but I think your asking the wrong person as I'm nothing to do with that. And wouldn't want to set that one up/change all by myself :) KnowIG (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

AUSSIE OPEN

I agree with you, it's strange that she is ranked, because when mauresmo, henin and clijsters retired they were removed in the rankings and Dementieva wasn't. However, the seeding are based on the rankings as Dementieva is ranked inside the top 32, she shoudl have been seeded based on rankings alone. Dencod16 (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal Records

Hi I was just reading and checking Rafa's records and the page for editing his 3 consecutive Grand Slams in a year 2010 say's record shared with Rod Laver I believe Mats Wilander also achived this in 1988 not sure if I can alter this re- editing conditions don't know if you have full access to edit could you check i am correct about Wilander don't want to add him in if I'm not allowed to0, fairly new on here I was told your really good with these sorts of things thank you --Navops47 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Inherent notability in being Youth Olympic gold medalist, a good idea?

KnowlG, where you seem to have particular interests in both the Olympics and tennis, do you think we shouldn't pursue changing WP:NTENNIS to include the youth olympic gold medalist? The 2010 edition looks to have brought out most if not all of the best juniors. I would not, personally, wish to include the silver and bronze medalists, so long as we only have the ITF junior combined rankings top three passing NTENNIS, and not the top five - we may need to expand the junior notability to be the ITF top ten, given the prominence youth sportspeople do get, the media coverage, and as nearly all do go on to pass NTENNIS eventually anyway Mayumashu (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason why all the big hitters were there for the youth Olympics is because it was a category A event. The Grand Slams and 4 other tournaments are rated as category A. Now since we have GS winners listed, and you propose to expand the list to include Olympic champs. I propose that we include the winners of the Orange bowl(under 18 category only as I realise there are lots of different age categories for this tournament) and the Petits As. These outside of the Slams are the 2 most prestious tournaments. The Orange bowl is described as the world championships for junior tennis. Although I am a bit sceptical about the Petit As...But still thats my view and that don't really come into this. As for the rankings if we include the 2 tournaments mentioned then review it we may find that we have covered the bulk of people in the top ten and don't need to change the rankings, that would be the best course of action I think for now. KnowIG (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I d throw in support (then) for making all the ITF Grade A junior champions notable, or just the Orange Bowl (or just it and the Petits As), whichever the majority would go with. As it stands now the WP:NTENNIS as it addresses world junior tennis is quite inadequate, isn t it. I noticed another user a few entries up your talk page lamenting this same matter and have contacted him too. Personally, I was quite involved in getting WP:NTENNIS up and running and won t for the meantime anyway become active in starting up revamping it - maybe by summer if nothing has changed I will start an entry on this on the policy's talk page. Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Malmö FF

Thank you for your review, I will look into your suggestions and do my best to improve the article. However I must ask, what IP conflict do you refer to? do you mean 87.251.200.114? If so, that's simply vandalism not an edit war? Or is two accounts of vandalism enough to consider an article unstable? just curious. Thanks again for your review!--Reckless182 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now responded to all your suggestions, please respond at the review page with additional comments on how to proceed. Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I might come out as impatient but have you seen my comments?--Reckless182 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I left some new comments on the review page.--Reckless182 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for the review mate. Much appreciated suggestions. Its good to get the opinions from someone neutral such as you. Thanks. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy Murray

No worries. It's been a busy day on the Andy Murray article and we all make mistakes sometimes. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

2009 World Series peer review

Heyo! I've replied to your peer review comments, if you have anything further that'd be great, but I could also use a clarification on one of your suggestions about paragraph order. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Headley

Hi, thanks for the review. I think I've done everything. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

McCaw Review

Hi KnowlG. I have made an attempt to address all the concerns about the Richie McCaw article you brought up at the GA review. Your suggestions were spot on and I have trimmed a lot of the excess information and implemented many of the changes you suggested. As an aside, I feel you might find it easier to address general concerns about content and style in the beginning instead of bringing it up on each occurrence. For example, if you mention at the start that the correct names for the countries were not being used or that there was too much off-topic information I could have gone through the article first and attempted to fix these concerns, which would have hopefully made the review easier for you. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review this article and I will try my best to fix any more problems you identify. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

Hi KnowlG, just to let you know that 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, which you recently peer reviewed, has now been nominated for FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Eugenie Bouchard

Hi KnowlG, I removed it in accordance with the following instruction on the tag: "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." I did not create the article; and it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion since (as I wrote on the Discussion page) she has since won an ITF tournament, making her notable according to the tennis guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_McDonald%27s_Burnie_International_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles I'm new at Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I made an inaccurate decision; be assured that I was not deliberately flouting guidelines. With best regards, Shuijiashaojun (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just writing to confirm the above posters reply. She won a #25,000 ITF tournament (On Feb 6), which qualifies for notability under criteria #5 of WP:NTENNIS, a mere 6 days after the AfD closed (on Jan 31) on her with the delete (which at the time was correct, but, however she now meets notability requirements. A direct link/reference can be seen here: Singles Results. Just to let you know I'm going to request that both her page and the redirect be recreated. If you have further concerns let me know. Ravendrop (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi KnowlG, Thanks for the clarification on my Talk page. Best, Shuijiashaojun (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eugénie Bouchard

Hello KnowIG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eugénie Bouchard (and Eugenie Bouchard), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 speedy has already been declined on the basis of new achievements since the AfD. If you think it still doesn't meet requirements, you will have to re-AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I DID NOT MAKE ANYOTHER COMMENT ITS NOT MY FAULT IF NO ONE CAN READ AROUND HERE. ENGLISH FOR THE ENGLISH. COMMONSENSE POSTERS FOR THE knowledgable, none of you have been

February 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. for continued personal attacks and incivility. Your last edit summary was, in the circumstances, inadvisable, and made this block inevitable. Fortunately, I'm feeling lenient so it's only a week.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it ain't my fault that your fellow admin is to thick to check the history, when I deleted your polite warning as read, and then proceedes to aggravate the nest

• And if I had seen your comment immediately above this section, this block would have been measured in months, not weeks. You're lucky. Rodhullandemu 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't push it. If you hadn't deleted my warning, you wouldn't have got another one, would you? Rodhullandemu 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your pushing it yourself here. Mean your an admin right. An admin is ment to check and not go blindly charging in, so check the talk page history. Now I know you do it but it is not my fault if your comrade is completly incompetent.

If you're going to make an unblock request that has any chance of success, I'd suggest you read this first. Meanwhile, I'm not going to debate this any further, so it's up to you to request an unblock from an uninvolved Admin. Rodhullandemu 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am going to close that GAC as it has no chance of passing, write on one area of that article and finish the refs for the other bit as I already knew this. And I am going to take steps to control my anger, which has seemed to resurface in the last couple of days, so I will look at the situation and see why I have seemed unable to control it. KnowIG (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block was correct: your comments were unconstructive, and far exceed the threshold for gross incivility. Your comments on this talk page do not give me the impression that unblocking you would be a good idea at the moment. Take this time to reflect about why you were blocked. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:43, 10 February 2011 (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.

• As to the GA nomination, your reviewer's initial comments were not unconstructive, and perhaps you should have stuck with it. Although he/she may not be a native English speaker, it seems that major concerns have been addressed with care- remember that although this is the English language Wikipedia, is is both edited and written by those whose first, or even second language, may not be English, and for those people, explanation of uncommon terms by use of wikilinks is an aid to their understanding of any article. You are allowed to request a second opinion on your GA nomination, and you may feel that that is what you want to do. But given the confidence expressed in it thus far, perhaps you should stick with it. GA is tough enough; but FA is way, way, above that, so you might want to take the chance for now. A failure does not prevent another nomination as soon as you think the deficiencies have been addressed. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Look the thing is and I'm not being arrogent here, I have been dabbling in GA's lately and have looked at a bunch of others which I haven't touched. It doesn't have to be perfect (cause I know it's not) just good. And I know the 2 things needed, the other bunch of stuff with the lead is redundent as a bunch of GA and I've seen one on FAC not having links in lead. However if you look at the review, I'm not familiar with whitewash or Madien(in a sporting context for both as I know the historical context to whitewash), sorry but we may differ here on views but this is not Wikipedia for the specials. Also I am an accedmic (undergrade) so I know all about dumbing down to a point but linking basic terms for a non english speaker thats a bit too far, especially since this is and encyclopeia for English speakers. If your reading it and review it then a comprensable level of English would be presumed by even the most unassuming English native. Personally I do not want to stick with what he has said and rather have a clean break and have a restarted review by someone with a capable level of English. But I see your point if I start again then it maybe there for ages I'm well aware of that, if I continue then I'll have to ignore some of the stuff and will request a 2nd opinon to check KnowIG (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Titoxd cannot be neutral or constructive with that turn down which is totally unreasonable. I have shown sincerity and have been calm and guess what. You haven't realised your actions how the hell can he tell that from what's applied. I will not be treated as an child by a bunch of specials, who blantently privledge shit over qualityKnowIG (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Considering that you were blocked for personal attacks and have acknowledged that you need to control your anger, this unblock request does not convince me that letting you edit again ahead of time is advisable. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2011 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Look my actions yesterday were unacceptable. Do I regret them not at all. Do I wish I did not say that and write something which was more controlled and showed my anger just as much yes. I live and learn. But its a lot harder to do that on here as people just sit and hide behind a screen. I would like to point out that GOP has been on this page again trying to state exactly how he is in the right. I'm sorry but I don't want to continue the matter hence me wanting to close the GAC, as his views differ from everyone elses on the matter and the fact that he took the piss with it. I have deleted it as I dont want anything to do with the matter and he now feels that he "owns" me which is not good. He has written 3 times on here taunting so its not surprising that people go for him. Also an admin not the one who blocked me is totally incompetent and sturred the hornests nest when I had dropped it. As I have stated I don't regret my actions just wished I phrased it better and don't want anything to do with the current matter. KnowIG (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wow, you almost had me clicking "unblock" until you both stated that you did not regret your actions, and the bit about an admin being incompetent - unblock requests are not the place to include those tidbits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:06, 10 February 2011 (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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

2011 Australian Open

Just to let you know that GOP has agreed to withdraw from the review and I've marked it as needing a new reviewer. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

KnowlG, I think you have potential to be a decent editor. I know you have heard this before, but it would be in your best interests to take a step back and wait the week out. These edits look rather suspicious. A week is not that long all things considered. AIRcorn (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's edit normally

The Anti-Hate-Cookie to prevent such things in the future.

Hey, can we stop doing that, please?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

I see a few blocks have already made you well aware of Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and civility. This revert and its edit summary, however, show that don't seem to understand WP:BRD: after you've been bold, and reverted, you should discuss. It applies to you, in this case, since it was you who inserted the new material and had it quickly removed by another editor. It's up to you, should you wish, to defend your edit and seek a consensus on the talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)