User talk:KnowIG

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. 17:06, 18 March 2011 (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. 17:06, 18 March 2011 (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! Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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. 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I've had enough. If you can convince another admin that you're capable of editing in a collaborative environment, fine. Otherwise, you're blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 22 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:

since this is about being uncollaborative, and at a indef block is totally unwarrented. Lets have a look at theses revisions. I have been collaborative, any comments on here. Any comments on the guidelines and coaches section here KnowIG (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think your capabilites clear with this edit. Without a much more comprehensive description of how you will behave differently, and some indication that you understand the problem, I don't see any reason to unblock. Kuru (talk) 15:56, 22 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:

I think your capabilites clear with this edit. Without a much more comprehensive description of how you will behave differently, and some indication that you understand the problem, I don't see any reason to unblock. Kuru this is not a reason to not unblock someone when the have retracted the comment. Cleaver. But since this is about being uncollaborative, and at a indef block is totally unwarrented. Lets have a look at theses revisions. I have been collaborative, any comments on here. Any comments on the guidelines and coaches section here KnowIG (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's a long pattern of acceptable edits but also edits that others disagree with and serious problems as fallout from that latter situation. You have demonstrated that you are unable to react appropriately when others dispute your edits or attempt to collaborate. Repeatedly. Let me be clear: it is never even slightly acceptable to lash out at any other editor. WP:CIVIL is non-negotiable and you have been well advised about that and other editorial processes with respect to others' opinions. You repeatedly do not behave well here, even if you do later apologize and/or retract some of the more egregious comments. That's simply not conducive to a collaborative editing environment, so even if you have some useful content to add, you are creating substantial damage along the way. Because you cannot stop yourself, we are stopping you.

---

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 is why wikipedia admin is shit. You haveno idea of the real world or emotion go ott and decline everything.

You might want to spend some time proving you can edit collaboratively over at http://commons.wikimedia.org/ or http://simple.wikipedia.org -- that will give you a good track record you can use next time you request unblocking here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 22 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:

This block is illegal and unjust and should not be indefinatly. SInce this is about incivitiy I'm going to rip this block apart. (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions. I have never insulted, called a name made a indecent suggestion. Nor have swarn for no reason, I have only swearn when provoked. I have never made a personal attack on any one. In fact read these reverts accused here but where's the evidence. Certainly no personal attack there. Also I was provoked look at this user's comment on my talk page definate targeting, bullying and provoking since it was his first comment to me. Another user then falsey accuses me I remove the notice such as I'm alloud to then I have this another violation of wiki rules by other users towards me. SO lets contiue with the rules. ill-considered accusations of impropriety Nope never violated that. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts. Maybe once but I was block for it.

Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. User's above and Treaury Tag (don't get involved I'm not going for you) have openingly done this towards me I have never done this. Thus causing me to violate. harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings. I have never harrased nor made a threat. TT has repeatedly posted on my page and so has GOP. They both have now left me alone. lying what's the point in that. quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them User TT did this to me which led to a months break for me in a block. Therefore I have not failed any policy and have been on the reciving end of lots of people violating the rules and causing stress and conflict to me. At the very least this block should be reduced to time. Or removed at once. KnowIG (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block is neither illegal nor unreasonable nor unjust; it is a natural consequence of your apparent inability to edit and to relate to other editors in an appropriate way. I understand that you are unable to recognise the shortcomings in your behaviour; when you can convince an admin that you do recognise it may be the time to consider an unblock. But posting the same self-justifying request again will lead to your talk page access being revoked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:35, 25 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.

I will keep posting until you assert the rules properly. Now do something about it.KnowIG (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Cause I'm not going to be subjected to. ASay sorry. Ok oh but you don't mean it. Your a coward a lier and a joke. Now unblock me. Or do you just not like the truth that i've gone through the rules and picked it a part and made you lot look silly. And you can't do that since i'm indef blocked so that would be a breech of human rights. And how about all the good I do, or do you stick your head up your arse to get your own way. Infact I'll say it. Wikipedia is run by a bunch of hypercriticle bullies.

{{unblock |reason=This block is illegal and unjust and should not be indefinatly. SInce this is about incivitiy I'm going to rip this block apart. (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions. I have never insulted, called a name made a indecent suggestion. Nor have swarn for no reason, I have only swearn when provoked. I have never made a personal attack on any one. In fact read these reverts accused here but where's the evidence. Certainly no personal attack there. Also I was provoked look at this user's comment on my talk page definate targeting, bullying and provoking since it was his first comment to me. Another user then falsey accuses me I remove the notice such as I'm alloud to then I have this another violation of wiki rules by other users towards me. SO lets contiue with the rules. ill-considered accusations of impropriety Nope never violated that. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts. Maybe once but I was block for it.

Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. User's above and Treaury Tag (don't get involved I'm not going for you) have openingly done this towards me I have never done this. Thus causing me to violate. harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings. I have never harrased nor made a threat. TT has repeatedly posted on my page and so has GOP. They both have now left me alone. lying what's the point in that. quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them User TT did this to me which led to a months break for me in a block. Therefore I have not failed any policy and have been on the reciving end of lots of people violating the rules and causing stress and conflict to me. At the very least this block should be reduced to time. Or removed at once. I will keep posting this until people can come up with a logical solution. Reason. Saying I don't understand is shit. You don't know me. Your a bunch of cowards who have just had this block distroyed. Now hurry up and be a good sport and unblock me.}}

I WILL WARN YOU> BE CONSTRUCTIVE

• There is no reason to repeatedly request an unblock in a way that will obviously not succeed. Doing so takes time away from people who could be doing other things. I've reblocked you with no talk page access. You can still email the unblock mailing list or ArbCom; read your block notice to get those email addresses. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on your response to the unblock list, I am going to unblock you. I'm going to add a few notes to that. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. There are a lot of things you can do on your own, but there are also a lot of things where you need to collaborate with others. Your editing history proves this is problematic for you: when people have disagreed with you in the past, they have escalated and turned into arguments. This kind of escalation is not going to be tolerated in the future. In your unblock request, you indicated you are going to deal with it by walking away from the dispute. You could for example come back a few days or even weeks later, when you feel fit to deal with it in a constructive collaborative manner, where you can work together with the other editor(s), to turn your disagreement into consensus. Be advised though, when you walk away from a dispute, you walk away completely. When you disengage, you disengage. Ignoring your differences, but still continuing to feed the underlying dispute, even if you are right, is not an option. I think it would be a smart thing for you to look for a mentor (see WP:MENTOR and WP:ADOPT), someone you can bounce problems off, and maybe help you out when you don't know how to handle something. So to be absolutely clear, violations of WP:CIVIL are out of order, and can result in an immediate reblock. Violations of WP:WAR are out of order, and can result in an immediate reblock. If you are not able to handle a dispute cooperatively and in a civil manner, you walk away from the problem that underlies the dispute. I have good hopes this will all turn out okay. Good luck, and happy editing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 tour

I'm in. Let's do it! I dunno if there's a project sandbox for such experiments but I think we might start one here : Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Sandbox (we can do it as a two-member project but inviting others will do no harm, will it?) Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at this for example : Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Sandbox. Although a Wikipedia:Sandbox also exists unfortunately it is purged every 12 hours. We are not fast enough I guess . Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea; to avoid this being deleted, it's better to keep such a sandbox in one of your userspaces while discussion is under way. It may be better, however, to keep it as a project sandbox, and then anyone interested in tennis can contribute. That's up to you as to how you think it should be organised. Please message me if you have any further questions. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Noone can delete a sandboox on a project page just because he/she doesn't like the development of what he/she sees there. I must add that as I live in Europe it's around midnight so my contributions will flock in 12 hours and around that time in a daily routine. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I was saying; the difference between the two options is whether you want to have your sandbox public or private for now, although there's little difference here. That's up to you. But I am always open to giving help when needed. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File:BMW Malaysian Open 2011.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BMW Malaysian Open 2011.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Now you're back, you may want to consider archiving your Talk page, and particularly your blocks. One reason is that there is no particular reason for the "badge of shame" to remain visible forever, and another is that the larger a page is, the longer it takes to load, which impacts on your readers' experience. You might want to take a look here as to how to set up automatic archiving, and I am prepared to help you with that if you like. Up to you of course. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Deleting of leads

I swear it was only a mistake. PL Alvarez ^Talk 16:13, 6 March (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KnowIG. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 00:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 00:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

1970 Houston Women's Invitation

Please instruct me as to what error I've committed, I'm simply following the Common name for the article titles. As you noted in the article its lineage is that of Virginia Slims of Houston, and it strikes me as odd to what you'd name the 1971 event as it was also called the Houston Women's Invitation, "1970 Houston Women's Invitation" seems like the WP:COMMONNAME. I do not appreciate your tone it strikes me as very Uncivil. Afro (Talk) 20:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We have many events which have a distinct name which falls under the name for one time only example is 1997 Gold Coast Classic, once again WP:COMMONNAME. Afro (Talk) 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would I take it somewhere else when you're the one I'm having a disagreement with? 1997 Welsh International Open - one time event, probably wasn't known as the 1997 Welsh International Open at the time. Afro (Talk) 22:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that the Welsh International Open might need to be up for discussion but I think 1997 Gold Coast Classic is the better example. Afro (Talk) 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point but you can go ask someone if you want. Afro (Talk) 22:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I might bring up to you that the article may be factually inaccurate as the U.S. Women's Hard Court Championships or the New Haven Open at Yale was held since 1949, which prompts me to wonder if there were any other tournaments which existed prior this tournament. Afro (Talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me I have 2 books and the first one talks about the national indoor of course women only. Erm this guinness book good for results crap for proper facts. If it said most then fine but I'll address tomorrow. KnowIG (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to much of an issue change one word remove bold claim from lead should correct it right? KnowIG (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I'd bring this to your attention since you're working on the article, and of course its not much work. Afro (Talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BE v. AmE

I'm not sure why it was thought the article should be converted to British English. It is obviously US-centric, so it should be in American English. -Rrius (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand. The Wikipedia guideline on which form of English to use is at WP:ENGVAR. -Rrius (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Atmosfear

Hey KnowlG. When are you planing on closing this? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cosmos

Ping. Cheers china. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 01:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Sorry for the delay, but I've attempted some revisions regarding the issues you raised with Ryan Ellis and Ryan Johansen. Thanks! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Gone and addressed your review of Lee Sweatt. Thanks! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: GP

The first Virginia Slims Circuit started in 1971, at the same time as the first women's Grand Prix. Women's events were not part of the Grand Prix in 1970, and the reference I mention on the talk page backs this up. Totalinarian (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes sorry my eyes are imagining a 0 instead of a 1.

Lula 3D GAR

Unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to finding sources. I'd go ahead and delist it, and I'll work on it once I get the chance. Thanks for waiting for me though. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Shaun Whalley Review

This was written in the section concerning the lead and i dont know what you mean. Please could you write back on my talk page.

"So perhaps the one you have already. Expand the special 11 and add one more about his notablity. Needs an eye ran over the prose to check it for any issues. See below for findings"

thanks, –LiamTaylor– 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Where i wrote what is below, you said try not to note goals unless they are important. Well i think putting a few goals in i.e his first few and his last for a clb is good, it adds to the article and if you look at other Football Good Articles thay are mostly this way.

and netted again the following week in the loss to Matlock Town. Is this needed. Think about it if you don't note every goal he scored, unless it was important i.e. wins comp saves relgation or first goal then I would say it's not needed. Goes for other areas of the article. cheers, –LiamTaylor– 09:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just asked you that as i am working on it now, I have not had much time this week and i have just finished assesing the article before i start work and was just claryfying a few things. thanks, –LiamTaylor– 09:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I have completed evreything possible and i also want to ask you about the lead, is that okay now. cheers, –LiamTaylor– 10:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Job done, i added all refs, but deleted the part about injury as i could not find a ref anywhere and i did the sentence. thank you, –LiamTaylor– 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free posters

I have seen, that you recently upload many non-free images, mostly posters and logos. I see you use {{Non-free use rationale}} for posters. For your interest there is also the {{Poster fur}} template, which needs less parameters and is easier to fill. Happy editing. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Peirsol review

You said your going to give me a week to fix all the issues with Peirsol's article. Can you give me a little more time? I'm currently being discharged from the military and I'm going to be very busy. I will try to find some time to address this review but I have other priorities. If your going to close this review, could you give me a warning? Thanks. Philipmj24 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I will get to it as quick as possible. Thanks, appreciate it.Philipmj24 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 Budweiser Shootout

I would appreciate it if you would allow me to have more time fixing the article. I have been busy in real life (sickness), and I need to finish the most recent article. Hopefully I will get to it this weekend. Thats for you review as well. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 10:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Keith Aulie

Thank you very much for the review! I appreciate your time. I have fixed some of the things you rasied, but I have a cuple questions as well - when you get a chance to look at the review page, I would appreciate your clarification. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

GAR: Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev

I've fixed the issues you pointed out, and I've left some important questions for you at the GAR talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So, are you still reviewing this article? --TIAYN (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to 2011 Australian Open.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Netball

I am leaving a notice on all of the recent editors asking if they wish to stop or to finish the GA review. Please express your views at Talk:Netball/GA1. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters

When did the condition with Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters point distribution began? Dencod16 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Point Distribution is wrong, even though it is counted as a 500 event when it comes to category, it still distributes Master series points. The condition you set is wrong. For example is Fernando Verdasco, he played in all 8 mandatory Master Series Event and his Monte Carlo points count as 600, which is the point given to a finalist of a Masters Series events. Dencod16 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And how did Verdasco get 600 points for Monte Carlo if he played all 8 Master events, how the hell did he get more than 500 points for it if the maximum points for a 500 event is 500, I know the rulebook. Explain that. check Fernando Verdasco Point Distribution points first before you comment back. You have the wrong idea of the Monte Carlo Masters Exception. Dencod16 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And how did Baghdatis get 10 points last year for losing in the first round of Monte Carlo Masters. I don't get why you still don't know how the point system works. And you have been editing Tennis for a while now. Dencod16 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why 25 is in parenthesis because it only applies if the draw is larger than 56. Dencod16 (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Explain why Verdasco got 600 points for Monte Carlo despite playing all mandatory Masters 1000. Dencod16 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your funny, your the one who don't understand, asking help from another person. If you can explain why Verdasco got 600 points, then we are cool. But it seems like you can't, you are like your friend, you are putting references that are not really reliable. Dencod16 (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope that is not right. Visit this page http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Fernando-Verdasco.aspx?t=rb

Verdasco has 3,095 points his points breakdown are as follows Barclays ATP World Tour Finals 0

US Open 360 Australian Open 180 Roland Garros 180 Wimbledon 10

Monte Carlo 600 Rome 360 Miami 180 Paris 90 Madrid 90 Indian Wells 45 Canada R32 45 Shanghai 10 Cincinnati 10

Barcelona 500 Washington 90

San Jose 150 Nice 150 Båstad 45

Try adding it it equals to 3,095 and on what you are saying that his points was change. Monte Carlo points is changed to 300

US Open 360 Australian Open 180 Roland Garros 180 Wimbledon 10

Monte Carlo 300 Rome 360 Miami 180 Paris 90 Madrid 90 Indian Wells 45 Canada R32 45 Shanghai 10 Cincinnati 10

Barcelona 500 Washington 90

San Jose 150 Nice 150 Båstad 45

It only total to 2,795 Dencod16 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bill william compton^Talk 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't speak for others or imply that you do. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) might be an administrator, but he's also a certifying party to the original issues that are the basis for the RfC/U. Imzadi 1979 → 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, KnowIG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rschen7754 10:22, 26 March 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:

since this is about being uncollaborative, and at a indef block is totally unwarrented. Lets have a look at theses revisions. I have been collaborative, any comments on here. Any comments on the guidelines and coaches section here KnowIG (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think your capabilites clear with this edit. Without a much more comprehensive description of how you will behave differently, and some indication that you understand the problem, I don't see any reason to unblock. Kuru (talk) 15:56, 22 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.