User talk:Kind Tennis Fan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Kind Tennis Fan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Kind Tennis Fan, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Kind Tennis Fan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Golf major winners[edit]

Hi, thanks for clarifying the statement about golf major winners with this edit. However, according to Grand Slam (golf)#Career Grand Slam there are 16 or 17 golfers to win at least three of the four majors (depending on whether pre-Masters-era counts), not 15. I don't see where the 15 number comes from, but I may be misunderstanding or miscounting something. Anyway, I just thought I would mention it in case you can figure it out because you probably have a better knowledge of this than me. 86.160.215.247 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the 15 golfers are Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Player, Sarazen (who have won all four majors). The next 10 golfers who have won three out of the four are: Hagen, Barnes, Trevino, Armour, Snead, Mickelson, Nelson, Floyd, Watson and Palmer.
Please note that Bobby Jones did not win the Masters or the PGA Championship. Harold Hilton did not win the Masters, U.S. Open or PGA Championship. (The U.S. Amateur and British Amateur are not classed as professional major championships.) Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: In 2014, Northern Irish golfer Rory McIlroy became the 16th golfer to win at least three of the four majors. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Prospective events[edit]

Hi there, friendly critique ensues: As WP is an encyclopedia, it should be engaged in discussing events that have happened, and not envisioning things that could be. The best comparisons for athletes are those who they have achieved exactly as highly as, not those who they would be comparable to if in the future they achieve more highly. A list of those who have won all four golf majors belongs in an article on that topic, not in articles about golfers who have not achieved that mark but might someday do so.68.5.176.101 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have left your edit intact until one day perhaps Phil Mickelson wins the U.S. Open and completes the career grand slam. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your AIV report ...[edit]

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Since I don't recognize you as a regular reporter to AIV, I should let you know that, contrary to your request, IPs are never blocked indefinitely for vandalism, no matter how much it may be repeated. Only if it's an open proxy, and proven to be so, do we block an IP indefinitely as that condition is under the control of whoever owns the server that IP resolves to. All other editing issues can change over time.

However, I have found that the IP resolves to Culford School in England. This may be of assistance in helping us control vandalism from the page (assuming that it continues and we have to keep escalating the blocks), as it's not common for an IP to resolve to a particular institution below the higher-ed level. We can, if necessary, contact the administration there since any school vandal is usually violating their institution's computer-use policies (And since it's a British school, I bet the punishment if the vandals are identified will be that they get neither meat nor pudding If they don't also get their butts whipped, which I'm not sure they do anymore). Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this Daniel. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Eden Hazard[edit]

Hi, sorry about not getting back to you, I glanced at your message this morning, went offline and completely forgot once I came back on. It's been protected now though. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Matty. I know that you do a lot of work to help improve football articles, which I appreciate, and if there are further instances of persistent vandalism on articles that I see, I will go direct to the "Requests for page protection" section and I will request admin directly there. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

If we do it that way, we'll just be playing a catch-up whack-a-mole game. What I suggest is getting a list of all the IPs together, going to AN/I and asking for a rangeblock to be calculated and checked, if most of them are in the same range. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. Thank you for your reply. I have now reported this issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism levels for protection[edit]

Hi there. I saw your comment/question at RfPP, and thought I'd let you know my take on it. For vandalism, I'm generally looking for around 2-3 per day for 2-3 days. Obviously, if there's a very high amount on a day, then the duration is lower, so that protection can be immediate. Every admin is different, but I think the broad consensus would be the same for most of us. Feel free to ask anything else here :) GedUK  14:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, giving your take on this. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. If you ever think a page needs protecting, just make the request :) GedUK  12:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I (Who Have Nothing)[edit]

While I agree that editorializing about performances has no place in the article about the song, "I (Who Have Nothing)," and that marginal recordings should not be listed alongside significant ones, the excision of numerous artists who recorded the song from the list of "other versions" seems arbitrary. Why is Robert Guillaume's version sufficiently notable to retain, but not Dee Dee Warwick's? Why the Spectres' version, but not Jordin Sparks'? Jedi Mind Tricks', but not Little Milton's? Why is Gladys Knight's rendition treated with the same disregard as that of the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain? Why is an album track by Greek singer Marinella worthy of inclusion, but not performances watched by millions on top-rated television programs such as American Idol and X-Factor?

Per WP:SONGCOVER, there is a standard of notability for inclusion in such lists, but I can't see how that standard was applied in your edit. Before addressing the issue in the article itself, I'd like to know what your thought process was. Pstoller (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pstoller. I trimmed the unsourced content because I felt it was too large an unsourced list. It was a big sprawling list of cover versions, which Wikipedia is not designed for. I didn't feel that the album track by Greek singer Marinella was particularly notable, but it did at least have a citation for it. All the content I removed did not have any references. I trimmed some of the unsourced content. I didn't remove all of it and I requested further citations on the page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Elm Guest House child abuse scandal[edit]

Hello, I have had a quick look but I cannot find that alleged claim by Chris Fay in any other news source. If you can find it in a more respectable news source (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC) than the Daily Express, then by all means put it back, but for now I have reverted Codeusirae's re-addition of your addition. Please see WP:REDFLAG. -- Alarics (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) And see also User talk:Ghmyrtle#Poor sources. -- Alarics (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Alarics. When the claim that was reported in the Daily Express – containing an allegation of police intimidation – was removed from the article, I accepted and understood the reason why the content was removed. When making any further edits to this particular article, I will include content from sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph rather than the Daily Express. Another editor put the content back again, which has since been removed. I have given a full reply on your talk page regarding the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Never Let Me Down Again (Depeche Mode song)[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you removed a lot of content under Notable covers at Never Let Me Down Again, commenting "I clicked on the reference provided and it did not verify any of these quotes by Martin Gore and Dave Gahan." What you really discovered, was a dead link to a fan message board that supposedly once contained transcripts of the source/sources in question. By deleting the passage you *almost* managed to prevent any editor from improving the section and adding better links. Next time, please use Dead link template instead of deleting content, if possible. Citation needed template is very useful, too. Thank you. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sk4170. Thank you for your comments. There has been a template at the top of the Never Let Me Down Again article for over 3 years since November 2010 requesting improved additional citations, but thank you for the advice regarding use of the Dead link template. A fan message board is also perhaps not the best reliable source to use. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a policy that requires deleting of all unsourced content from Wikipedia. The refimprove and unreferenced tags are there to encourage wikipedians to give their precious time and contribute to articles. In my opinion removing content without making the effort to fix the links that aren't working or looking for better ones is not exactly an improvement. This way a lot of good content is lost forever. I want to add that not every single word needs to be sourced, unless considered incorrect. I also wouldn't consider unsourced something that is wikilinked and essential info can be read there. For people interested only in Depeche Mode, there are well over 100 wiki articles and an army of vandals of all sorts requiring attention from those who are willing to contribute a little more of their time than average. It was pure luck that I noticed what was happening at NMLDA, but don't have time to try and fix more than this tiny detail. Just some food for thought about the reality of being a Wikipedian. --Sk4170 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Weigh-in on discussion?[edit]

Hi. Would you care to weigh in on this discussion/proposal to restore a review quote that had been removed from a music article? Dan56 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Dan, but I did not have any involvement in the removal of the quote or this particular music article and so I did not participate in the discussion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Farage.[edit]

Greetings KTF. I mentioned you in an edit after you seemed to doubt some of the details in the source. It appears the source was incorrectly archived -& there are 2 versions of a short interview, one with & one without a video. Just what we need on a page like this! Regards JRPG (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@JRPG: Thank you for your message to explain this. Now that I'm aware that the source was incorrectly archived, I have no further issues or concerns at present with the Nigel Farage article. Sorry for not replying earlier yesterday, but it's been a particularly busy week in the sporting calendar for people like myself who love watching tennis and association football. Yesterday there were men's semi-final matches at Wimbledon and quarter-final matches at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The days are flying by so fast at the moment - I wish that God could give us more hours in the day! Being able to spend more time with my girlfriend and on different Wikipedia articles, in addition to playing and watching plenty of tennis and football, would make it the ideal perfect day for me! Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Date formats on Halifax, Nova Scotia[edit]

We do not typically use dmy dates in Canada, we typically use mdy dates. Please correct it. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the entire article to mdy dates. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Poultry[edit]

Bacon work[edit]

Hey, I noticed you've done some work on Bacon. I'm trying to get it to GA and I was wondering if you'd like to help with some more work. In the past I've done quite some work on it with others, but it's still a ways to go from GA. Thanks. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

@Newyorkadam: Thank you for your message and for the work that you have done on Bacon. I will do a bit more work on the Bacon article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Choice of date format for astronomy articles[edit]

I'm glad to see someone taking the time to make date formats consistent within articles. For most nation-specific articles, and those with obvious ties to a country or region of the world, it's somewhat straightforward to choose mdy vs. dmy. What, then, is your criteria for astronomy articles: using the prevailing format in the article, or forcing mdy or dmy? I, and presumably others in the astronomy project, would prefer that astronomy articles, for the most part being devoid of national affiliation, adopt the more-universally-accepted dmy format. I haven't brought this up yet, though, since I just noticed your edit to Galaxy (mdy) and would like to know your thoughts and procedure.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  00:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Tom. My thoughts when adjusting the format on the Galaxy article to mdy was firstly, as the MOS:DATEFORMAT guide says, the yyyy-dd-mm format (such as 2007-04-03) is ambiguous for some dates. But apart from that particular ambiguous format, it seemed that the mdy format was the one most predominantly used for the whole article overall. And so that is why I initially chose the mdy format.
The guidelines also state that: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page."
I have now properly studied the older revisions of the article and seen that the mdy format was the first "acceptable" format used on the article.
So going by the guidelines, the mdy format is appropriate. However, I am always happy to take on board the input of others. If on any article there is a preference among editors for the dmy format ahead of mdy then I will go with the consensus of opinion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your meticulousness; it's definitely appreciated. You've inspired me to put this on my to-do list for astro articles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

Your date format changes seem inappropriate: MOS:DATEFORMAT does not apply to citations. Access dates, AFAIK, often put in YYYY-MM-DD format (not discouraged by the MOS in citations or elsewhere, unlike the YYYY-DD-MM format you refer to in the preceding thread). To quote WP:DATEUNIFY (also see WP:CITESTYLE):

  • Access and archive dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:
  • the format used for publication dates in the article,
  • the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article, or
  • yyyy-mm-dd

The citation style admittedly was not consistent, but to many, the US date style is unfamiliar and clumsy. And if the style was inconsistent (i.e. the first two bullets here do not apply) and included many YYYY-MM-DD entries the only option explicitly mentioned by the MOS (as quoted here) as a catch-all seems to be the suggested way to go. —Quondum 18:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Quondum. I favour having a consistent style of dates for the whole of a particular article. I personally think it looks more professional to have all of the dates for an article (including access dates) to be in the same consistent format for the article overall, but I'm always willing to listen to the input and feedback of others, and if ever you do not like the changes I have made to achieve consistency for an article, I don't have an issue if you want to revert the changes. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: consistency is appropriate ("should all use the same format" in what I quoted). The only question is whether there is a way to choose one date format over another when one does make it consistent. I was providing a somewhat wikilawyerish interpretation suggesting that a particular format may be appropriate under these circumstances (please regard it is merely reflecting a preference on my part, which is to avoid the US style because it is so regional). But my real intention is merely to ensure that you are aware of the broader picture for making your own choice for these edits. —Quondum 16:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

South Shields[edit]

Blimey! Well done, that's great. If you are totally bored and keen on hanging around in that lovely corner of England for a few minutes more then please feel absolutely free to drop in to Whitley Bay. I had a recent look and it made me want to bang my head repeatedly on my desk. :( Thanks again for South Shields and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I had some spare time this weekend (in between watching football), so I have also had a tidy up this evening of the article on Whitley Bay. There was a lot of inappropriate unsourced promotional content and so I have removed much of it. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, fantastic tidy up - many thanks! DBaK (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Practice/practise (Spandau Ballet)[edit]

When I saw your change, I had to look it up myself - I wasn't sure. It is hard to keep track of these things, especially when spell check steers you wrong on so many words. Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit and for your other work on the Spandau Ballet article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I saw them in concert in Toronto last week -- excellent show. Their first here in 32 years. Sadly, I did not see them in 1983. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw them in a reunion concert in 2009 at The O2 Arena in London and they were excellent. Tony Hadley has a fine voice and I think the song "Through the Barricades" is one of the best singles of the 1980s. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ipswich[edit]

You do realise that the vast majority of the world's population have never even heard of Ipswich either? I don't necessarily disagree or agree with the deletions you made, but your rationale is somewhat simplistic: by having a Wikipedia article, Cradle of Filth, for example, have been deemed a notable act. Keri (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keri: Hello Keri. I take on board the point you made here. For the section of the Ipswich article entitled "Famous Residents" I didn't feel that the average man or woman in the UK had heard of these particular groups and the content was also unsourced. The group you mentioned do indeed have a Wikipedia page, but in my view the British groups I deleted are probably not famous to most readers of the Ipswich article, most of whom probably have a connection to the UK. But of course, I fully recognise that Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia and not just confined to the UK. Normally I prefer to make a citation request first for unsourced content and only if no citation is forthcoming after a sufficient period of time, then I delete the unsourced content. On this occasion I deleted some unsourced content which in my view was not particularly notable. But I have taken on board your comment for future edits. I hope you have a nice weekend. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Help![edit]

A lot more than a little help with the article Rochdale would sure be appreciated partner. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joe Vitale 5: Hello Joe and thank you for your edits. I share your enjoyment of football and music. It's currently a bit of a busy time for me at the moment with some family health issues and also in my spare time watching as many tennis matches at Wimbledon as I can during the fortnight that the championships are being played. But at a later date I will do some work on Rochdale A.F.C. to help. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Date formats in the accessdate paramater[edit]

Date formats in the accessdate parameter aren't usually changed to be consistent with the rest of the article. I think accessdate is one of the few places where yyyy-mm-dd format dates are permitted, and they aren't required to be the same as dates in other parts of the article. Maybe the consensus on this has changed recently, but that's what had been worked out in years of discussion about the date format issue. Quale (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Quale. I personally feel that having all the dates in the same consistent format makes the article look neater and leaves no room for any ambiguity. The yyyy-mm-dd format such as 2011-07-06 or 2015-03-04 could be potentially ambiguous. In my opinion the dmy format (such as 6 July 2011) or the mdy format (such as March 4, 2015) is clearer. I have noticed that many of the featured articles have a harmonisation of dates to also the include the accessdate parameter. I think an article looks neater if all the dates are harmonised. But if ever you do not approve of me harmonising all of the dates in an article to include the accessdate parameter then I don't have an issue if you would like to revert the changes for a particular article. I like to edit by consensus. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, KTF, I wonder whether you're interested in installing Ohconfucius's full range of script buttons—in particular, he has one that combines date format, dashes, and the unlinking of chronological and common terms (the latter needs quick manual checking, though, after application). PS Quale, is there a problem in harmonising all of the dates in an article? Tony (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tony. Thank you for your edits and for letting me know about this. Yes, one day I will take a look at Ohconfucius's full range of script buttons. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Harper[edit]

Hi KTF. Thanks for your efforts on Chris Grayling. I think this is particularly important for BBC news webpages as I expect them to be cut back in the near future. Could I ask if you could have a look at Mark Harper who has a lot of bare references. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello JRPG and thank you for your edits. I have today filled in 26 bare references for Mark Harper and later this week I will have a further tidy up of the references for that article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks much better now. I use the BBC website a lot and hope the Wayback Machine can preserve any lost pages. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt[edit]

If you want to, please take a look at this weeks TAFI selected article, Marie Serneholt. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg


paul herrin (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A belated thank you Paul for your nice gift of a kitten for me. I will take good care of it! After Pugs, cats are my second favourite animals. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

thanks :)

paul herrin (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reversion at Indiana University Bloomington[edit]

I urge you to reconsider your reversion to Indiana University Bloomington. I concede that the edit you reverted wasn't accompanied by an edit summary or discussion in Talk but it seems like a very non-controversial update that includes a reference. I'd revert your edit (and clean up the text a bit; there is at least one unnecessary external link in the body of the text...) but I have a degree from the institution so some people might object. ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message ElKevbo. I have reverted my edit. The editor had created a cite error in the article. After reverting my own edit, I have now fixed this cite error. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Roberto Martinez[edit]

Your reversion of the Roberto Martinez edit re: lowest points tally in Everton's history was not well founded. It is clearly notable that a 138 year old club has scored it's lowest ever home points tally (adjusted for 3 points/win). I would urge you very strongly to reconsider that. I accept that teh wording could possibly be tidied but the basis of the reverted edit was a very pertinent fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.47.67 (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It was not from an ideal source. Please see guidelines to references WP:RSE. If the point is highlighted in a better source, such as the BBC Sport website or a broadsheet newspaper, then I will include this again about the club having it's lowest ever home points tally (adjusted for 3 points/win). Also, it was unfortunate that in an earlier edit you (or somebody from the same IP address as you) used a four letter word to describe Roberto Martínez. An earlier edit from your IP address into the article said: "Get out of our club you clueless ____" Admin have now protected the article after persistent vandalism (not just from your IP address). An important part of Wikipedia is that it should have a neutral and balanced tone and editors should avoid giving personal opinions in individual articles. Reliable sources as per WP:RSE should also be included. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. The same fact is referenced on the BBC website, roughly in the middle of this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36099285. I think this would be worth re-including. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.47.67 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the thanks; highly appreciated! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome Joshua Jonathan. I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I enjoyed learning a bit more about it from reading the article Four Noble Truths, which you have made a major contribution to improving. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.[edit]

You are a very experienced editor however your recent revert at Elk City, Oklahoma violated WP:BATHWATER and quite probably WP:BITE as well. This was an edit by a (possibly) brand new IP editor who provided current, accurate, and very well sourced information and his/her only "crime" was malforming the references, a common newbie error. A wholesale revert was overkill. I undid your revert and then in a separate edit corrected the IP's error by changing just two characters. Hopefully your edit has not chased away a well meaning new contributor to the encyclopedia. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Koala Tea Of Mercy, I help to fix thousands of references and cite errors on articles, but on Elk City, Oklahoma, I was indeed unfortunately too quick on this occasion to revert the edit which contained the reference error. Mistakes can happen by anybody, including by you and me. None of us are perfect. However, I strongly disagree that it was WP:BITE. I made a polite comment in the edit summary which certainly didn't "bite" the IP editor. WP:BATHWATER primarily refers to the deleting of an entire article. To quote: "Deletion of an article on an inherently notable subject contradicts the overall goal of the project." I certainly did not suggest that this article should be deleted and didn't suggest that the IP editor had made any type of "crime". I made a polite comment in the edit summary, but on this occasion made the mistake of reverting the edit first rather than correcting the reference. This can happen sometimes. Yes, this IP editor was well meaning. So was I. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I respect the great work you do here so please accept my apology if I came on too strong. I did "qualify" the BITE as being only a possibility because it was not clear but in combination with the revert the comment felt a little bit like you were saying "go learn how to do it right you dummy". Obviously that is not what you were trying to say and thank you for clarifying you did not mean it that way.
On a separate note, it seems that someone hijacked duplicated the WP:BATHWATER shortcut for discussion about whole articles but the shortcut originally pointed to the much broader Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater essay about individual edits and content in general and it is still listed there in the Nutshell as the official shortcut to that page (along with WP:BABY which still works correctly). (Note to self: report glitch to WM tech support, when {essay|shortcut} and {shortcut|shortcut} tags conflict, {shortcut|shortcut} wins without warning or error.) I think the "new" shortcut ought to be undone but in the meantime I have added a {{details}} tag on the "new" section for now. On the WP:BABY page it provides a lot of clear examples including the first one which says:

Types of baby/bathwater actions and positions include:

A general misunderstanding of the Help:Reverting (WP:REVERT) process and Wikipedia:Reverting (WP:REVERT) essay as meaning "undo anything that is not perfect":
An editor determines a portion of another contributor's edit needs to be deleted, but removes the entire contribution instead of just the portion that needs to be deleted.
  • Example: "Edit summary: A sentence had a grammatical error, and one claim lacks a cite, so I'm just reverting the whole lot. I don't have time to clean up those problems in your 30K addition."
That description of BATHWATER is what I was referring to in my original comment above. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ribbit Capital[edit]

Hi,

I wrote the article for Ribbit Capital (company)

I noticed you removed the chart I created with information about all their investments.

This page was recently reviewed and approved in WP: AFC after a couple of editors looked at it. I spent almost 3 full days creating this chart. The reason you gave for removing this chart was that there were citation errors.

It's possible there were formatting errors and I'd be glad to double check these and fix them. But every single source was to an independent reliable news organization. There were no press releases or company websites. For the most part, I think I used the Wikipedia automated citation tool from the in-line editing (I can't remember exactly - I may have also used the regular citation tool.)

In any case, there were a lot of sources to keep track of -- I may very well have screwed up and added sources in the Ref section that I never ended up using and this could have generated errors.

I'd appreciate it if you restore the chart in the meantime, so I can work on the errors. As I identified on the Talk page I have a WP: COI here, so I rely on independent editors to evaluate my work and suggestions and then do the edits, or instruct me to.

I came up with this chart as something that other venture capital firms could use. It's incredibly useful to anyone reading about a venture capital company to know what types of companies they invest in, who the co-investors are, how much they invest. I can't tell you how invaluable this is - it's not something found on VC websites and it takes a great deal of searching to get all this data together.

I included every single investment I could find, even though it said "Partial List." My plan is to keep it updated, but in case I miss a month or two, I don't want to promise it's comprehensive. Inevitably, some investments will go bad. So the chart can be a neutral means of assessing the effectiveness of a VC-firm, too, in picking investments. Lots of VC firms websites just don't list the investments that went bad - this chart will solve that and make VC and PE investments more transparent to the world.

I really want to offer this up to the Private Equity Project to expand their sample article for PE and VC firms. But I can't do that if there's not a live example.

I think the correct approach with citation or formating errors is to fix the errors rather than remove the content, especially in cases like this, where the content is very useful for the subject. I will very gladly fix the errors if you will restore the chart.

Many thanks,

EdBC1278 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Thank you for restoring the chart. I'm not seeing the errors. Do you mean that the citations in the chart were not used in the main text? Is that a rule for charts? To do that, I'd have to make an investment section in the text, list them all with their references in a paragraph. It seems redundant, but I can do it if that's the rule. Let me know. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)BC1278
Hi Ed BC1278,
It wasn't actually myself that originally removed the chart. The chart was removed by "DGG" a full day before I edited the article. My input was just to remove the cite errors that had been left behind after the chart was removed. Looking at the revision history of the article, I can see that before the chart was removed the article was properly sourced with references. If you click the "View History" button on the Ribbit Capital (company) page, then click the "prev" button for the recent edits you'll see that the cite errors came after the chart was removed. If DGG chooses to remove the chart again then that would be a matter for both of you to then come to an agreement about what content to actually include. Personally I don't have an issue with the chart being on the page because it is properly sourced, although DGG felt in his edit summary that it was promotional content. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. BC1278 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Battle of Santiago de Cuba[edit]

Greetings KTF! You were kind enough to help with bare references I pointed out on the Mark Harper article and I wonder if you could possibly do the same for Battle of Santiago de Cuba. If not, don't worry. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello JRPG. I've filled in the references for the Battle of Santiago de Cuba article. I enjoyed reading the content about this article, but the refill tool does work best with newspaper, general news (such as BBC) and website references. That can usually be done fairly quickly. But I haven't worked out yet a quicker way of doing book references. These I have to do manually, because I haven't yet mastered the technique of doing book references in a quicker way. But if there are any other articles, like Mark Harper, where you would like the news references filled in then just let me know and I'd be happy to help. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi KTF. Firstly the article does look much better. My interest stems from the fact it's a black hole in my knowledge of the background to the US and its neighbours prior to WW1 & it perhaps helps explain their nerves about the Zimmermann telegram. Ironic that the Maine explosion may have simply been an accident.
I'm so sorry that it involved you in more non-automated work than I wanted to do & I'll select more carefully in future. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)