I was wondering about the edit about: what is served by changing the template? (Just wondering, since I used TW to AfD the article, I assumed it was formed correctly). Best, -- Bfigura(talk)20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. I wasn't that familiar with the afd template syntax. (One of the peril's of using twinkle I suppose). Thanks. --Bfigura(talk)20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD
Hi there. In response to your AfD vote, I did some work on the Water conflicts article, addressing the major issues. When you have a moment, please take another look at it. It's quite different, so if it meets your standards for a keep vote, please consider commenting over at the article's entry on at AfD. Thanks.—DMCer™09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
NeutralSupport, as a taskforce: The topic is certainly notable enough, it's just a question of whether there are enough interested editors, not articles. If not, it should be set up as a taskforce/workgroup of WikiProject Sports. Lots of dead and dying sporting and gaming projects should also be redone as taskforces of that one or of WikiProject Games (e.g. WikiProject Pinball, which I recently overhauled, but is still too moribund to be an active project). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the previous two comments, a taskforce will be more suitable initially than a full blown WikiProject. - Nick C (t·c)22:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I am certain the recent surge of activity is related to the 2 world championships held recently, as they are no doubt the most watched tournaments. I doubt this activity will last.--Atlan (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Icon image of a person talkingNote to incoming readers: If you came here because I left a note on your talk page, that was because this proposed project/taskforce will need committed editors interested in darts-related topics to collaborate in the project/taskforce, and your editing history suggests you may be interested in participating. This is not a vote, especially not on whether or not darts is a notable enough topic for a project (of course it is). The only question on the table is whether enough editors will focus on the topic to make a project or a taskforce viable. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support a taskforce. I'm not really opposed to a Wikiproject Darts, but I think the scope is somewhat narrow, and there are too little active editors on darts related topics to justify a project. I do feel many, if not all, darts articles are substandard and it would be a good thing if there was some concerted effort to improve them.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: It is a very good idea as darts is increasing in popularity and is one of the biggest sports in the UK. There are articles on darts that are not updated and there need to be more added to players and tournaments articles. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Support: Darts is greatly increasing in popularity. There are many different variants of darts which could be outlined in more detail as well. Falkybassist (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Support: I agree that the quality of articles needs to match the increase in popularity that darts has rightly achieved. --Joesayers (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been notifying other editors that seem like likely participants, based on their editing histories. I don't have any interested in darts articles myself, per se, but have volunteered to do the category overhauling, since I have a lot of experience with that. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 04:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Were you planning on explaining this and this? Neither revert is productive. Unless there's a compelling reason to have undone those changes I will be restoring them. In future, I don't expect to have to come to your talk page to find out why work which took me over an hour to complete was reverted without so much as an edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Because it looks ugly. And if we add new tournaments to the Ronnie O'Sullivan article then it will horizontal scrolling is inevitable (a new ranking event is anounced in Germany). And the tennis tournaments performance timelines have the same format. ArmbrustTalkContribs22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Horizontal scrolling is already necessary on the Hendry article. Which is more likely: that another tournament will be added, or that next year will happen? For every year that goes by the current format becomes less practical. The tables need to be split up in the long run to accommodate that, but for now the best short-term solution is to transpose the years and awards. If the tennis articles use that format then thay should be changed too. Unless there's been some previous consensus that the old format was the correct choice then I'll undo these tomorrow. That still does not explain why you chose not only not to notify me but also not to even bother leaving an edit summary when reverting a significant amount of work made in good faith. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Bad news. The |priority= parameter in {{WPBiography}} is now basically dead code and has to be changed to |sports-priority= or for non-sportspeople something else that is taskforce-specific. Letting you know, since you tag (and create for that matter) a lot of snooker and tennis bios. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 01:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
On the List of French Open Women's Singles champions in the "Multiple champions" section the "Only French tennis clubs' members competed before 1925" sentence doesn't make any sense to me, as it is not represented in the table. The article is well sourced. I have added three pictures to it.
On the List of French Open Women's Singles champions in the "Multiple champions" section the "Title defended in the challenge round" sentence doesn't make any sense to me, as it is not represented in the table. The article is well sourced. I have added four pictures to it.
"Title Defended in the challenge round" means the champion from the previous year won it the next during the challenge round not an open competition. "Only French tennis clubs' members competed before 1925" means outsiders or foreigners could not compete unless they had the backing of a French Tennis Club, so it was not open to outside competition. Good Questions! I think these are close when someone wants to put in the notes like they are on the men's for FL status. BLUEDOGTN20:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, but if he "Singles players" section don't use 2 columns, then i think the playes can have their full names in the table (Marcos Baghdatis instead of M Baghdatis). ArmbrustTalkContribs00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about this article, and the intro for 2009 on the main page will be the first paragraph of this article? BLUEDOGTN20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I fixed them both in the introductions, good work Armbrust, and in the slam chart, but it needs to be fixed on the career stats page!BLUEDOGTN21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The ATP considers it a match just go look, but that is something we can discuss later after I get them all done, but before it is implemented! BLUEDOGTN22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
They don't count it towards the career total of W-L, but they do have a W for a result, which means we need to report it in the tables!BLUEDOGTN03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The tables in the sections "Wins (16)" and "Runner-ups (6)" should be combined in a section like "Finals (24, 16-8)". The table should have a similar format like in the "Olympic finals" section. Done
The word "legendary" in the section-title "2007 to present: Achieving legendary status" fails WP:NPOV. Done
I think the tables in the results section should be constantly collapsed. Done
Because the major snooker sources use this format. And the policy says only "avoid" the use of slash charaters in titles, and it doesn't says, that it's forbiden. ArmbrustTalkContribs11:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Under section headings it has a one line sentence, which says it applies to section headings and titles of articles.BLUEDOGTN20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contribution to this page.
On one hand, it has taken most of the workload I used to do... on the other hand, it has left me unemployed, but I'll get over it...
Do you think it would be a good idea to co-ordinate our efforts so that everyone will be in charge of several sports, or whatever way we find suitable to divide the work among us? --Nitsansh (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a good idea. I would like to do the following sports: cricket, handball, snooker and tennis. And for now to add the medalist to the section "Olympic Games". If you agree, then it would be like this: on every day we concentrate on the "chosen sports", but if the result isn't present on the following day, than the other person can add it too. (If it contains errors, than this can be corrected immediately.) ArmbrustTalkContribs15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's try, and see how it works...
I also want to advise you of some formatting rules that were established here that you should be aware of:
Use present time expressions, "win", lead" etc.
Results figures are seperated by – rather that -. If you don't have that character write – (in small letters)
In tennis, I think it's useless at this early time of the year to indicate that someone wins his first title of the year, but if anyone has more than one title since New Year's Day that should be indicated.
In cricket, the practice I use is to indicate century scorers, but in multi-day events to do that only once on the day this mark is achieved.
In individual sports with plenty of competitors, the practice is to indicate the top 3 in the format: place, name, (country or team), score (ignore the comas). Coloured place icons ( etc.) are used for final results only. Partial scores are indicated by black&white icons ().
I keep in my computer a file with "frequently used expressions" that I use to copy from whenever I need instead of typing them. I can share them with you. --Nitsansh (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Frequently used expressions
d
, lead the -match series –.
(unbeaten teams in bold)
(teams in bold advance to the semifinals)
(teams in strike are eliminated)
in progress
(All times EDT)
win – on aggregate.
(– pen.)
away goals.
(OT)
(ET)
(first leg score in parentheses)
(if necessary)
{{cc3|
–
(–)
– (–)
{{flagicon|
{{ct|
Another tip I like to share with you: when I edit the /sidebar section, I do a search for the date I look for, presided by * (for example: *feb 20 for February 20). I used to do it once a day only, I don't see it necessary to remove each entry as soon as a game is over. In this section, use the ndash to seperate the dates for multi-days events--Nitsansh (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I would have to say it has family stuff in the article about his father and mother going to jail, which is not about this man's WP:Notability, which he is known for his snooker alone not being a son of a father in jail for a murder or a mother for tax evasion, which could very well violate WP:NPOV even if it is WP:V!23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph on his father's ownership of a sex shop and arrest has nothing to do with him at all, and his mothers tax evasion is not his problem or about him either go look at Mark Ingram, Jr. page, which does not report that his father is in the slammer! Oh, and by the way, Elin Nordegren does not have anything about her not wearing her wedding ring or Tiger's Mistresses, but just says they are working on the marriage after the infidelity and car wreck happened! The reason it is reported on her page is because she is WP:Notability to have an article. O'Sullivan's parents are not, and his parents actions or businesses has no bearing on his notability, which means it must be removed!BLUEDOGTN00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Their has been some so-called vandalism by anon IP users, which is typical of an unprotected article, and this has been reverted by experience users on behalf of WP:POV to be neutral!BLUEDOGTN23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I think the image is okay, but I would love to see the release from the photographer or owner of the images copyrightBLUEDOGTN23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Pass or Fail: I am going to pass this article because it satisfies the criterion for WP:GAN, and the nominator has addressed any major and minor concerns with the article from the above discussion. I feel it will be a good article for WP:Snooker to follow to make other suitable articles for this distinction. So, I am going to Pass this article!BLUEDOGTN01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of Personal Life does not make grammer sense at all because of the publically highly part! The article is good in the prose quality, but could always be improved in the article. Some sentences could use references at the end of them. I have read the whole article, but I don't understand why the score for the frames are very different depending on event?BLUEDOGTN23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The following senteces doesn't make any sense. ("Federer made six doubles finals during this time, but lost the Indian Wells Masters event in 2002, which the most prestigious events won are two Rotterdam 500 series events in 2001 and 2002" and "Federer would go onto win two other events that were Master Series 1000 tournaments in Madrid over Rafael Nadal in the final on clay by a score of 6–4, 6–4, and he would win Cincinnati over Novak Djokovic by a score of 6–1, 7–5, which he would lose in one 500 level event final in Basel to Novak Djokovic 4–6, 6–4, 2–6.") ArmbrustTalkContribs04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence should be rewriten. ("In the 2003 season, Federer won his first slam title in the 2003 Wimbledon Championships, which he won it over Mark Philippoussis, and the score of this final was 7–6(5), 6–2, 7–6(3).") ArmbrustTalkContribs04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I am done for the day, good work! I will either be on here tomorrow or Monday because tomorrow I will be gone for a good while. See you later, good night, and by the way you probably need some sleep, too. Because your are in Hungary, and I am in the States, which means it is probably in the morning your time. So, you have not gotten any sleep!BLUEDOGTN06:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm also very aware that trying to stop people from updating live scores is like kicking water uphill -- I ain't gonna win. Just wanted to speak my mind to someone I guess. Anyway, have a nice evening and let's enjoy the rest of the match! --87.79.56.238 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry random person from Germany, you do not write the rules for the Wikipedia. People always update live events. Football, Olympics, basketball, when someone dies: if it has happened, it gets put into the Wiki. No just freaking drop it.
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A legalább 100 százas breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája”
Szia! Volt egy átnevezésed a közelmúltban és rákérdezek, tényleg jó-e így - én magam nem értek a sporthoz. Ez volt a régi cím: A legtöbb 100-as vagy annál jobb breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája, ez lett az új: A legalább 100 százas breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája. Ezt biztos úgy kell írni, hogy 100 százast? Nem maradt benne véletlenül egynél több száz? Kösz előre is, szevasz! (Pls. nálam válaszolj!) December 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.156.187.130 (talk)
Nem maradt több benne, mert a "százas break" egy fogalom a snooker-ben. A cím azt jelenti, hogy ebből a dologból ezek a játékosok profi pályafutásuk során profi versenyeken legalább 100-at löktek. Pontosabb cím lenne talán a következő: "A legalább 100 darab százas breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája". ArmbrustTalkContribs23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! Saw you editing this article. Have you any idea why the infobox isn't working properly, ie not showing the pole riders etc, when the info has been added? I can't work it out! GedUK20:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the infobox isn't working properly, if you hasn't give all the info's to a certain Category (MotoGP, Moto2, 125 cc). In this case the following dates aren't present: fast rider, first rider, second rider and third rider. ArmbrustTalkContribs20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I have explained my edit, unlike you have your reversion of it. The article is the main article for the world snooker championship, not a particular and arbitrary era of it. It is highly against the point of an objective encyclopaedia to use it in that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.207.0 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. The sortable table is more informative though so the IP should at least cease in removing it altogether. Maybe we could have a similar table for the classic era, to remove the bias towards modern players. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Please explain...
Why adding three times champion John Higgins is unacceptable. It is not unusual for past multiple sports champions to be referred to in such a style. Leaky Caldron20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wondering why you have an objection to such a link. It would only be temporary until the tournament is over. Sure one can search for it, but unless you know the exact wording/title format, most people look for a link as it is quicker and easier. In the current article, one has to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, then click on 'show' on the World Snooker Championship template to list all the tournaments, and then click on '2010'. Or one would have to scroll halfway down to the List of world snooker champions link, and then scroll down to 2010 (which shouldn't be there anyway as the tournament is not over and so there is no winner yet).
Doesn't that seem slightly difficult to navigate? Most sport tournaments, such as any of the tennis Grand Slams, Masters, etc., have an infobox on the top left hand side which one can edit. In fact this extends to every sport where there is a yearly competition, such as Formula One or the any of the football leagues throughout the world. However as there is none for snooker (apart from a list of different tournaments), isn't it then acceptable to have a link at the top of the page to direct users to the current tournament? This is definitely present in other articles as that is where I got the idea from, but unfortunately I cannot think of one right now (most sports are more extensively updated and so tend to have infoboxes). I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Feudonym (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The other snooker tournament articles don't use this link. Why should the world championship use it then. And all snooker tournaments have the same format XXXX tournament name. ArmbrustTalkContribs08:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, other articles not using a particular format is a fairly weak reason for non-inclusion. If we always used that policy then no articles would advance past the stub stage. The World Championship is also more popular so that should set the precedent for the other articles. Anyway, it only would have been for 2 weeks so not a permanent change (I still don't know why you have an objection if its only temporary). Anyway, someone's since added a current tournament tag (it may even be you, I don't know) but do you still disagree to that since "other snooker tournament articles don't use this link"?
By the way, I know all snooker tournaments have the "same format XXXX tournament name", I was talking about new users, and ones which are not accustomed to the format.Feudonym (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That link is buried all the way down in a template which is also hidden. If that is your reasoning, then a lot of articles would look very different if it were up to you! For someone who seems to be a prolific user and editor of Wikipedia, it is baffling that you're this unhelpful. In future, I'd suggest removing correct and helpful information should at least be accompanied by an edit summary. Feudonym (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Your latest snooker changes...
There a number of your decisions on content that strongly support the view that you wish to wp:own this article. I strongly urge you to allow other editors to share in contributing to it. I have replaced your version which contains a spelling defect, with mine. If you wish to discuss the merits of it please do so on the article's talk page, not here. rgds, Leaky Caldron15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
When I get the time I will be writing up a detailed report on your non-cooperative, ownership of the article. You can remove my comments from here but it does not alter the fact that you are seeking to own the article which is against policy and constitutes an unacceptable behaviour. Leaky Caldron16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
What's your reasoning behind changing my edit for the current snooker scores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayknighty (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 April 2010
The BBC website indicates that Ebdon scored 4 centuries in the final and not 3. Do not change this as this then become unreliable information on your part. Thank you.82.37.11.194 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1717:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made these, and all that needs to be done is the implementation of them into the articles, which the 2007 and 2009 ones have been done!BLUEDOGTN22:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I got done with these, which all that has to be done is implementation of them, but the 2007 and 2009 have already been done.BLUEDOGTN03:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are you constantly deleting my selections under the new Category I have started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 May 2010
Because it is meaningles and unnecessary. There's no other category to indicate, that somebody has wone some tournament multiple times. ArmbrustTalkContribs21:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2010 World Snooker Championship. 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.
Hello, even though things might not have gone your way in the editing of that article, keep up the good faithful work on wikipedia! BLUEDOGTN01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Small request
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Please find the legal external links for sport events such as 2010 Thomas & Uber Cup, rubaisport is a personal website, and please see WP:SPAM for further reading before revert my editing, even that qualification article is not existing. Thank you. --Aleenf106:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I wish you good luck on all your endeavors on wikipedia, I just wish I did not have to deal with burdensome editors in the golfing project! I am just bone tired of wasting my good time, trying to improve and standardize things in golf and tennis articles, when the get rebuked! I bet they in the golf community will miss me, but I don't give a living care anymore! Just look how much I do and no one except you has every approved of me or encouraged me on here! Good Luck WikiFriend and WikiBuddy! Bluedogtn, TennisAuthority, GolfAuthority! 69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the way the HOF displayes the url, since they re-did their website, which now it is not a numerical value like 243 it is pete-sampras for the ID in the infoboxes, but I just don't have the time to do it anymore or the will! I did Boris Beckers and Martina Navratiova for examples! Good Luck!69.137.120.81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to understand why you insist on removing the quarterfinals for the 2010 Hong Kong Sevens. You say consistency, but every other tournament has each team that competed in the tournament on the table. Now that you have made that change, only the Hong Kong tournament does not. How is this consistent? Furthermore, go back and look at all the previous IRB Sevens World Series. Every single one of them has all 24 teams from the tournament. Not only are you not being consistent - as you say you are - but this is the first tournament in 10 years of tournaments that does not include every team that participated in the table. Again, I ask, how is this consistent? Bds69 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC) bds69
Why would you change the tables and colors for the French Open result. The red colors for active players do not look good at all. You should have left the tables as is - 2 tables total. One for men and one for women with the existing color. Your changes are not an improvement at all. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.57.249 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1720:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I got it done, which this helps navigate these great bracket articles to show off the slams in sequential order for the men's and women's singles.03:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk)
You are cordially invited to join the Paralympics Task Force!
You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining the Paralympics Task Force. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.
We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like the Paralympic Games and facilitate team work in the development of Paralympic Games articles.
If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
Thank You for adding the results. Also, for the drivers that has the team name as the sponsor you put "No Sponsor" in it. --Nascar199603:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that you have edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
This user is moving way too many pages, but I did not want to get you involved, which now I have to. I found s/he move the 2010 Wimbledon Women's Singles page, and s/he is decaptailizing the W in Women and S in Singles, which I think we have to stop it before the user goes to far look.BLUEDOGTN04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Moved back many of them (especialy the "draw article"), if he wants to change the capitalization in the article titles, than he needs consensus on the Tennis WikiProject and then all tennis articles should be changed, not just several of them. (By the way, good to see you're there. ) ArmbrustTalkContribs16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you could provide edit summaries for your edits. Of course, it is not mandatory. However, if you're reverting the edits of other users (like on Stephen Hendry), then I think some explanation would be good etiquette. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
He has removed your edits and is vandalising my talk page under a new sockpuppet 97.77.159.243. I'm sure there'll be more from this piece of work. Any way to lock my user/talk page to established users only for awhile? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, if you would like, you can nominate anything such as images, biographies, articles and Did you knows, just add it on the talkpages. I may or may not approve them. Note: You can make up any DYKs. --Nascar1996Contribs / Tasks22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
.svg){kind=logo}
