User talk:KnowIG/Archive 2011

This is an archive of past discussions with User:KnowIG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

SA Open

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

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

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

Tennis articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tennis

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

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

The statement direct acceptance.

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

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

Hopman Cup

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

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

Talkback

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

Talk:Keith Elias/GA1

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

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

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

January 2011

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

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

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

Re: AFD's

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

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

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

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

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

Junior tennis player

hello,

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

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

AUSSIE OPEN

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

Rafael Nadal Records

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

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

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

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

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

Malmö FF

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Murray

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

2009 World Series peer review

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

Headley

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

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

McCaw Review

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

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

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

Eugenie Bouchard

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

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: Eugénie Bouchard

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

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

February 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

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

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

2011 Australian Open

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

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

Let's edit normally

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

February 2011

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

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. Rodhull andemu 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. Rodhull andemu 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. Rodhull andemu 22:44, 4 March 2011 (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)