User talk:Capricornmanager1

Welcome

Hello, Capricornmanager1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. The New Mikemoral Happy editing! Mike moral ♪♫ 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tennis_statistics#Proposal

A proposal has been put forward to replace Tennis statistics with User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats and name it List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records. Thoughts, comments and/or votes are encouraged. SilkTork *^YES! 08:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reverting with no reason

Why would you keep reverting two charts in ATP World Tour records where the rest of the charts have a top 10? A top 10 is pretty normal for charts and I see no explanation in your edit summaries as to why you reverted. It is important that you add summaries whenever you revert (or actually whenever you edit). Please leave it at 10. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since you edited once and I see no response I'm changing it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted these 2 charts from top 15 to 10 in the first place? Very few players have had the number 1 ranking, therefore it is very relevant to include these. Please leave it at top 15. Thank you. (Capricornmanager1 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for answering. Because all the other charts are top ten and people start expanding them to top 12, top 13, top 15. Why have one chart in the article at top 15? It looks out of place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the other charts are top 10! However, it is correct that all charts now are "cut" down to max top 10. I for one do not agree with that as a general good rule but ok.. (11:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Capricornmanager1. You have new messages at Wolbo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Wolbo (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from reverting

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fyunck. I do not know if you have been reverting posts on this issue (World no. 1 tennis player 2013) but I have seen your posts on "Who's the best men's player in 2013?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis). Wolbo has been reverting my posts to begin with. I am only reverting them back. It is a silly "edit war" as you call it, but it is hardly a "consensus decision" that you and Wolbo think, that Nadal and Djokovic should be joint no. 1 for 2013. Who should decide this then? Apparently, some of us do not agree on this. And Wolbo, please stop reverting another editor's work! I will write another post on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]