User talk:Mandraketennis

Mandraketennis, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mandraketennis! 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 experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Order of play

Please do not add orders of play to tennis articles as you have been doing. This doesn't follow WP:NTENNIS style guide for draw articles and has not been agreed upon. You are free to start a conversation on the tennis project page if you feel like order of play should be added to articles. Thanks. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 2021 Bahrain Ministry Of Interior Tennis Challenger

Hello, Mandraketennis,

Thank you for creating 2021 Bahrain Ministry Of Interior Tennis Challenger.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Oh, finally i can edit on my talk page, thanks to admin Deepfriedokra who on the automatic ticked to unblock account assisted me. So, i re-report what i wrote there: Hi, i was at the end of an edit war 4-5 editors have against me, cancelling any single major and minor edit i made, and so i requested assistance from admin on the noticeboard page and curiously enough i was blocked for being "disruptive" with my edits. As per guidelines reasons to block an editor, i didn't do any of the those stated : vandalism; gross incivility; harassment; spamming; deliberately tripping the edit filter breaching the policies or guidelines, especially sock puppetry; attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite. Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, often results in a block, either from the pages the user is disrupting or from the entire site. I think my post on noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#[[User:]]_reported_by_User:Mandraketennis_(Result:_) wasn't treated fairly, as it was a monthlong and complex situation with multiple links to long articles, which could hardly be red not to say valued and taken the decision to block my account in just 5 minutes, which is what happened. It is hardly to believe someone could have a good comprehensive view in such a short time. Also i was blocked indefinitely and even without the chance to edit my talk page. I think it was simply a rushed block out of proportion- quite honestly. Regards. I was told by Deepfriedokra to "please write in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive, and how you would edit constructively if unblocked". Truth is i cannot be constructive. Not that i won't, but editors have already erased every single contribution i made. So i can't edit constructively if unblocked. I can't edit at all. All will be reverted or greatly modified by senior editors as happened to my two very first articles i've written today. I literally copied the template from the Roanne tournament and Uruguay Open. It last about, i need to check the chronometer on that, 2:54:38 sec, that how long they lasted before adamsett9 came in and changed the template, re-writing all the article using the Tenerife tournament template, (i know because i saw a little mistake he made). Then David notMD, 2 hours after adamsett9, swarmed the place cutting the 2021 single and double page link, in red because the link were not working, as it's common practice on Wiki tennis, (you first make the general page, the this year edition, then the single and double which stay for a couple of days as red links). The same David notMD who wrote not over an hour before on my post on noticeboard than "about those links, i will not touch them". Lol not a man of his word, he couldn't resist not even an hour before swarming the place. Alas, he didn't notice that i could be the creator on paper, but adamsett9 was the creator de facto, so his "unsettling" editings go to him; i cannot edit articles after all. Also re-putting up the "missing general reference" in the article when there are two in the external links and two in the reference links, (official website and official ATP challenger tournament page) that are plainly visible to anybody, is really entertaining. This is just a recent example of how the wall of senior editors works on tennis sector, how efficiently they patrol and overkill their edits are. They did the same with my first edits, just to give me the "don't bite the newcomer" salute. Anyhow, that was just the last example of why i can't offer any of my multi-year expertise on tennis into Wiki, because there are senior editors patrolling every step of the way who singlehandedly modify, revert, halt and erase any single edit which is not of their like. Granted there is still the possibility of filling the score template of the single and double draw. That's a total free zone. They are not interested, and i agree on that, maybe the only thing we share. So, no, under these conditions with the senior editors it's impossible to make any constructive edit. I tried with the constructive order of play proposal, that was a 5 links effort by week, and it was utterly rejected as unnecessary, before that i tried with minor edits, putting the specific surface into display in every atp and WTA tournament on hard court's infobox, and that was rejected under the false premise it was unreferenced. Look at the pdf file of the main draw, look at its header: it's there!! It has been there every year since the last 10, at least. The reference was internal and already inside Wikipedia tournament pages itself! But no, senior editors didn't like it, even if it's already present in some tournament, making the whole thing bizzarrely incoherent to users. I was simply trying to make order, and giving a little of context by displaying how those surface changed into the years, which again is already in tournament infobox when you differentiate between hard court and carpet as past type of surfaces in the tournaments infoboxes, but no, on Wiki you can have 15 pages of statistics on Raducanu but don't even think about surfaces, what they are for, after all? Well, just yeasterday Medvedev and Hurkacz where almost exclusively talking about the ... surface of ATP Finals! What do they think? That they know better than editors on wiki?? Not a chance. And so i tried the ultimate thing i could do, apart, as said, filling the score, which was to check on articles. I found 4 that were missing crucial links and i put them up for deletion forcing editors to look for those links, and having them functioning. And it worked!! Correct links were added to the pages, but in the end that resulted into me being blocked. So, yeah, as the story goes, the only constructive edit i made put me in the indefinetely block sector. A very paradoxical situation. Finally, what constructive edit can I make? A lot actually, a vast number just digging into my knowledge, experience and deep archive on tennis. Just not on wikipedia. This tennis sector is affected from irremediable and rigid shallowness, heavily guarded and extensively checked. So long, then! it was a brief maybe even constructive encounter. p.s: and to be perfectly clear, i am not asking to review my block.

Decline reason:

Well, OK then. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The above request is incoherent. What does Deepfriedokra have to do with any of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: At UTRS appeal #50922, I told them, "I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "
```
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 
```
Thank you for your attention to these matters. " @Mandraketennis: This means to concisely say exactly what rule you broke and how you would edit constructively. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bahrain Ministry of Interior Tennis Challenger

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bahrain Ministry of Interior Tennis Challenger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mccapra (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]