Hello, Tvx1

Thank you for creating 2022 Wimbledon Championships.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than doing this, next time take it to the talk page and seek consensus. Koppite1 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re the one who made 6 reverts within 24 hours, in clear breach of a black and white rule, yourself. You should not be lecturing others about using the talk page, given that you made no effort whatsoever to use it yourself even though you should have done so a long time ago. Your warning was very much warranted and you should considered yourself very lucky not have been reported yet.Tvx1 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "errors" that you "corrected" in this edit are not errors at all, but simply the use of British English rather than American English or the choices of the writers. And how exactly does any of that slow down parsing of the page? Pages are simply displayed as written, without any attempt at parsing their grammar. Please revert this changing of other people's comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Grammarly auto-correction function flags all of these things as potential errors. That slows the page down considerably while editing to the point it became near-impossible for me to add replies. Adding a section heading improved it, but it still remained very slow.Tvx1 17:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It flagged them as potential errors but many of them were not actual errors. One again, please revert, because you have changed other people's edits to a talk page, which goes against our guidelines. Grammarly is obviously not as clever as it or you thinks it is. Has it been somehow incorporated into Wikipedia? It seems that you have some sort of personal problem with your setup that doesn't apply to everyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should check the page instead of continuing to lecture me. My edits have been reverted a while ago. And yes Grammarly automatically runs when using the source editing window.Tvx1 18:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly doesn't for me. Could you provide a link for where it was agreed that it should run automatically for you? I'm trying to help you by working out why a piece of badly functioning software should cause your page loads to be slow, but you are not helping me to help you by your attitude. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I claim there was some sort of personal agreement with me to have this run for me? It's functionality that appears to have been added to the source editors at some point I don't even now for sure. It's very handy when writing articles, but it can obviously create problems when dealing with large talk page sections.Tvx1 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1, regarding edits like this: you may copyedit your own posts, but not those of other people except as permitted by WP:TPO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got it already. I didn't reinstate my edits anymore, did I? There's no need for a handful of editors repeating the same thing to me. Besides, I don't think ScottishFinnishRadish removing a simply reply of mine in the process.Tvx1 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could put on the same edit war template on your talk page but it seems so low for main editors at Tennis Project. I just can't bring myself to retaliate. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliate? Where not in any fight here, you know! We are working at a community project here. It would be nice if you’d finally show some colleborative attitude here, instead of aggressively imposing your preference on the project and refusing any opposition. Such behaviour from such an experienced and respected editor is truly classless. I merely tried to reinstate the longstanding stable version of these templates. Your edits are the ones that created a change of situation longstanding and you were reverted. Thus YOU are the one needing a consensus. So please respect Wikipedia procedures and selfrevert your last edits as quickly as possible.Tvx1 23:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no collaboration here... just you and I reverting. This is pot kettle black and I'm not sure where it's coming from. There is no "longstanding stable version" of these templates except with the nationality intact. You can see it for years and years. One person changed it in March with no sources to support it, we get some complaints, so I fix it. We obviously see this from a completely different aspect and are at an impasse and, while I was writing an RfC, I see the item you left on my talk page that could just as easily been left on yours. I try not to do that to fellow long-term editors but it is certainly within your right to do so. If you want to talk about classless, your addition to my talk page was the definition. The RfC is up now so go ahead and add an oppose if you like. We don't usually get a lot of action at Tennis Project so we'll see how it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]