This is an alternative account of Bluedogtn.

Hey ! I've just seen you added a bunch of pics on the list of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions, and, well, I don't know if you intend to work even more on the article, but just in case that was your intention, I thought I should warn you I've been working on an improved version of the list myself for the past two weeks in my sandbox (User:Don Lope/Sandbox Wimbledon), with the goal to make it a FL. I first thought I'd add my changes during the tournament, but then I started working on the US, Australian and French Open lists, to present the four together, which is something I'll probably do now in the next week. Cheers, --Don Lope (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And right at the moment I send you this, I see you added pics on the Aussie page - so here are the other links to my sandboxes : User:Don Lope/Sandbox Australian Open, User:Don Lope/Sandbox French Open and User:Don Lope/Sandbox US Open. Tell me what you think of them ! --Don Lope (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should pick the multiple winners (if possible), but the order should be historical, as in Featured lists like List of PGA Championship champions or List of The Open Championship champions - otherwise, it's too puzzling for the reader to have a list of winners in chronological order and then a stack of pictures in a completely different order. --Don Lope (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course I intend to work on the women's pages, but I'm going to have plenty of work (outside of wikipedia) in the next couple of weeks, so that'll probably wait. I'll warn you when I start doing that. Cheers, --Don Lope (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated the final appearances lists in the Grand Slam champions template you've got on your talk page. Thanks for the heads-up ! --Don Lope (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, am I missing something here? The bit about current players was added by User:Dj thegreat, not you as you appear to claim. 78.34.101.44 (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, in that case nevermind. 78.34.101.44 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't mind going through them and remove them, I usually do when I encounter them. Also, there is consensus, that's the reason Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) was created. Plus, what is being an admin has to do with anything? I could say the same about the fact that you are a user only here for one month, which is as irrelevant. The removal of the flag was not an admin action. Garion96 (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Maedin said to your identical message, I'm not entirely sure why you're telling me this.

Please read my comment here [1]: if some flag information is misleading or ambiguous, then remove it. I did not comment on whether this particular cases is misleading or ambiguous.

If you want to discuss this particular case further, it will be much easier to do so on one central discussion page, rather than spreading the issue over numerous article and user talk pages. Knepflerle (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about the source you use for Martina's flag. Now I agree it should be US since she lost Czech citizenship, The US accepted her, She effectively played for the US, she got help from the USTA, Wimbledon sources her as being from the US, etc. However the News article source you use says she needed backing from US tennis to continue playing in the US when the Czechs wanted her to forfeit and return to Czechoslovakia. She was still a Czech citizen at the time and probably had a temporary US visa to compete. She HAD to have US Tennis backing to even remain in the US. This doesn't necessarily mean she needed US Tennis backing to play AFTER the US accepted her defection. Maybe I missed something because it's a long article but it does seem a bit hazy. It might be better to use simply the Wimbledon page as a source on the Martina Navratilova page? Just my thoughts. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you asked the Rambling Man for help. Do you want me to help set up an FLC for you. I'm guessing it is List of US Open Men's Singles champions you wish to nominate, and it is highly recommended only to nominate one list at a time? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you could help to! I just have never did this before! I am doing this because User:Don Lope has not been active in a while and that user got all of these done, but for not if they don't achieve FL Status.TW-RF (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't for nothing because it is only a little bronze star, the quality is the same. It is unusual that an editor who is unfamiliar with the list is allowed to nominate an a list for featured status, you would be wise to consult the featured list directors, or ask at WT:FLC, as the nomination for List of US Open Men's Singles champions is currently set up wrong would you mind if I deleted it, and then it can be started again after discussion about the situation with you not being a "regular editor" of that list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, For Sure!TW-RF (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've sorted those errors Sandy mentioned below, and deleted all those nomination pages because they weren't set up right, weren't at "/archive1" and you shouldn't nominate three at once anyway. After discussions that I suggested above have taken place, to start an FLC in future follow the "Nomination procedure" outlined here, which starts with putting {{subst:FLC}} on the list's talk page. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your three FLCs have populated Category:ArticleHistory error. Please see the instructions at Template:Articlehistory; ah is only for completed processes. Please remove those three entries; a bot will update the ah once the processes are closed. You should have used the FLC template for the noms, not ah. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Rambo's Revenge partially fixed them, but I don't see the FLC templates on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see this has been sorted above. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

(edit conflict) See above. Nomination pages had been made in the wrong place. I've advised TW-RF to completely start again but before that to talk to the FLC directors because TW-RF isn't a regular contributor on those lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FLC is open here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I know template categorization can be tricky for newer users. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 23:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TW-RF. Could you please confirm that you have an alternative account, i.e. User:TN-IS, whose contributions, including editing your own sandbox, are very similar to your own. It is usually good practice to follow guideline. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it!98.240.44.215 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]