Hello, Kind Tennis Fan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi Kind Tennis Fan! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for clarifying the statement about golf major winners with this edit. However, according to Grand Slam (golf)#Career Grand Slam there are 16 or 17 golfers to win at least three of the four majors (depending on whether pre-Masters-era counts), not 15. I don't see where the 15 number comes from, but I may be misunderstanding or miscounting something. Anyway, I just thought I would mention it in case you can figure it out because you probably have a better knowledge of this than me. 86.160.215.247 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the 15 golfers are Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Player, Sarazen (who have won all four majors). The next 10 golfers who have won three out of the four are: Hagen, Barnes, Trevino, Armour, Snead, Mickelson, Nelson, Floyd, Watson and Palmer.

Please note that Bobby Jones did not win the Masters or the PGA Championship. Harold Hilton did not win the Masters, U.S. Open or PGA Championship. (The U.S. Amateur and British Amateur are not classed as professional major championships.) Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In 2014, Northern Irish golfer Rory McIlroy became the 16th golfer to win at least three of the four majors. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, friendly critique ensues: As WP is an encyclopedia, it should be engaged in discussing events that have happened, and not envisioning things that could be. The best comparisons for athletes are those who they have achieved exactly as highly as, not those who they would be comparable to if in the future they achieve more highly. A list of those who have won all four golf majors belongs in an article on that topic, not in articles about golfers who have not achieved that mark but might someday do so.68.5.176.101 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have left your edit intact until one day perhaps Phil Mickelson wins the U.S. Open and completes the career grand slam. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about not getting back to you, I glanced at your message this morning, went offline and completely forgot once I came back on. It's been protected now though. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matty. I know that you do a lot of work to help improve football articles, which I appreciate, and if there are further instances of persistent vandalism on articles that I see, I will go direct to the "Requests for page protection" section and I will request admin directly there. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw your comment/question at RfPP, and thought I'd let you know my take on it. For vandalism, I'm generally looking for around 2-3 per day for 2-3 days. Obviously, if there's a very high amount on a day, then the duration is lower, so that protection can be immediate. Every admin is different, but I think the broad consensus would be the same for most of us. Feel free to ask anything else here :) GedUK  14:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, giving your take on this. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you ever think a page needs protecting, just make the request :) GedUK  12:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have had a quick look but I cannot find that alleged claim by Chris Fay in any other news source. If you can find it in a more respectable news source (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC) than the Daily Express, then by all means put it back, but for now I have reverted Codeusirae's re-addition of your addition. Please see WP:REDFLAG. -- Alarics (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) And see also User talk:Ghmyrtle#Poor sources. -- Alarics (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message Alarics. When the claim that was reported in the Daily Express – containing an allegation of police intimidation – was removed from the article, I accepted and understood the reason why the content was removed. When making any further edits to this particular article, I will include content from sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph rather than the Daily Express. Another editor put the content back again, which has since been removed. I have given a full reply on your talk page regarding the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you removed a lot of content under Notable covers at Never Let Me Down Again, commenting "I clicked on the reference provided and it did not verify any of these quotes by Martin Gore and Dave Gahan." What you really discovered, was a dead link to a fan message board that supposedly once contained transcripts of the source/sources in question. By deleting the passage you *almost* managed to prevent any editor from improving the section and adding better links. Next time, please use Dead link template instead of deleting content, if possible. Citation needed template is very useful, too. Thank you. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sk4170. Thank you for your comments. There has been a template at the top of the Never Let Me Down Again article for over 3 years since November 2010 requesting improved additional citations, but thank you for letting me know of the Dead link template. As per guidelines at WP:GOODREFS, internet forums (or fan message boards) are not regarded as reliable sources to use. Please see WP:RSE. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a policy that requires deleting of all unsourced content from Wikipedia. The refimprove and unreferenced tags are there to encourage wikipedians to give their precious time and contribute to articles. In my opinion removing content without making the effort to fix the links that aren't working or looking for better ones is not exactly an improvement. This way a lot of good content is lost forever. I want to add that not every single word needs to be sourced, unless considered incorrect. I also wouldn't consider unsourced something that is wikilinked and essential info can be read there. For people interested only in Depeche Mode, there are well over 100 wiki articles and an army of vandals of all sorts requiring attention from those who are willing to contribute a little more of their time than average. It was pure luck that I noticed what was happening at NMLDA, but don't have time to try and fix more than this tiny detail. Just some food for thought about the reality of being a Wikipedian. --Sk4170 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings KTF. I mentioned you in an edit after you seemed to doubt some of the details in the source. It appears the source was incorrectly archived -& there are 2 versions of a short interview, one with & one without a video. Just what we need on a page like this! Regards JRPG (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JRPG: Thank you for your message to explain this. Now that I'm aware that the source was incorrectly archived, I have no further issues or concerns at present with the Nigel Farage article. Sorry for not replying earlier yesterday, but it's been a particularly busy week in the sporting calendar for people like myself who love watching tennis and association football. Yesterday there were men's semi-final matches at Wimbledon and quarter-final matches at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The days are flying by so fast at the moment - I wish that God could give us more hours in the day! Being able to spend more time with my girlfriend and on different Wikipedia articles, in addition to playing and watching plenty of tennis and football, would make it the ideal perfect day for me! Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kind Tennis Fan: Thank you for your thank you. It's always good to read that others are appreciating the effort put in. I did a whole run of edits the other day to deal with a whole lot of opinionated editing, but there's probably more work needed. And of course the article contains sooo much detail. But then trimming any of that would open up another few cans of worms. *sigh* All the best from Down Under. Boscaswell talk 11:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not typically use dmy dates in Canada, we typically use mdy dates. Please correct it. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the entire article to mdy dates. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kind Tennis Fan. You are invited to join WikiProject Poultry. Check out the project at WP:POULTRY and feel free to join if interested. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you've done some work on Bacon. I'm trying to get it to GA and I was wondering if you'd like to help with some more work. In the past I've done quite some work on it with others, but it's still a ways to go from GA. Thanks. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

@Newyorkadam: Thank you for your message and for the work that you have done on Bacon. I will do a bit more work on the Bacon article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see someone taking the time to make date formats consistent within articles. For most nation-specific articles, and those with obvious ties to a country or region of the world, it's somewhat straightforward to choose mdy vs. dmy. What, then, is your criteria for astronomy articles: using the prevailing format in the article, or forcing mdy or dmy? I, and presumably others in the astronomy project, would prefer that astronomy articles, for the most part being devoid of national affiliation, adopt the more-universally-accepted dmy format. I haven't brought this up yet, though, since I just noticed your edit to Galaxy (mdy) and would like to know your thoughts and procedure.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  00:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message Tom. My thoughts when adjusting the format on the Galaxy article to mdy was firstly, as the MOS:DATEFORMAT guide says, the yyyy-dd-mm format (such as 2007-04-03) is ambiguous for some dates. But apart from that particular ambiguous format, it seemed that the mdy format was the one most predominantly used for the whole article overall. And so that is why I initially chose the mdy format.

The guidelines also state that: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page."

I have now properly studied the older revisions of the article and seen that the mdy format was the first "acceptable" format used on the article.

So going by the guidelines, the mdy format is appropriate. However, I am always happy to take on board the input of others. If on any article there is a preference among editors for the dmy format ahead of mdy then I will go with the consensus of opinion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your meticulousness; it's definitely appreciated. You've inspired me to put this on my to-do list for astro articles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! Well done, that's great. If you are totally bored and keen on hanging around in that lovely corner of England for a few minutes more then please feel absolutely free to drop in to Whitley Bay. I had a recent look and it made me want to bang my head repeatedly on my desk. :( Thanks again for South Shields and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I had some spare time this weekend (in between watching football), so I have also had a tidy up this evening of the article on Whitley Bay. There was a lot of inappropriate unsourced promotional content and so I have removed much of it. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, fantastic tidy up - many thanks! DBaK (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw your change, I had to look it up myself - I wasn't sure. It is hard to keep track of these things, especially when spell check steers you wrong on so many words. Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit and for your other work on the Spandau Ballet article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them in concert in Toronto last week -- excellent show. Their first here in 32 years. Sadly, I did not see them in 1983. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them in a reunion concert in 2009 at The O2 Arena in London and they were excellent. Tony Hadley has a fine voice and I think the song "Through the Barricades" is one of the best singles of the 1980s. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more than a little help with the article Rochdale would sure be appreciated partner. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Vitale 5: Hello Joe and thank you for your edits. I share your enjoyment of football and music. It's currently a bit of a busy time for me at the moment with some family health issues and also in my spare time watching as many tennis matches at Wimbledon as I can during the fortnight that the championships are being played. But at a later date I will do some work on Rochdale A.F.C. to help. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats in the accessdate parameter aren't usually changed to be consistent with the rest of the article. I think accessdate is one of the few places where yyyy-mm-dd format dates are permitted, and they aren't required to be the same as dates in other parts of the article. Maybe the consensus on this has changed recently, but that's what had been worked out in years of discussion about the date format issue. Quale (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Quale. I personally feel that having all the dates in the same consistent format makes the article look neater and leaves no room for any ambiguity. The yyyy-mm-dd format such as 2011-07-06 or 2015-03-04 could be potentially ambiguous. In my opinion the dmy format (such as 6 July 2011) or the mdy format (such as March 4, 2015) is clearer. I have noticed that many of the featured articles have a harmonisation of dates to also the include the accessdate parameter. I think an article looks neater if all the dates are harmonised. But if ever you do not approve of me harmonising all of the dates in an article to include the accessdate parameter then I don't have an issue if you would like to revert the changes for a particular article. I like to edit by consensus. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, KTF, I wonder whether you're interested in installing Ohconfucius's full range of script buttons—in particular, he has one that combines date format, dashes, and the unlinking of chronological and common terms (the latter needs quick manual checking, though, after application). PS Quale, is there a problem in harmonising all of the dates in an article? Tony (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TONY. Thank you for your edits and for letting me know about this. Yes, one day I will take a look at Ohconfucius's full range of script buttons. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KTF. Thanks for your efforts on Chris Grayling. I think this is particularly important for BBC news webpages as I expect them to be cut back in the near future. Could I ask if you could have a look at Mark Harper who has a lot of bare references. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JRPG and thank you for your edits. I have today filled in 26 bare references for Mark Harper and later this week I will have a further tidy up of the references for that article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. I use the BBC website a lot and hope the Wayback Machine can preserve any lost pages. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, please take a look at this weeks TAFI selected article, Marie Serneholt. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

paul herrin (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you Paul for your nice gift of a kitten for me. I will take good care of it! After Pugs, cats are my second favourite animals. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :)

paul herrin (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to reconsider your reversion to Indiana University Bloomington. I concede that the edit you reverted wasn't accompanied by an edit summary or discussion in Talk but it seems like a very non-controversial update that includes a reference. I'd revert your edit (and clean up the text a bit; there is at least one unnecessary external link in the body of the text...) but I have a degree from the institution so some people might object. ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message ElKevbo. I have reverted my edit. The editor had created a cite error in the article. After reverting my own edit, I have now fixed this cite error. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks; highly appreciated! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Joshua Jonathan. I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I enjoyed learning a bit more about it from reading the article Four Noble Truths, which you have made a major contribution to improving. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings KTF! You were kind enough to help with bare references I pointed out on the Mark Harper article and I wonder if you could possibly do the same for Battle of Santiago de Cuba. If not, don't worry. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JRPG. I've filled in the references for the Battle of Santiago de Cuba article. I enjoyed reading the content about this article, but the refill tool does work best with newspaper, general news (such as BBC) and website references. That can usually be done fairly quickly. But I haven't worked out yet a quicker way of doing book references. These I have to do manually, because I haven't yet mastered the technique of doing book references in a quicker way. But if there are any other articles, like Mark Harper, where you would like the news references filled in then just let me know and I'd be happy to help. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KTF. Firstly the article does look much better. My interest stems from the fact it's a black hole in my knowledge of the background to the US and its neighbours prior to WW1 & it perhaps helps explain their nerves about the Zimmermann telegram. Ironic that the Maine explosion may have simply been an accident.

I'm so sorry that it involved you in more non-automated work than I wanted to do & I'll select more carefully in future. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I've started a talk on Andy Murray, and your response would be appreciated.

Thanks

Chelisuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelisuk (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chelisuk and thank you for your comment. I've now responded to your points on the Andy Murray talk page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edits to the Rape article. I am sorry that I make so many mistakes when I add content. I don't like making more work for other editors and will try to be more careful. Your edits made the article better and gave it clarity. Thank you so much for what you do. I don't know how other editors catch these things when I don't see them. If you like(?) doing this sort of thing to improve articles, please feel free (actually I am begging!) to go to the articles I have created any time to do your editing (it's magic to me...). If you need a list of articles that I have created, just let me know and I will give you the list. If you found mistakes in the Rape article then it is guaranteed to be the same in the other things that I write.

The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 09:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I don't know how you do it - consistently finding and fixing my mistakes but it is very much appreciated. You are a pretty fine editor! Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 09:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barbara (WVS) and thank you for your nice words. I appreciate them. Thank you also for your edits on articles and I understand that anybody can make small mistakes - we are all human! I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KTF, I note your edit and justification on Tim Westwood here. I appreciate your rationale, however I think the article is richer by its inclusion. Westwood is pretty notorious for his speech and it's rare to hear him acknowledge it. I think him doing so is classifiable as encyclopaedic and worthy of inclusion. I am requesting reconsidering the removal and adding this info back in to the article. What do you think? Rayman60 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rayman60. Thanks for your comment. I have reverted that edit and restored the quote for the article. Although I didn't think the newspaper quote was very notable, I understand your point about including it. I've also tonight trimmed a reference from YouTube and put in place a citation request instead. This is because, according to guidelines at WP:RSE and WP:YTREF, YouTube is not encouraged as a good source for a Wikipedia reference. Also, the number of video views and subscribers to a YouTube channel regularly changes and if content is put in about the number of video views somebody has had, then this has to keep being updated regularly. Guidelines at WP:YTREF state: "Editors should also consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube." I agree with that and I think YouTube is best avoided on Wikipedia. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for you edits on Tiffany Sessions, but I just need to say that since the YouTube video I used is a news story and not a fan made video of any kind, therefore it is reliable. YouTube videos are only unreliable depending on what they are. Also I have now reworded it to make it say more what the video says. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidgoodheart. Thanks for this. I have slightly reworded it and left the YouTube reference as it is. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, you are indeed kind. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted here and the content is back. I couldn't find the copyvio source. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna Frodesiak and thank you for your comment. When I saw the edit by an IP user of a new huge long paragraph (with a cite error for the reference) my initial thought was that the very large chunk of text had been copied and pasted from somewhere, as it seemed a very large chunk of new text to introduce to the article. The content was not in an encyclopedic style. It seemed from my impression to have been copied and pasted from an online source. With hindsight, my edit summary should have been "Possible copyvio". That would have been preferable.

I have now made a copy-edit and have divided the huge paragraph into separate paragraphs for improved readability. I have requested citations for the paragraphs as there was a cite error for the reference and it was not correctly formatted, so I could not verify the content. If the content can all be properly verified with citations to reliable sources then I'm happy for the content to remain in the article and as long as there has not been a copyvio. Apologies, that my initial edit summary should have been "Possible copyvio" before subsequently making a copy-edit for the text. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kind Tennis Fan,

This is SurveyorMJF, with a problem that I hope you can help with.

You correctly recently reversed an anonymous change to the page for William Nevin Tatlow Hurst. But it has been applied again, by someone else. I suspect that it is the person who is cyber-attacking me in other places outside Wikipedia.

The original information is correct - Eliza Hurst's maiden name was Nevin. Her living descendants have numerous documents proving that she was the sister of John Nevin of Greyabbey, County Down, NI, both of whom went to Tasmania. Furthermore, as I wrote in the wiki, I have correspondence from E. Wickens of the North of Ireland Family History Society, confirming that Eliza Nevin and John Neviin were siblings.

Would you consider reversing the deletion again please?

Many thanks. SurveyorMJF (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SurveyorMJF. Apologies for the late reply. I have reverted the deletion again. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kind Person :) SurveyorMJF (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing the references in the Cub Swanson article. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia so I make blunders. 张雨涵 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 张雨涵. Thank you for your nice comments. I'm happy to help with fixing the references. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SO MUCH for revising Brinkley page back to normal. Have numerous magazines from the 80's (in storage) where Brinkley height is listed at 5'8" which I need to get for citations. I had no idea how the page got so messed up just by changing height and I really appreciate you getting that page back to normal. Lisa kristin1 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have fixed the error, Lisa. Thank you for the appreciation. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just regarding this edit, the "Use DMY dates" tag is dated by a bot; the date should not be changed. Kind regards. AusLondonder (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AusLondonder. I made a mistake in my edit summary, by just stating "Reference". I should have stated that it was date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script. I also corrected the newspaper title of the reference, in addition to using the script in the same edit. My edit summary should have stated that I was using the script. Using the script automatically changes the "Use DMY dates" tag to the newer current month's date. It is dated by a script. As per the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM_dates

To see three other examples of other editors using this script, where the "Use DMY dates" tag is changed automatically to the current month's date, please see the examples [1] [2] and [3] Kind regards. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistake in the script, in my opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnus_Carlsen&curid=442682&diff=823085598&oldid=822950414 shows that the DMY order was established in the Magnus Carlsen article in January 2013 or earlier, giving it 5 years of priority. Updating the date to be January 2018 makes it look like it was a recent decision. It's a bad edit that doesn't improve the article. Also every edit you made to that article was to change valid reference dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. I understand that many people don't like this format, but it is permitted by WP:CITESTYLE and IT IS NOT VALID TO CLAIM "consistent date format. Date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT" as a reason for these edits. Please stop. Quale (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't fully understand all the points you are making. I have not changed the DMY format for the Magnus Carlsen article. I have merely kept and updated the DMY format that was already there for it to remain in a consistent format. A reference prior to my edit was as follows:^[1] That had an inconsistent date format of 2007-08-07, which was changed in the script to DMY format. I can understand that you may not like the access-date of 2016-04-05 being changed. I accept that it is not essential that the access-dates have to be in the DMY format and if you would like I can go back and change the access-date back to 2016-04-05 again. But the date format of 2007-08-07 was not consistent with the article and I don't see the problem or the harm in updating it to be consistent with the rest of the article. Another reference prior to my edit was as follows:^[2] That had an inconsistent date format of February 10, 2015. That was in the MDY format - inconsistent with the rest of the article. The script updates the reference to 10 February 2015 (to the DMY format) which has been in place for years. Therefore you are incorrect in your assertion that every edit prior to being changed was in a valid YYYY-MM-DD format. As highlighted, one reference was in the MDY format. Guidelines at WP:CITESTYLE state: "Citations within any given article should follow a consistent style".

If you look at many featured articles there is a consistent date format and many other editors do exactly the same as I do in updating the format to be consistent. The script I used automatically updated the DMY date template at the top of the article to January 2018. The date was changed by the script in the template from January 2013 to January 2018. This is what happens when any editor updates using the script. It updates the template automatically to whatever the current month is. It is not myself writing out a new template date of January 2018. For all the other editors who update the script in a similar manner to myself do you also ask them to stop on their talk pages or is it just me that you have an issue with? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re [4] and [5], you are correct in using the 'work' parameter, but telegraph.co.uk is not a newspaper (which are, as the name suggests, made of paper), nor is it called The Daily Telegraph. It is a news website called The Telegraph. Firebrace (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Science fiction. Your recent edits (and mine) have been reverted en masse. I said to someone else that now I know why people don't waste their time on it. PopSci (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kind Tennis Fan. I was wondering if I could please get your input on this page Talk:List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom? Under the section The Guardian. I'm sorry its quite a long read. Unfortunately I've been struggling to get other editors input from many of those I have asked. Your input would be really appreciated. Thank you for your time. Helper201 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KTF. I have reverted your removal from the article of mention of three cover versions of this song. Your edit summary said "Not notable. WP:SONGCOVER", however:

• Regardless of what WP:SONGCOVER says, notability is not a requirement for article content, only tor the existence of entire articles. See WP:N, both the lede and item 2. A claim of "not notable" is never sufficient justification for removing content from an article. (For attempting deletion of an entire article, yes.)
• WP:SONGCOVER offers advice as to whether "discussion" of a cover version may be included in an article, but a simple item in a list - ie a mere mention of a cover's existence - is not what any reasonable person would call "discussion". Discussion is what the article does re the Dwight Yoakam version, for example.
• WP:SONGCOVER is not part of WP policy or guideline. It is part of WP:SONGS, which is merely an advice page written by self-appointed members of a WikiProject. Such pages carry no more weight than WP:ESSAYs; they or the WikiProject members who wrote them have absolutely no more authority over Wikipedia content than any other editors. From WP:WikiProject#Function: "WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." So even if WP:SONGCOVER did indicate that those list items should be excluded, that would not be considered authoritative or binding, not even at the "guideline" level.

Thank you for your consideration of these points. Jeh (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeh. I'm aware that WP:SONGCOVER is an advice page. My edit removed three cover versions, of which two were unsourced. WP:VERIFY is at the heart of WP guidelines. Content should be verified from a reliable source and Wikipedia does not publish original research.

The two versions which were unsourced were Jimmy "Orion" Ellis, for what was described without a reference as an "Elvis Presley sounding cover" and secondly an instrumental version for part of the 1983 computer game "Frantic Freddie". The cover version by The Chipmunks is sourced, but in my view was not an important cover version. The two unsourced cover versions by Jimmy "Orion" Ellis and the instrumental version for the computer game "Frantic Freddie" can indeed, in my view, by removed on the grounds of WP:VERIFY. There is no source for them. The cover version by The Chipmunks (in my view) doesn't qualify as an important cover version. The supplied reference doesn't show that the cover version is important to the topic.

Describing the Jimmy "Orion" Ellis cover version as an "Elvis Presley sounding cover", without a reference, is original research and against WP guidelines. My edit summary may have mentioned the advice page of WP:SONGCOVER, but more importantly WP:VERIFY suggests that the original research of the two unsourced cover versions should not be included.

I've taken some of my guidance for music and song edits from a very experienced senior editor Binksternet, who has made over 240,000 edits. I'd be grateful Binksternet if you could please take a look at the recent edit history of Crazy Little Thing Called Love and offer your own view as to whether the removal of these three cover versions by myself was justified.

On the article Colors of the Wind, many cover versions were removed with the edit summary of "Trim per WP:SONGCOVER", even though some of the versions had references. I agree with the removal of those particular cover versions, as in my view they are not important - even though in some cases references were supplied. In future Jeh, if removing an unimportant cover version, I will try to use the edit summary of "Unimportant" rather than "Not notable". Regards Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The SONGCOVER guideline represents project-wide consensus, a general standard for song articles. Local differences may be established but without a strong local consensus, the general project standard applies. SONGCOVER is not merely advice.

I have never seen a difference between prose-based "discussion" of a cover version and the brief listing of that cover version. Both of those cases are handled the same way by SONGCOVER, as the guideline makes no distinction between them. As it stands, the guideline treats both the same.

Essentially, the guideline represents the WikiProject Songs version of the hard policy saying that Wikipedia "should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." Which means that unimportant-but-true stuff is still unimportant. I'm sure that when Kind Tennis Fan wrote "not notable. WP:SONGCOVER" in the edit summary, what was meant was "not important enough to include". Such an interpretation is cemented by the presence of a link to SONGCOVER, which is about the importance of potential article content rather than notability regarding articles for deletion.

This removal, specifically, is one I support. None of the three removed versions are shown to be important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not contest this removal further. Jeh (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Binksternet. Yes, in the edit summary I meant "not important enough to include", with the link to WP:SONGCOVER. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kind Tennis Fan, I noticed that you've changed all the dates in the Figure Skating article from US English format (e.g. July 1) to UK English format (e.g. 1 July). How can you tell if an article is written in US or UK English? The first tag specifies dmy dates, which would signify UK English (but incidentally that wasn't present when the article was first created back in 2001). If it is supposed to be in UK English I have found that there are a lot of American spellings which would also need to be changed, namely "emphasize", "computerized", "organized", "organization", "penalize", "recognized". However, these spellings were present when the article was first created in 2001 which strongly suggests that the original author intended for the article to be written in US English. If this is the case then surely we should respect that and leave the dates alone? (P.S. I think "synchronized skating" is always spelt with a 'z'.) Kind regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney Baggins. Apologies for the slightly delayed reply. I have now changed the dates on the Figure Skating article to the mdy format. I don't have strong feelings either way whether the article is better in the dmy or mdy format. But either one of them is better in my view than a jumbled up mixture of the different date formats, which was the case before. This is because of guidelines at WP:CITESTYLE, which state: "Citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". Therefore, I think either the dmy or mdy format is preferable to an inconsistent style. If anybody has any objections to it now being in the mdy format, I'll take those views on board and will try to seek consensus on the article's talk page as to which of the two styles most editors feel is the best one to use. If nobody objects to my edit today, then I think it's better now in the mdy format. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kind Tennis Fan,

One of my pages has been changed by a user who repeatedly removes true information and substitutes irrelevant information. You restored the page the page for me a couple of times, last year and earlier this year. Could you please help me again? I will enable my email contact in Wikipedia, so that we can discuss this by email if you prefer. SurveyorMJF (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, several hours later - It's OK. I have restored the page now (for the time being, anyway). So please do not bother about it, Kind Tennis Fan. ... Seasons Greetings to you and yours. SurveyorMJF (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SurveyorMJF. I'm pleased that the article page is now ok again. Seasons Greetings to you as well. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your series of constructive edits to Liam Fox, which together make the article more encyclopaedic. If you collect barnstars or whatever, yer out of luck - I don't have any and I don't want any :-) MrDemeanour (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MrDemeanour for your appreciation of the edits. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Kind Tennis Fan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, HardSunBadMoon (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you HardSunBadMoon for your nice Christmas greetings. Wishing you also a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in 2019. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail sources got blacklisted, but I don't see source from thesun.co.uk blacklisted nor do I see mirror blacklisted in the same format. Also verifying that the sources are not gossip pieces or opinions, if they are more factual, reporting a game. They should be okay, but it's best to leave a source until you find a new one otherwise you are leaving content unsourced which is bad form. Govvy (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Govvy. Which article are you referring to please? If it's a biography of a person, as per guidelines at WP:BLPSOURCES, tabloid sourcing should not be placed in the article. Even if it's not a biography, "The Sun" tabloid newspaper (or "thesun.co.uk") has been discussed by Wikipedia editors in detail and the conclusion reached from editors is that it's not a reliable source. Other tabloids, such as the Daily Mirror are also not encouraged as reliable sources by the Wikipedia community.

Please see guidelines at WP:VERIFY, which state: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."

I usually do indeed add a temporary "citation needed" tag to an article, especially a biography, if it has tabloid sourcing, rather than specifically remove content. Please do feel free to take up any concerns you have with the tabloid sources being removed from the article you were concerned about at the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" at the link WP:RSN. The admin there will be able to take up your concerns. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Ray Wilkins article, the sun source was just showing some facts about him, Not all Tabloid journalism articles are gossip, opinions, rags, there are some good sources that can be used. WP:DAILYMAIL doesn't state blocking thesun.co.uk in it's close on the RfC. Govvy (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Noticeboard has a lot of people not fact checking the source for which they are discussing. Each citation should have it's own weight, if for any reason you feel a source shouldn't be used, then that should be stated, but at the moment there is no total blacklist of every Sun Newspaper (online articles), this RS policy business to blacklist a whole industry that has been in print for over 100 years. That's just wrong, more common-sense is needed. Govvy (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Govvy. The Sun was deprecated in 2019. Please see WP:RSP (underneath the section: Sources) which states: "There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article."

There has been a community consensus to deprecate The Sun as a source, like the Daily Mail. The use of the source is generally prohibited. An edit filter is in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. Despite this, I have left your edit in the Ray Wilkins article intact for the time being, until a better source can be found. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could I make a suggestion ? ... instead of simply removing sources could you instead first atleast look for replacement sources ?,
The sourcing {[6][7][8]} took me 10 minutes tops .... It would've been far more productive if you replaced these yourself instead of relying on others,
If you have no desire to actually put any work into this Encyclopedia then it might be a good idea if you found another hobby.
Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davey2010. Could I please ask that you spend a few minutes to check my contribution history to look in more detail at many of the 45,000+ edits that I've made so far. If I may say so, I think your comment that you've said of me: "If you have no desire to actually put any work into this Encyclopedia" is rather disrespectful towards me for the very large amount of work that I have indeed put into the encyclopedia. If you could take the time first to check many of my 45,000+ edits you'll see that among other things, I have:

• Fixed numerous cite errors.
• Filled in and tidied thousands of references.
• Reverted numerous acts of vandalism.
• Edited many articles for a more neutral point of view, as per guidelines at WP:NPOV and MOS:OPED.
• Made over 100 edits on the Cristiano Ronaldo article and over 60 edits at Rafael Nadal, to give two examples of BLP's for prominent sportsmen that I've improved the overall quality of.
• Checked numerous references to ensure that content was verifiable, as per WP:VERIFY.
• Ensured that many articles are compliant with MOS:PARAGRAPH and the Manual of Style.
• Supplied new and reliable sources for many articles.
• Given polite and hopefully some helpful advice to many newcomers and IP editors, always ensuring that I'm WP:CIVIL to everyone.
• Gave some articles a major clean-up, such as at South Shields, for which the editor DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered later said on my talk page: "Fantastic tidy up – many thanks" and at Liam Fox, for which the editor MrDemeanour said on my talk page: "Thank you for your series of constructive edits to Liam Fox, which together make the article more encyclopaedic".

To address your points about my trimming of a few unreliable sources at the article London Zoo and replacing those with temporary citation tags, which I could've found new sources for at a slightly later date, but you have found the new sources yourself:

These were unreliable references as per Wikipedia guidelines. My edits were entirely compliant with guidelines at WP:VERIFY, which state: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

I did not remove any of the poorly sourced content at London Zoo. I only trimmed a few unreliable sources and placed a citation needed tag as an interim step, as per guidelines at WP:VERIFY.

The temporary citation needed tag can serve the purpose of also alerting the editor who put the poorly sourced content into the article, to let him or her know, when reading the article, or the article's history, that the particular material requires a reliable source. If nobody had provided a reliable source after a period of time, I certainly would've been willing or able to find new sources, but as it happens you provided those new reliable sources yourself.

Guidelines at WP:VERIFY state: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page."

I did give my rationale in the edit summary, which provides an explanation to other editors who may not be sure of guidelines on reliable sources.

I stated in my edit summary: "The content on IMDb is user-submitted, and the site is therefore considered unreliable. Please see WP:RSE and WP:GOODREFS and "Please note that blogs are not encouraged as good sources for Wikipedia references. Please see guidelines at WP:RSE and WP:GOODREFS."

The guidelines at WP:VERIFY are clear that: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

As per guidelines, IMDb is not a reliable source, as it is user-submitted. My recent edits at London Zoo were compliant with one of the core Wikipedia principles of WP:VERIFY.

Would you agree that there is nothing that I did at London Zoo which was against specific Wikipedia guidelines by placing temporary citation needed tags for the poorly sourced content and that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (although I would've been quite happy and willing at a later date to find new sources.)

To give just two recent examples in the last few days of where I provided new references.... At London Bridge, I removed a poor source and replaced it with a full citation to a more reliable source. At Ribena, I introduced a new citation to a sentence that was unsourced.

Over more than five years, since July 2013, as a Wikipedia editor, and over 45,000+ edits, I've put in a great many hours of work to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, improve many articles, counter vandalism and ensure the encyclopedia is compliant with guidelines. Having put in that effort, I do feel that I deserved a bit more respect than your inconsiderate comment, "If you have no desire to actually put any work into this Encyclopedia then it might be a good idea if you found another hobby."

I note that last year in 2018, Davey2010, you were given a block for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy". Please try to be more WP:CIVIL to people like me on their talk pages.

I'd be grateful please if you could take the time to look in more detail at my contribution history at Wikipedia since July 2013, see that I've fixed many hundreds of references and added many references to reliable sources and then be good enough please to acknowledge that I have indeed put work and effort into the encyclopedia. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 Update:

Davey2010 has again been given a block for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy in relation to an attack on another editor. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020 Update:

Davey2010 has again this month been given a block for Personal attacks, edit warring, ownership issues. It would be appreciated if he could be more WP:CIVIL to other editors. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your trimming of the Mischa Barton article. It used a blog as a source, which looks bad at first, but that same blog was itself referenced by the preceeding Huffington post article because they were properly attributing the quoted text. It looks to me like a Wikipedia editor was merely trying to b thorough and diligent by adding the ultimate original source of the quote, not only the Huffpost reprinting of it. The Huffpost article could be used as the source of the entire paragraph including the bit you trimmed.

I would encourage you to restore the description of the photoshoot, which provides some context. Alternatively you might edit the text to indicate that it was a "meat themed photoshot". -- 109.76.154.158 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your message. I have now edited the text on the Mischa Barton article to include that it was "meat-themed" using the existing Huffpost reference. However, blogs are generally not encouraged as good sources. Guidelines at WP:GOODREFS state: Blogs, social media and fan sites are not usually acceptable. Huffpost is acceptable and so I used that as the reference. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

(Blogs not ideal but better than Twitter.) -- 109.76.154.158 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort to improve date formats in Transgender history. I undid this edit for several reasons: because dates in the article were already compliant per MOS:DATEFORMAT, because usage was consistent throughout the article, and because the script also changed valid date formats inside citations that are not subject to MOS:DATEFORMAT but to WP:CITESTYLE (for example: in citations, yyyy-mm-dd is valid). There were three non-compliant (but not invalid) dates in the citations involving abbreviated months (e.g., "Feb 2006"); these have been corrected. The dd month yyyy format is more universal than the month dd, yyyy but MOS:DATETIES doesn't apply to this article, therefore, MOS:DATEVAR does. There would be no problem using that script to retain the already consistent and compliant usage in the article, but using a script to change every date occurrence in the article to a different date style is contrary to manual of style recommendations. Please ensure when using this (or any) script, that you do not overturn compliant and consistent usage. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mathglot. Apologies, I should have used the predominant MDY format for the script. As you have stated: "There would be no problem using that script to retain the already consistent and compliant usage in the article" – I have therefore used the MDY format on the script now for the article, as per guidelines at MOS:DATEUNIFY which state:

Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be: the format used in the article body text, an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body, or the format expected in the citation style being used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).

For example, publication dates within a single article might be in one, but only one, of these formats (among others):

Jones, J. (20 September 2008)

Jones, J. (September 20, 2008)

The citation dates were not in a consistent style. They had a mixture of MDY and DMY dates. I have therefore used the script for the MDY format, as per MOS:DATEUNIFY. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. You’re correct about the citation dates; I haven’t reexamined the article but I assume it is now as you say, so we’re good. Thanks for taking care of this, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And is that how you want to explain that you did this on Eliezer Berland as well?[9] Because as far as I can see you changed basically all dates. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same here and here. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Debresser. For the Eliezer Berland article, the dates were in a mixture of either MDY, DMY and yyyy-mm-dd formats. As per MOS:DATEUNIFY, I made a decision to opt for consistency based on the MDY format, not only as the opening sentence of the article was "Eliezer Berland (born December 26, 1937)", but also as a clear majority of the dates in the main body of the article (excluding references) were clearly in the MDY format. eg: On February 12, 2015, his extradition to Israel was ordered by a Dutch court. On April 7, 2016, Berland was again arrested in South Africa. On May 21, 2016, Grossman flew a second time to visit Berland.

MDY was the predominant format for the main body of the Eliezer Berland article and therefore I opted for that consistent style of formatting. You've suggested that I "changed basically all dates" for that article, but MDY was clearly the predominant format already used, and I opted for consistency.

For the article The Lives of John Lennon, the article was in a mixture of various MDY and yyyy-mm-dd formats. This book was published in America by the late American author Albert Goldman. I felt an MDY format, traditionally used in America, was appropriate.

For the article Lansweeper, with hindsight the change to DMY format wasn't completely necessary and I'm happy to revert that change if either yourself or any other editors object to it. I've made approximately 60,000 edits on Wikipedia, often reverting vandalism, fixing thousands of cite errors and providing consistency for dates. Usually an edit providing consistency for dates isn't controversial or objected to if there is already one predominantly used style in the article. The article Lansweeper did already state "The domain lansweeper.com was first registered 4 June 2004", using a DMY format, but I'm happy to revert the date changes to the article Lansweeper if you or another editor would like me to do so. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take into account the yyyy-mm-dd format, and in general underestimated the number of date sin those articles, leading me to come to the mistaken conclusion that you changed almost all dates. Sorry for not checking more conscientiously before writing you.

By the way, on Israel-related articles there is no guideline what date format to follow. On the one hand, Israel was once the British Mandate of Palestine, on the other hand, culture is much Americanized, partially because of the large number of American Jews residing in Israel. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a reflinks to Warner Music Group? Because the page is semi-protect. 2402:1980:8251:2C71:2431:214B:7439:488C (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have done that today. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make a reflinks to Miley Cyrus too. 2402:1980:8248:2AB4:4492:3676:25AC:5858 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kind Tennis Fan: If you agree or disagree with my changes to the History section of the page, please say so on the Talk page of Illegal Immigration in the United States and edit the main page as necessary. Thank you! Edit5001 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kind Tennis Fan. I opened a featured-article nomination for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) a few weeks ago, and it's pretty close to a solid run of reviews so far. I found your name at a rock-related article's edit history, and wanted to welcome you to offering one more review, if you are interested. isento (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Attachment theory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Commandments (1956), which closed at the end of 1960 with worldwide rentals of $58–60 million ??? Why not create a table ??? Bigdas (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. However, the reversals you made have reinserted the suggestion that individuals were campaigned against for their political views, and not because of the comments they had made which were seen to be racist. You have also reinserted irrelevant information about someone who is not the subject of the page. Can you please reverse these changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.219.163 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 82.3.219.163. Apologies for the delayed reply. Since my own edit to the article on 4 June 2020, there have been over 50 edits to the article. Parts of the article have been improved and cleaned up since my own edit. If you still have any concerns about the article, the best place to discuss the changes you'd like to see is on the Talk Page of the article itself. There is currently a section on the Talk Page entitled "NPOV". Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel the need to change the date format on COVID-19_pandemic from YYYY-MM-DD to D MMM YYYY? I feel that ISO date is much superior. --Traut (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) And I find ISO dates unnatural. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the format of common sense, which is understood universally. To me MMMM D, YYYY is unnatural. Why name a month first, then a day, then a year? COVID-19 is a global pandemic. Thus a universal 'ISO' date format appears most appropriate to me. --Traut (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with the logic. I can only repeat that for me ISO dates are unnatural. DD MM YYYY or MM DD YYY are not universal, but they are natural, as in "used by humans", while ISO is used by machines. For me, that is the stronger argument. Just trying to show you that there is another side to this, with all respect. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Traut and Debresser. On the COVID-19 pandemic article, I updated the script for the already existing DMY date format that had been in use in the article for a number of months. Prior to my edit on 15 August 2020, the script had previously been updated in the DMY format in June 2020. However, when I updated the script, I clicked the edit button to update it without actually seeing that another editor had put a hidden note in the text, Use dmy dates – but keep Y-M-D within citations – (the hidden text in italics).

I was not aware of this hidden text at the time of my edit. I've made over 60,000 edits on Wikipedia and this is the first time on any article that I've become aware of a hidden note requesting that a different date format is used within citations to the main article date format. There are currently 38 pages of archived discussion on the COVID-19 pandemic talk page. I haven't read these 38 pages, but if there has ever at any stage been a talk page consensus among editors that a YMD format should be kept within citations in a different format to the already used DMY format for the main article, then please feel free to revert my edit as per consensus on the talk page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kind Tennis Fan! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Me-123567-Me for letting me know about this. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning @Kind Tennis Fan:! Re: my glaring error on Wootton's article - to be frank, I have no idea what I did there, or why. I should've linked to this, but on reading it again, it wouldn't have been appropriate, or necessary, anyway. I was relatively inexperienced at that stage (still am!), I take every error pointed out on board and learn from it and I'm hoping my contributions have improved since then. Thank you for fixing it for me. --DSQ (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DSQ and thank you for your message. I'm happy to have helped to fix the error on the Dan Wootton article. Thank you for your Wikipedia contributions. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my earlier referencing error. (I meant to merge two references when i realized I'd reused the same link.) Only noticed the error now and was about to fix it but you beat me to it. Thanks. -- 109.78.203.221 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you 109.78.203.221 for your editing. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you convert bare URLs? Anytime, in this case. 115.164.53.242 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 115.164.53.242. I have converted the bare URLs for the article today and also made the mdy dates consistent for the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EvergreenFir. That is no problem at all – we can all make mistakes. I'm fond of cats. How many cats have you got at home? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the furry snuggle demons.  :) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've added to my watchlist and given the editor a final warning. GiantSnowman 09:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kind Tennis Fan,

Thanks for the thanks for editing Lee Rowley’s page - can I ask that you suggest to User:Impsfan that they stop reverting it given their refusal to discuss the issue and numerous users considering Impsfan’s contributions inappropriate on this page - excessive detail and neutral point of view issues etc. Can you also point out the issue to User:Oshwah who Impsfan has complained to about my edits. Thanks BingBong2001 (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcus_Fysh&action=history --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tagishsimon. I have opened a discussion about the recent changes and removal of content by another editor today on the Marcus Fysh talk page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have recently contributed to this article or its talk page. Please see this discussion on the talk page. You are welcome to take part if you are interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello No Great Shaker. Thank you for this. I have contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, KTF. Much appreciated. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had to revert you to undo a different change. Could you please run your script on Paris Agreement again? Or if it's too much trouble I'll merge changes manually. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clayoquot. Thank you. I have run the script again. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, thanks muchly :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kind Tennis Fan: I was hoping that you could comment on the discussion concerning the removal of a paragraph of the article Jake Berry. I know you frequently edit British political BLP articles, and are neutral in your POV, and I am hoping you can weigh in the discussion. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello PerpetuityGrat and thanks for letting me know about this discussion on the Jake Berry article. I support the removal of the paragraph and have given my reasons why on the talk page of the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Isabelle ^🔔 00:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kind Tennis Fan: I am a new editor and put the relative age effect page on my watchlist and saw, I think, you add some changes. I am reading through the template links but am unsure what links are the Bare links that you are referencing. Is it the future reading section? P.S. I am also from the South of England, Eastbourne :) DannyHatcher (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DannyHatcher and thank you for your edits on Relative age effect. There were a few bare urls for references in the main body of the article and this wasn't due to edits you made in cleaning up the "Further reading" section. The editor Derek R Bullamore has today filled in a few references in the main section which previously weren't full citations and Derek has removed the bare url template. His edits and your edits have improved the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw those changes as well. Thank you for the clarification, I am still trying to get my head around all of the different things. It is exciting to start adding some of the research into pages and updating them but it does take time.DannyHatcher (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was right, but the comment you left [10] (The Metro is a free tabloid newspaper and not an ideal source. WP:BLPSOURCES.) Umm, Evening Standard is also a free paper in London, exactly the same as Metro, we don't remove those. So forgive me, but I considered that a really bad comment for the removal there. Metro is fine to use as a cite. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Govvy. As per WP:RSP, the Metro is not regarded as being exactly the same for reliability as the Evening Standard (although both are free tabloid newspapers.) The Metro is classed as "Generally unreliable". As per WP:RSP: "The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids." However, WP:RSP guidelines state that the Evening Standard is not classed as "Generally unreliable". Guidelines state: "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers."

If you scroll down the list of sources at WP:RSP, the Evening Standard is highlighted in yellow – "No consensus on reliability". But the Metro is highlighted in pink, with a warning symbol – "Generally unreliable". Guidelines at WP:BLPSOURCES state: "The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

The Metro may be an acceptable source to use on a non-biography or non-BLP, such as an article about, for example, London Bridge, Tesco or Coca-Cola. However, WP:BLP guidelines specifically state: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and as per WP:RSP, the Metro is regarded as "Generally unreliable", in contrast to the Evening Standard, where there is no consensus on reliability.

I believe removing the Metro source in the Joe Lewis biography was fully compliant with WP:BLP guidelines to be "very firm about the use of high-quality sources", given that the Metro is highlighted at WP:RSP with a warning symbol – "Generally unreliable".

Please feel free to take up any concerns you have with the tabloid source Metro being removed from a WP:BLP at the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" at the link WP:RSN. The admin there will be able to take up your concerns. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against anything you said here, just the way you posted that comment in the comment field. I live in London and do pickup the Metro some the mornings, it's basically starts with general news, then what's on in London, London culture, some gossip and sport at the back. It's more down to what news stories to cite from it. Really, nothing wrong with sports and the general news stories to cite. Sadly wikipedia does a blanket ban on multiple sources and fails to evaluate per section of media outlets. There are too many editors who fail to evaluate on what the source is. Deprecation is just wikipedia being over conservative. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Food_desert#Shoplifting

Baxter329 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just went onto Peter Gibson's page and saw in the history that you had done many edits. I was wondering if you could add some categories as I don't know how to add them as of yet: Category:LGBT members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Category:LGBT politicians from England as he is openly gay and in a civil partnership! Zaddy6 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Zaddy6. I have added these categories today. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fill in my edits to North Miami Senior High School.--2601:206:301:6300:C295:D2C9:4866:D63F (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fill in my edits to Sumner High School (St. Louis)?--2601:206:301:6300:6D1D:6DD1:AC1B:D84E (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also fill in my edits to List of longest prison sentences served?--2601:206:301:6300:6D1D:6DD1:AC1B:D84E (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert this edit as it was unjustly reverted even though the editor only put the list back in order by correct length and no sources were added or anyhting? --2601:206:301:6300:2DDF:1E7C:C1FD:787A (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_longest_prison_sentences_served&type=revision&diff=1102907617&oldid=1102788567[reply]

• Looking at the revision history of the article, I noted that many of your edits have been reverted. It is best for you to seek consensus on the talk page of the article List of longest prison sentences served for the changes you'd like to make. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fill in these sources please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inert_gas_asphyxiation&type=revision&diff=1110123928&oldid=1088728306 --2601:206:301:4A90:3EF:572F:A7B0:1619 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edit was reverted. Please seek consensus on the talk page of the article for the changes you'd like to make. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you added a request for a secondary source supporting Henry Smith's voting record. I am trying to understand what that would add if the facts are sufficiently supported by the primary source already. It does not seem to me to be a matter requiring any analysis or interpretation as indicated by WP:SECONDARY. Thanks in advance for your help. Recent Runes (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Recent Runes. I have now deleted my previous request for a secondary source. As mentioned in my edit summary, I think secondary sources are generally preferable to establish the notability or significance of particular votes in Parliament. The request was not to suggest doubt about the reliability of the primary source, only whether the vote was regarded as sufficiently important to be reported in a secondary news source. However, on reflection, in this case I don't think it's essential for a secondary source to be added and I've deleted the request. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could argue that the significance / noteworthiness of the later vote is supported by news reports by the Guardian and Planet Radio of earlier closely related votes on coronavirus regulations, where Smith also voted against the proposed restrictions. I don't remember exactly how I came to select those votes, but I notice that they are among what PublicWhip[11] call Smith's "Interesting Votes" where he rebelled against the majority of his party. What do you think of PublicWhip as a secondary source? Other possible secondary sources might be: Yahoo News, Conservative Home and They Work For You? Recent Runes (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My own view Recent Runes is that Yahoo News and Conservative Home are preferable as sources to "PublicWhip" and "They Work For You". Other editors on UK political articles have suggested that although "They Work For You" is reliable as a source, choosing votes from the website could be regarded as cherry-picking – selecting some votes in Parliament and not others. I think Yahoo News and Conservative Home are fine as sources. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Recent Runes (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm reaching out to you because I noticed your interest in Finance/economics and entities related to England/London. In the not-so-distant past, you have edited both the Lloyd's of London and Barclays articles; I'd be grateful if you'd consider making changes to the St. James's Place plc article as well. I have a pending edit request to improve the structure and expand the content of the St. James's Place plc article. I would greatly appreciate your help with implementing these changes; my COI prevents me from directly editing the page. Thank you. WJack11 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WJack11. Yes, I will make changes to the St. James's Place plc article a bit later this week. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Tennis Fan, thanks for your swift reply. I appreciate your help and look forward to working with you to improve this article. I will make myself available, of course, to discuss any questions. WJack11 (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you had a nice and restful holiday, Kind Tennis Fan. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help or inform your implementation of these changes on the St. James's Place plc article. Thanks again WJack11 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WJack11 for your message and I wish you a Happy New Year for 2023. In the week leading up to Christmas, I was a bit busier than anticipated with some events happening. It's my intention to make changes to the St. James's Place plc article this coming weekend. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a few additions to the pending edit request. Looking forward to working with you to update and upgrade this article, Kind Tennis Fan! Thanks so much. WJack11 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WJack11. I've today made the initial structural changes to the article as per the edit request. I'll also be able to add new sections to the article later this week. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Kind Tennis Fan! Thank you very much for getting started on those changes; I really appreciate all your help and look forward to working with you to further improve the article. Please be in touch if there's anything I can do to help or if you have any questions. Thanks again WJack11 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WJack11. I'm typing this message from my mobile phone. Unfortunately my PC has frozen this weekend with a blue screen and a stop error. I hope to get it fixed this week and for me to be able to do further edits to the article in the coming days. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Tennis Fan, so sorry to hear about your computer troubles; tech issues can be so frustrating. I really appreciate your attention and the time you are dedicating to my request. Looking forward to working with you when you can get back to Wiki-work. WJack11 (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :WJack11 for your message. I'm pleased to say my PC has now been repaired and I intend to do further edits on the St. James's Place plc article this weekend. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WJack11. It was my intention to do further edits to the St. James's Place plc article at the weekend. However, when I looked at the talk page, I saw that other editors have joined the discussion and declined the edit request. So I feel it's best for the time being if I don't add the further proposed changes. Any changes that I make at the moment would likely be reverted as not having consensus on the talk page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kind Tennis Fan, I am happy to see that your computer issues have been resolved. On January 25, I responded to the factual accuracy concerns that were raised on the Talk page. Now that these questions have been answered, I'd appreciate your help making the remaining additional content updates to the article as per my edit request. Thanks again and welcome back to editing! WJack11 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kind Tennis Fan, thank you agin for your help with the previous request we had. I was wondering if you could please help again? We have requested a small, factual edit on the St. James's Place plc article Talk page to update the funds under management figure, which is out of date and inconsistent, with two different figures showing on the page. We have provided sources within the thread. If you agree with the edit, could you please action this change of us?

As always, we appreciate your continued help with keeping this page up to date and accurate. WJack11 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WJack11. I looked at the talk page of the St. James's Place plc article tonight. Another editor has responded and has updated the funds under management figure in the lead and infobox. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i do not believe the revert you made comes under exercising extreme caution for primary sources as the source is the MP's voting history. The fact they havent voted at all in the past 8 months is something relevant to the history of a politician, and is not a fact which can be misinterpreted. If it was a case for "MP voted against a gay rights bill, thus is against gay rights" then i understand the need for extreme caution as it is inferring something from the data which is not explicitly stated - however whether they turned up to vote or not is relatively binary. Would it be suitable for me to augment the edit with more secondary sources stating the same thing? - i honestly do not see the issue here. What you have quoted is about making assertations... statements of opinion. Andrew Rosindell not having voted in Parliament for the majority of 2022 is not an opinion - it is a fact. It is a fact supported by his voting record, which is empty since May 2022. Unless theres parts of the edit you wish to highlight as opinion, the edit should stand given its factual and evidenced nature. Garfie489 (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Garfie489. I don't dispute that Andrew Rosindell hasn't voted in Parliament since May 2022, but the issue is whether there is a secondary source, such as BBC News Online, The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian to establish that this is important or significant enough to include in his biography, or if there is a reason for his lack of votes this year such as a medical condition. In September of this year an IP editor inserted content about Rosindell not having spoken in Parliament for nearly five months. That was reverted, rightly in my view, by the editor Czello. I feel the same issue applies to Rosindell not having voted in Parliament since May 2022. A secondary source would establish that this is important enough to include. In the meantime, I feel the content shouldn't be included unless there's a clear consensus on the talk page of the article itself for the inclusion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Moops. Happy New Year to you as well. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  :)

  — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just an FYI – at this edit you caught a false positive at line 92; Events impacted by the 20 August strike included a Becky Hill concert... became Events impacted by the 20 August strike included a Becky Hill concert.... No big deal, and I've fixed it now, but it might be something you can tweak your script to catch. Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you XAM2175 for letting me know this and for fixing it on the article 2022–23 United Kingdom railway strikes. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, on seaside resorts it states town, village and hotel. Should city be included? Ie Swansea, Southend and Brighton are all cities that are also known as seaside resorts. 2A02:C7C:7A06:6A00:2DA6:2371:AC37:DFF0 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. You've made a valid point, but I noticed looking at the edit history of the article that this proposed change to the wording in the lead section (to include city) was reverted by another editor on 15 June 2023. It is best, therefore, for you to seek consensus on the talk page of the article itself. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your reply, would it be possible you could help do this please? I feel if it come from a member like you it might get a better response. Thanks. 2A02:C7C:7A06:6A00:C78:E1FA:722C:27CD (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It shouldn't really matter on the talk page if the proposed change comes from a non-registered user like yourself or a long-term registered user like me. I'd recommend you to put forward the case to include city on the talk page of Seaside resort and see if the proposal gains consensus. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok thank you 78.86.3.211 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello again, I’ve added this onto the talk page now, it would be good to hear your view on there. 78.86.164.180 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kind Tennis Fan!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for PP which has now been done. Thank you for clearing up the mess. Fantastic job. Knitsey (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Knitsey for your comments and for requesting page protection for the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked you for your deleting edit but on reflection I think that the material should stay. I missed the bit about his financial interests. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good to see you still at it old friend. Your work 'behind the scenes' at cleaning up articles is appreciated. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Isaidnoway for the barnstar. Your contributions to many articles are also appreciated! Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you had any advice regarding the Gillian Keegan article. IP addresses seem to be adding what I see as original research to the article. This was added several times in February/March and I see you were one of the editors that reverted the additions back then. However, another IP (probably the same one) has started re-adding this. I've already reverted twice so don't want to pass the 3RR. Do you have any advice on how this should be handled? Michaeldble (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

		The Chicago Barnstar
		Hello Kind Tennis Fan, I saw and appreciated your edits on the Gentrification of Chicago article. I'm working on an article that needs editing and input: Draft:Gentrification of New York City, if you have the time and interest, please take a look. Wil540 art (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kind Tennis Fan. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]