User talk:333-blue/Archive 10

Removing AfD template[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Amjad Shahzad Tariq. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we hit this article simultaneously! If you want to withdraw an AfD, you can - instructions are at WP:WDAFD. You just need to say on the AfD page itself that you're withdrawing it. --McGeddon (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2015–16 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds[edit]

333-blue, I'm puzzled by your edit adding an "onhold" status to the GA nominee template here. Only someone who has opened a review and written up said review that includes things for the nominator to fix to bring into compliance with the Good Article criteria should be putting a nomination on hold. (On hold means that the nomination is on hold while the issues found are fixed.)

If you meant to review this nomination, you'll want to read over the Good Article Instructions page and follow the guidelines there. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit to the GA nominee template, since it can't be on hold until after the initial review has been completed and a statement of the work needed on the article has been given. Thanks, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League[edit]

Hi, you might want to read the competition rules and read this article and this matchreport from UEFA. Qed237 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 WTA Finals – Rising Stars Invitational – prop to afd?[edit]

2014 WTA Finals – Rising Stars Invitational was through it's 7 days of deletion proposal and you changed it to an afd. Why? And I see you did the same for 2015 WTA Finals – Rising Stars Invitational also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): make some consensus. 333 -blue 23:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus... Wikipedia Tennis Project has long established that exhibitions are usually not notable. The burden of proof now lays in this particular exhibition event to show it's massively different than the rest. It's one thing to be shown on the main page, but it's own article.... no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Tennis[edit]

Sad that it sat neglected for so long, but through due diligence, I found multiple sources and improved the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification[edit]

Hi, 333-blue. It seems we're contradicting each other at Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Why are you removing the hidden comment about the rankings freezing before the Olympics? That comment is there so that no one updates after 6 June 2016. Is it possible you misread the year? If not, please let me know what the issue is, so that we can come to a common understanding. Also, I removed your {{confusing section}} template in an earlier edit, because I assume the misformatted edits from the previous user was what made the table confusing. Was my assumption correct? Thanks. =) —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hermionedidallthework: you updated it. 333 -blue 04:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be blunt. That was really unhelpful. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has passed the point of ridiculousness. If you can't communicate more than a three word sentence, then you don't need to be editing the English Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project. Even if you feel you are right about something, you owe other users some communication. Please elaborate further than "You updated, then", as to why you keep removing what I feel to be a valid hidden comment. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hermionedidallthework: you always update, and we can't update. 333 -blue 22:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Anyone can update it. The note says not to update after June 2016. That's seven months from now. –Hermionedidallthework (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hermionedidallthework: OK, I know your meaning. 333 -blue 23:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N/a[edit]

Due to your lack of response at Template talk:N/a, I wanted to make sure that you understood the reason behind not reverting the color back at {{N/a}} after my edit request, as you requested on your edit request? Alex|The|Whovian 05:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round Group F table shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qed237 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User talk:Karan7338[edit]

User talk:Karan7338, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Karan7338 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Karan7338 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Avengers (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]