Krmohan

September 2021

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information.

The statement about Djokovic's worthiness as undisputed No. 1 was already posted by your clones of 93.137.4.196 and 93.137.6.53 and 223.184.23.2. We don't need it again and again. That is soap boxing and not allowed at Wikipedia. It's placed once for all to see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit on World number 1 ranked male tennis players

This pertains to your 2nd revert at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. You are new here so I'll go through a couple things that are extremely important. 1) You should not be adding things when the topic is under discussion. It does not convey good faith editing and will rub folks the wrong way. 2) Then there is wikipedia protocol. It's ok to be bold and add something to an article but if it gets reverted you do not add it back! You've done that twice now, so please don't do it a third time. This is not out of curtesy, it's a rule here and it's called Edit Warring. See WP:EW. Administration really frowns on it and it can get you blocked from editing. 3) and most important, you've reverted 2x. Familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. It is a line that can't be crossed without consequences. If you do a 4th revert, and not even on the same material, you will get blocked by an administrator. I can't stress that enough. Even if you try to wiggle out by saying it was 30 hours, they will not go easy.

I don't want that to happen to you but it is in your best interest to revert yourself and keep discussing about how things should change. Editors (self-included) have said that the wording might be tweaked, and "perhaps" bolding "might" change, but that is not a certainty. If you want to keep having a say in the conversation please don't keep reverting the longstanding consensus. Perhaps you know these things already, but it was pointed out to me you are new and i wanted to make sure you understood certain things about Wikipedia. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

3RR violation

So you've been warned about violating 3RR and you still did it anyway, 4 reverts in 1 hour!! Per WP:3RR, you should self-revert your most recent reversion or you're going to be blocked from editing. ForzaUV (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Looks like you are still adding things against consensus while discussing Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on 2020 ranking listing

Hi. I suggest if you want to look for wider opinion on 2020 on the world number one ranked male tennis players to post a message here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis . I have lost interest in the idea of an RfC for the pre-1973 section for the present time, as I foresee there will be lots of debate and arguments about what system will be used. Just post asking for opinions of editors to see if you can get a consensus and tell them which page the debate is about. I see one editor put all the no. 1s in bold in tied years, so to unbolden just 2020 would be strange, but there may be alterations to the wording which you wish to pursue. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)