User talk:Tennis expert

Warning
Publish private emails without permission again like you did at Arbitration/Requests/Motions and you'll find yourself blocked, for a very considerable period of time.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How typical of your arrogance. Based on which Wikipedia policy would this block occur?  08:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tennis expert (talk)


 * It would occur based on this principle from the Arbitration Committee.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a former arbitration clerk, I would have thought you were aware that past arbitration decisions are of no precedential value. Try again.  Cite the policy if you can.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, that's good enough. The Arbitration Committee have said that emails shouldn't be published without permission from the sender (there's also a copyright issue involved as the person that sent the email still holds the copyright) so I'm more than happy to act on the basis of that.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given your response, you clearly know virtually nothing about copyright law or about Wikipedia arbitration. But lack of knowledge certainly hasn't stopped you from acting rashly in the past.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the recent second Macedonia case, to which I was a party, a user was admonished for having posted an email from another user. That demonstrates pretty clearly that the committee is still actively enforcing this rule, whether you agree with it or not, and whether it's clearly written as policy or not (incidentally, the best wording I've found is here). I'm afraid your assertion that Ryan's been rash is contradicted by the facts. It's really just basic netiquette not to post private correspondence without permission, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Per a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:


 * (1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
 * (4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

citation not needed
Regarding your March 16, 2009 edit to Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, where you added a "citation needed" tag... let me quote one of the citations provided from that very same sentence:

Capital Metro created StarTran to harmonize federal law requiring Capital Metro to continue collective bargaining, see Fed. Transit Act, 49 U.S.C. § 5300 et seq., with Texas law that prohibits governmental entities from entering collective bargaining agreements, see Tex. Code Ann. § 617.003 (Vernon 2004). In other words, there already is a citation for the "Texas law prohibits collective bargaining by public employees" bit, despite your tagging to the contrary. As such, I've removed the "citation needed" tag TerraFrost (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Tennis expert! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Joyce Fitch -
 * 2) Lorraine Coghlan -

Relationship to User:Striving4
Please note the discussion here. HWV258 . 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/70.253.75.221 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/97.77.159.243 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert. Thank you. BenYes? 14:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WTA Ranking Points Distribution 2010
Template:WTA Ranking Points Distribution 2010 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)