User talk:TheLightBlue

<!--

Poznan
Hey, the qualifying draw will not be added here on wikipedia for Challenger tournament. Look at other articles. Kante4 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Snooker world champ 2013
Why you have deleted time of matches? Now there are only dates. But before 25.04.2013 there were dates and times of every match. Edit times back!


 * Previous format (with times) damaged the view of the draw. Now the times are still available, but after 'clicking' the dates.TheLightBlue (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was not aware HINT balloon.

Poznań Open
Hey, why did you create new article(s) like 2013 Poznań Open and their subpages with NO info. If you don't have any, don't create them. Kante4 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know but there is no info of players/seeds and stuff on the article. And 812 links to "TBD" just look silly. Kante4 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But adding the table already, but ok. About Poznan, it does IF you add the players. There is no need to have an article with NO info about who is competing. Kante4 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Morocco
Because no one else edits it after the result, only me. So, it will be easier this way. Dencod16 (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Damir
Muslims..huh...what? Where did I ever write that his parents are "Muslim"? Bosniak is ethnic not religious affiliation. I would like to urge you to not edit subjects you do not know the first thing about (still doing so is disruptive). His surname is Bosniak and, more importantly, he claims to speak Bosnian (which is a language spoken by Bosniaks). Perhaps you ought to focus on Polish matters. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 00:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the fact is that...there is not an ounce of "factuality" in your assertions. This is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a medium for your "personal talks" and whatever hearsay you may feel that you have to communicate. So, with all due respect, I couldn't care less for your "personal talks". Actually, that is quite amazing, you seem to already have access to the results from the 2013 census!?! While the rest of the world is still awaiting for the official results to be published, Łukasz seems to already know "if someone wasn't Muslim, then didn't chose "Bosniak"". Could you please disclose your exclusive sources? In reality, the options "ethnicity", "language" and "religion" were separate in the census so any combination of them is possible. A person can hypothetically declare Bosniak ethnicity, English language, and Jewish religion if they so wish. Bosniaks are an ethnic group based on sense of Bosnian nationhood and the Bosnian language and not solely religious affiliation. According to estimates, 48% percent of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosniak while only 40% is Muslim . Bosniaks might be traditionally and predominantly Muslim, but there are also sizable atheist and agnostic minorities among them, including also even a small number of Christians (mostly Catholics) who identify as Bosniaks. The second part of your amusing misconception is the following: "because if you chose "Bosniak" you are treated like Muslim". Treated as Muslim by whom? Is there not religious freedom in Bosnia maybe? Does the Islamic community of Bosnia and Herzegovina force Bosniaks to all be Muslim? Are the Bosniaks maybe a "Muslim sect" where every member is expected to reason the same way? I suspect that you might have anti-Muslim prejudice. The Polish are traditionally and predominantly Roman Catholic, but is every Pole a Catholic? Are you by default treated a Catholic if you ethnically declare "Polish"? Is every Serb an Orthodox Christian today because they are traditionally and predominantly so? Do you have to be a pious Orthodox Christian to be a Serb? Do you have to be a pious Muslim to be a Bosniak? No, Serbs, Poles, and Bosniaks are ethnic not religious groups regardless of what their traditonal majority religion is. Damir is Bosniak because he identifies with the Bosniak nation and declares his language Bosnian, a language spoken by Bosniaks. Please, in the future, refrain from editing topics related to the ethnic structure of Bosnia and Bosniaks. Feeling that you have something to say despite being blatantly uninformed is vandalism because you introduce misconceptions. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 11:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you per fact know that Damir "only" considers himself Bosnian? You seem so certain when you reject Bosniak as "wrong information". Where is your source? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 12:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you know that he declared himself as Bosnian then? So you have a source? For Bosniaks, "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" are closely and mutually connected, in fact they do not make a distinction between them. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 12:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited content in the Bosniaks article states the following: From the point of view of Bosniaks, bosanstvo (Bosnianhood) and bošnjaštvo (Bosniakhood) are closely and mutually connected, because Bosniaks connect their identity with Bosnia and Herzegovina.. Let me ask you hypothetically, if there was a Bosnian tennis player with a Serbian surname and who claims to speak Serbian, would you object to an editor who labels him as "Bosnian Serb" (another of the three major ethnic groups in Bosnia) and require "sources" from that editor? What I think is that you unconditionally recognize the Bosnian Croat and Serb ethnic groups in Bosnia whereas you place "extra" requirements on Bosniaks (in fact the largest ethnic group in the country) to prove themselves as such. That is POV and possibly anti-Bosniak sentiment. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 15:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, but you still didn't answer my question. Would you reject someone who makes a spontaneous link between Bosnian Serb ethnicity and a Bosnian tennis player with a Serb surname and who claims to speak Serbian? Because that is what you have done in Damir's case, sort of, by not recognizing the link between Bosniaks and the Bosnian language. I'm just asking that you be consistent. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see this discussion when you are Bosnian (and Bosniak) as I am. :) Why didn't you ask someone from BS Wiki about Damir or nation/religion issues? :) It's best to use "Bosnian tennis player" (citizenship, country), although he is a Bosniak (nation) too, but nation is secondary here and it can be omitted (and it's maybe better that way). And by the way: Bosniaks are all Muslims. 400 years ago all people who lived in BiH called themselves "Bosniaks" ("Bošnjaci"), among other similar names, no matter of religion, and that continued roughly up to mid 19th century, when nationalistic movements began to appear all over Europe; under the influence of Zagreb and Belgrade Bosnian catholics then began to declare themselves as Croats, and Bosnian Orthodox as Serbs, respectively. Finally, Austria-Hungary forbade the term "Bosniak" in 1907 and that continued in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later socialistic Yugoslavia. It was brought back in use only in 1993, but only Bosnian Muslims identified themselves with it; soon, it was verified in Dayton constitution, so from 1993 Bosniaks is official name for Bosnian Muslims solely. I hope that I was of some help. Best wishes. -- KWiki (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because he is. :) Džumhur is a Muslim surname in BiH - there are no catholic or Orthodox families with that surname as far as I know - and the origin of the family is Konjic, where most of the Džumhurs live (have you heard of Zuko Džumhur? :)). So, he is Bosniak by the constitution. Just read again. I explained the difference between "Bosnian" and "Bosniak". What "Bosniak" meant in the past is not what it means today. Damir is Bosniak, but that's irrelevant (in our article we also didn't mention it); I say it only for purpose of pure information, nothing else. -- KWiki (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still mixing things up (btw, I agree: our constitution, and my country in general, is in mess from top to bottom in terms of politics and nations, but that's different topic). Back in Yugoslavia there were 2 terms: "Muslims" (with capital M) stood for the nation (from 1993 that changed to "Bosniaks" in the territory of BiH, except in cases of Roma Muslims, Albanian Muslims and other non-Slavic Muslims, but their number is quite small), and "muslims" (lowercase), which stood for people who confess islam (that was also messed up but the state politics was like that - against religion). I don't know what you mean exactly when you say "Bosniak". "Muslims" as a term for nation (with capital M) doesn't exist anymore in BiH; today it strictly refers to religion and is written only in lowercase. So, to conclude: today all Bosniaks are Muslims by the constitution (they can be even atheists, but on the paper they are still Muslims /paradox, I agree/; and the Croats and Serbs consider them Muslims too). How someone feels inside himself/herself remains private thing unless it's openly spoken to the public. -- KWiki (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that in my country everyone who is Bosniak is (and is being considered by the others and by the constitution) Muslim (religion). There are no Serb Bosniaks or Croat Bosniaks, legally speaking. The same is with the other 2 nations: Bosnian Croats are catholics and Bosnian Serbs are Orthodox. And all 3 nations together are Bosnians (citizenship) So, in this case, Damir is from Bosniak family, so everyone considers him Muslim even if he feels different (he didn't speak about this topic ever... yet). And this 5% people or so? I don't know (it was in 1991) - we'll have to wait 2016, when full results of the 2013 census will be announced (yes, it takes so long here; I don't know how much time would it take in, say, China :))). -- KWiki (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, someone (ordinary people) will consider them (by them I mean on Bosnian people who are, by their birth, Bosniaks or Serbs or Croats, but they declared differently in the census) to be in either of 3 nations only by their name, and someone will not. But purely legally speaking, they are what they declare they are. Roma people (Sejdić; he has Bosniak/Muslim name and maybe he is a Muslim, which I don't know, but he is Romani, not Bosniak /many Romani took domicile, non-Romani names of either of 3 nations here over the course of history; for example, some popular Serbian and Bosnian folk singers are Romani, but their names are Serbian or Bosniak), Jews (Jakob Finci) and other minorities, of course, cannot be put in either of these nations. -- KWiki (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are people who declared themselves as Bosnians (in 1991 that would be Yugoslav/ian/s, for comparison) and in the latest census they are in category "Others" or whatever the correct term is. I don't know how Damir declared himself (if he declared) or how he feels because, as I said, he didn't publicly speak about that yet so I don't know (I suppose he would say he's Bosniak, the same as you would say that you are Polish), but nevertheless he's Bosnian in any case and that term should be used in all articles. -- KWiki (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: Džumhurs (as a "tribe", to put it that way) are all from Konjic, but some of them moved to other cities, mainly to Sarajevo. Damir is born in Sarajevo, where his father (or some elderly ancestor) moved from Konjic. ;) And thank you for your work on this article. I really appreciate that. -- KWiki (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

SARAJEVO
Look to the census. if you add the numbers for Sarajevo and the municipalities of East Sarajevo, there are 515.012 inhabitants! So, where is the problem??? --Munich 2013 (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 ITF Men's Circuit
Can you help me to complete this article and sub-article containing in main article? Thanks! Banhtrung1 00:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture
Just felt it was a bit too bulky, but it's up to you, if you like it better 250px, go ahead mate, no worries from me, appreciate the work you do for Damir's page :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniantennis (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Norbert Gombos
I wonder why was this edit reverted. To the best of my knowledge his name is Norbert Gombos and not Norbert Gomboš, see Talk:Norbert Gombos. --Kompik (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So I see you edited it again. Thanks! --Kompik (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

2016 Australian Open listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2016 Australian Open. Since you had some involvement with the 2016 Australian Open redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 333-blue 04:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Not just for that, as you did at 2015 Australian Open, I just want you to see "yahoo sports".--333-blue 23:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you sure Rosol can be the seed?--333-blue 11:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

2015 Milex Open Santo Domingo
Hi.

You moved the page 2015 Milex Open Santo Domingo to 2015 Milex Tennis Open at La Bocha. La Bocha refers to the venue and is not part of the name of the event. The accurate name is Milex Open. Milex is the main sponsor's name. Santo Domingo identifies the city and is the name used in the ATP site and other sites specialized in tennis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B30b30 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Damir Dzumhur tennis article
First, I like what you've done with the article and the fact you keep it up to date. It's what we want here at wikipedia. And I hope he keeps improving. Two things... 1) No one owns an article and everyone can freely edit it or change it. That's just the way wikipedia is. 2) here is the guideline you missed: "Results from the Grand Slams, WTA Premier Mandatory Events, WTA Premier 5 Events, WTA Tour Championships, Tournament of Champions, Summer Olympics and Fed Cup are acceptable for inclusion in a WTA player's performance timeline for singles and doubles. Results from the WTA Premier Events, WTA International Events, ITF Women's Circuit, or junior championships should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple math: total money minus doubles money leaves singles money. Check the ATP profile. -- KWiki (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I blundered (just realized): I used doubles money from this season only (I forgot to click to change... Damn hurry... :)). Facepalm... :-) Sorry again; nothing intentional. :) Thank you for correction. I'll correct it in BS wiki now. -- KWiki (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Grand slams
The way it is is not good, its a mess, take a step back and take a look at it, it sucks Villagemunchkin (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone saved this page!

 * ) Villagemunchkin (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Damir Džumhur
This has gone on long enough. I will NOT stand for your swearing and attack message. You want to discuss, do it civilly. Otherwise, I will not respond to hostile actions like yours.

You have never said what is EXACTLY wrong, only that I vandalise the tables.

You revert while adding extra info. I will not waste my time manually adding back in the changes only to have you revert.

I noticed that you actually added a big chunk of my changes, yet labeling it vandalism when I did it.

In 99% of the cases, only a minor change needs to be made, not an entire revert. But, you have never said what is exactly wrong.

This is NOT your page. Stop saying your article and your tables. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see 's name up above. He is somebody I goto for tennis articles.  Maybe he can interpret. Bgwhite (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to make changes in formating, do it step by step and firstly check on "preview" if it's okay, if after your wonderful edit data from some cell is shown inappriopriatly it means you have to either work further on this edit, or leave it. I am not gonna repair big tables after your edit. And there are no allowance to revert my latest edits, when I add new info after completed tournament, and published by ATP weekly data. This is not my website, but it looks like that thanks to me, I am taking care about it, I spent a lot of time on it, and I will not allow you destroying it. There is nothing bad in the current tables structure, cause it has no impact on how they look, if you want to change something like "!" instead of "|" or whatever - feel free to do it, as long as you do not delete information writen by me, and you do not destroy tables. Otherwise I will be constantly reverting your vandalism edits, and as I said, I am going to report it. Maybe try to find article about other player, not so often monitored by co-author, so you can demolish it and nobody can notice it? I have to disappoint you, but this article I visit few times a day to check if nobody caused some mess. TheLightBlue (talk) 3:20 pm, Today (UTC−6)


 * You just reverted me yet again and you have yet again to say what is wrong. Also anybody can delete you information.  Stop with the threats.  Stop thinking this is your article.  Also, never talk to me on my talk page.  Your tirades there have made your persona non grata.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You also need to read up on WP:DTAB and the different between ! and |.  You can also see how to fix things because you do not know how tables work.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

2016 Hopman Cup
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Australia has clinched a spot in the Hopman Cup Final, because head-to-head is not the first tiebreaker. If GB sweeps Germany while AUS Green gets swept by FRA, then GB would be 2–1 (ties) and 6–3 (matches) while AUS Green would be 2–1 (ties) and 5–4 (matches). Also, if GB sweeps GER and AUS Green only wins one match, it would come down to sets won. Does that sound right? —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, in that same respect, I think Germany is mathematically alive.
 * —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikola Čačić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bol. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2016–17 UEFA Champions League, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qed237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 14:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
-->

Nomination of 2014 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2014 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)