User talk:Krosero

Hi. When you recently edited Bobby Riggs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don McNeill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Krosero. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Krosero. I saw you changed the surface of CBS TV pro 1965. I don't think it was played on cement, even if World Tennis says that (actually it says hard surface and it could mean even hard clay). Can we discuss about that? I also sent you an email.

Thanks

NoMercyxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomercyxxx (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Krosero.

The CBS TV pro was played at Dallas Country Club. DCC was the venue of Dallas Country Club Invitational since the 50s and since the 50s played on clay. CBS pro was played in the same period of DDC Invitational, I hardly believe that they build a court for the pro. But we can share info and documents by email if you want. My email is [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomercyxxx (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen that???? Madness! Let's rally all the troops to defeat it! Thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy Tvx for *real*??? He reminds me of all the reasons I LEFT Wikipedia about ten years ago! Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we're now voting on this -- I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd add your own vote at the bottom of the page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gonzales%E2%80%93Rosewall_rivalry. Many thanks, and all the best! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello krosero (same krosero as in tennis-warehouse ???),

If yes, you asked me once some results about the 1952 European pro tour.

Unfortunately I have very few results about it (perhaps there are some other on the paying website https://app.thetennisbase.com).

Except the Slazenger pro and the Berlin pro tournaments

the only data I have

are truncated results when Gonzales, Segura, Kramer and Budge played in Paris on June 27, 28, 29, 1952 :

Segura d. Budge xxxx

Segura d. Gonzales 62 62

Kramer d. Budge 57 60 63.

Kramer, in his book co-written with Frank Deford, “The Game”, talked about a pro tour in Europe with the four players and wrote “I believe it was 1952” and gave some locations in United Kingdom : Falkirk (Scotland), Paisley (Scotland), Harrogate (England) and Kirkcaldy (Scotland) but unfortunately he didn’t give any results at all.

Hello, Krosero. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - on February 19 and 20, 2012 you added notes to the 1977 section of the articles World Number 1 Ranked Male Tennis Players saying that Barrett and McCauley ranked Borg as No. 1 for 1977. What actual documentation of these 2 journalists ranking Borg No. 1 to you have? It would be most useful if you could let me know as there are some strong discussions occurring about the 1977 number 1 ranking. Thanks in advanceInformed analysis (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you've worked on the

Hello, Krosero. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[TennisFan] Krosero, Dublin is NOT in the United Kingdom, UK refers to the "United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland". Dublin is in Ireland, NOT the UK, so your proposed new title for the 1961 tour does nothing to solve the problem of identification.

The problem remains as to why the Sun-Herald report reported a 7 to 3 score, how did that arise? The Australian pros themselves are cited as the source. Most likely the pros were asked by the reporter what the score was for the BRITISH tour, and the British matches were 7 to 3 for Hoad, if you exclude the Irish match and include the Wembley...it looks like a classic misunderstanding, of a tour which was misnamed being corrected incorrectly.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A currency conversion is hardly new research, we have seen many calculations on this page which were not claimed to be original research.64.229.32.48 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

Hello, Krosero,

See user User:Tennisedu. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry claim withdrawn moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to continue our discussion here where we might be able to avoid inflammatory comments about editors. No administrator can assess what is going on and declare that one side is correct and that therefore the other side must be prevented from participating. What has to happen is as follows.

1. Find a couple of examples of recent and simple-to-understand problematic edits to an article.
2. Show that there was a good-faith discussion at article talk with no criticism of other editors.
3. Show that the discussion concluded that the edits in question were wrong and should have been known to be wrong.
4. Show that the editor has not clearly retracted their claims.

If that happens, I can ask questions about the edits and why they were thought to be satisfactory when a discussion has shown clear reasons why they were not. A failure to respond appropriately would be the start of a decline that could lead to a sanction.

The participants in the discussion need to talk about article content and reliable sources, and nothing else. We are not interested in what people think about each other and it should be obvious that if an editor is abused, they will be excused if they react badly. In other words, don't point to a discussion showing squabbling—if people can't calmly discuss article content they should not participate.

When presenting arguments it is essential that they be clear to people like me who have not studied tennis history. For example, you mentioned Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players#UPI poll and Lew Hoad#cite note-344. On its own, that is not useful. You need to also quote some text, then briefly explain what that text is asserting, then explain how an onlooker can verify that the assertion is unsatisfactory (false or original research or similar).

Resolving the problem will take time because proper procedures have to be followed. At the moment it just looks like a feud and frankly your side is losing because the frustration is showing with emotional language. Such language makes it a lot harder to see any substantive issues because verifiable facts are buried under a pile of accusations.

If cite_note-344 is invalid for some reason, it might be useful to work out what should happen, then perform an edit to fix the situation (preferably just one or two careful edits, not a dozen), then start a new section at article talk with a calm explanation. You might refer to an earlier discussion but don't rely on that. Instead, start again and briefly state what is wrong with the old text and why it had to be changed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's have a discussion here. I'll reply in due course this week. Krosero (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Pancho Gonzales 1965 prize money leader issue. This issue is very recent. The problem editor posts on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales that Pancho Gonzales was possibly leading prize money leader on the page and removes a statement that says that Gonzales was no longer top pro (he has zero evidence to back up his claim). I then remove his incorrect edits and post a citation https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/463382037 to show the prize money figures for 1965 showing Gonzales was in fifth place. He then posts an absurd defense of his argument on the talk thread, including using bogus figures. He has wasted my time in several different ways: first I have removed his edits, secondly I have found a source disproving his claim and thirdly I have wasted time arguing on the talk thread against his non-existent case. As usual, he got no one backing up his argument and got no consensus on talk. End result: his edits were not added to the page and a huge amount of my time was wasted. Par for the course. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to an article with wikitext [[Pancho Gonzales]] (Pancho Gonzales) and link to a talk page section with [[Talk:Pancho Gonzales#1965 Money List]] (Talk:Pancho Gonzales#1965 Money List). Linking a diff is more tricky (see the guide)—a substitute is to specify the time/date shown on the history page for a particular edit. Only two editors have contributed at Talk:Pancho Gonzales this year—that just shows a disagreement. You need to get others involved by asking for opinions at WT:WikiProject Tennis. Also see point 2 and "need to also quote some text..." in my opening comment above. I know it's frustrating but I am the messenger and not the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Firstly, here are the direct links to the edits and talk thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=prev&oldid=1083334632

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=prev&oldid=1083335712

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pancho_Gonzales#1965_Money_List

Secondly, my last post was very brief and to the point. I do not believe there was anything to misunderstand, yet you have written "You need to get others involved by asking for opinions at WT:WikiProject Tennis". This is not something I want to add, he wants to add it! He is the one who should be posting at wiki project tennis, not me. Yet he doesn't because he knows full well his arguments are baloney! I have told him on numerous occasions in the past to post on wiki project tennis to get consensus if he wants to add things, he never does. He just wastes my time, probably hoping I will eventually give up editing and then leave the field clear for him. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes of his statements on the talk thread "That Dallas money was not included in the totals for the U.S. tour, so I doubt that they would include it for the year tally. Adding in the Dallas money might make a difference." This argument is baloney. Adding $8,000 means Gonzales is still in distant fifth place. "So that means Gonzales made -$7,000, a negative amount of money, in Europe." Complete work of fiction. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]