User talk:Fyunck(click)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out on to the court to play each other; to have heard the applause, to have heard dead silence from the crowd as a point was in progress. The years came and went as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... as did the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, Sampras and Federer. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King and Goolagong, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Navratilova, Graf and Williams. Service has changed from having to keep one foot on the ground or just getting the ball in play, to players who can fire a dart that only high speed cameras can behold. Of course I wasn't there in the 1920's when tennis truly went international and the ILTF wrote into their bylaws that no Major championship could claim to be a "world championship" or that the language of tennis would be "for ever in English." But the repercussions of those early days, and binding together of adversarial organizations, laid the groundwork for what we have today. The sport is special to me and it always will be.

When I started editing at the English Wikipedia 7 or 8 years ago things were much much different. Guidelines and policies were not as complete and it was certainly more "English alphabet" oriented; other language Wikipedias were being formed to cover their own spellings and foibles. Vandalism and personal attacks happened to be sure but not to the extent it does today. Item placement was based much more on common use, sourcing and verifiability, rather than a consensus of opinion and how we would like things to be. We reported what we saw and read rather than making our own truth that would get picked up by Google and become a self-fulfilling factoid. It was source, source, source... verify not truth. The wiki world has changed. Maybe it's newer younger editors and their own world viewpoints, maybe it's that the percentage of English-first speakers has gone down in numbers. I'm not sure. But something has made this a less pleasing place to edit.

Over the last year I've been attacked and lied about by one or two editors... nothing has happened through my pleas. It wears on one but by ignoring things most of the time, I've been able to muddle through. When it gets to be too much I call them on it, but nothing is ever done. I know others read what is written and I know that they ignore it. This includes many administrators. Again maybe this is the way things work here now... who you know seems to be very important. But again, while not as enthused as I once was, I still fight vandalism and add items to established pages, while occasionally creating new player bios. But now I see that no matter how well sourced an item is, Wikipedia is looking to allow censorship of established player names. Amazingly, English spellings found as commonplace in the press, books, organizations, etc... are not just being systematically moved into the far corners of an article (that had already been done over the last couple years), but now these spellings are potentially being banished from Wikipedia forever, as if they never existed or are never used. Literally expurgated from this Wikipedia. And this with many administrators blessings. I have to say it hurts to see it go the way of New York soft drinks. It's not like we have storage limitations. Encyclopedia Britannica will often make sure multiple spellings are present so as to give their readers full information. I can't even comprehend how censoring could happen, but it has... here of all places.

This will require a re-evaluation as to what I can really offer to this encyclopedia and what enjoyment it can offer me. Sadly the environment I see now does not appear to be going in a direction that is pleasing to my typing efforts, and fighting off character attacks is certainly wearing me down... at least in an enjoyment capacity. Where consensus used to mean trying to work with everyone to find common ground that all can live with (whether minority or majority), it now seems to be an all or nothing, my way or the highway type of decision. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
86 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Radek Štěpánek (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
55 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Stub ATP World Tour Awards (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
9 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Mona Guerrant (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
1,023 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Madhya Pradesh (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
203 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Miracle on 34th Street (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
73 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Max Mirnyi (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
71 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start World TeamTennis (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
8 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: B 2012 in tennis (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
39 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Office of Censorship (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
3,263 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Plessy v. Ferguson (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
4 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Averroes High School (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
20,993 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Ultron (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expand
130 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: B Longest tennis match records (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
363 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Romanian leu (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
12,244 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Cinco de Mayo (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
3,720 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Harvard University (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Merge
30 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Seed ball (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Scholarly Kitchen (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
54 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Robert Parry (journalist) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
20 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Army of Freshmen (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
14 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B 2011 Roger Federer tennis season (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
5 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub SRMB Steel (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Start Mona Barthel career statistics (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ardmore Presbyterian Church (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
103 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Romanian Open (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Fabiola Zuluaga (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Fiorella Bonicelli (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
23 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Jan-Lennard Struff (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Tatiana Poutchek (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
27 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Irina Falconi (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Golden Slam[edit]

I was being WP:BOLD and made the section like the Super Slam, and since there was never a consensus about it and no sources backing up a restrict definiton about Golden Slam, I wasn't the one that should have opened that discussion. Well, I've answered back in the talk page. ABC paulista (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Being bold is great and fine. Encouraged at wikipedia. But when you change something, and it is reverted, you are then supposed to bring it to talk to change peoples minds... not revert again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, technically, I reverted your change so you were the one supposed to bring it to talk. But well, let's just keep discussuing about the issue itself. ABC paulista (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Baloney. It was stable for years until you changed it. Revert yourself as is standard for wikipedia and we can discuss more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I won't revert myself, no matter how much you ask, unless you show irrefutable arguments about Golden Slam. ABC paulista (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Global account[edit]

Hi Fyunck(click)! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Parenthetical dab on Mustang[edit]

Please reconsider your !vote ont he alt proposal at the Mustang dab discussion. You have no idea what a hornet's nest that is. We have 400 horse breed/type articles, all natural disambiguation. There are thousands of named horse articles, all using (horse). It would create terrible confusion. This was settled quite some time ago and a ton of work went into getting these titles stabilized. I beg you to look at List of horse breeds and see what you are proposing. WP:NATURAL clearly allows this, and we do the same for most other farm animals, goats, sheep, etc... Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I've talked with family and friends who use this encyclopedia a lot. When they go to look up Mustang they would much rather it go to a dab page because of all the different terms (planes, cars, horses, songs, etc...). It's used in many places. But I did clarify that while I do like the dab page, Mustang (horse) is not the best choice and should be left up to the individual equine project. I should have been clearer on that from the get-go. Clarification is the best I could do there. As for Mustang horse... never really liked it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Before the dab discussion the last time, the article was at Mustang horse. We also have 400-some articles at List of horse breeds and ALL of them are natural disambiguation where a dab is needed. We also have 3000+ individually-named horse "biographies" and all of those use (horse) (e.g. Eclipse (horse), Secretariat (horse) and so on... Category:Thoroughbred racehorses has 2828 at present, there are more in other categories. WPEQ decided years ago to move all the breed articles to natural disambiguation so as to avoid confusion, particularly where we have most pony breeds already called Foo pony and many horse breeds, such as the American Quarter Horse already have "horse" in their name. It took us 4 or 5 years to clean these all up and there were a few strays even a year or so ago to fix. It would be a real PITA to move the article to "Mustang (horse)" because it would necessitate yet another RM to get it back to "Mustang horse." I know this may look weird to you, but see Category:Goat breeds, Category:Cattle breeds and Category:Sheep breeds for other examples (A few of those still have parenthetical dab). This is near-universal consensus among the livestock articles. Montanabw(talk) 01:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but Mustang (wild horse) or Mustang (feral horse) is far better than Mustang horse. When I (and I assume readers) see a full name on the top I will want to see a name that is actually used in the real world. When everything else is considered, for me, nothing matters more than our readers. I don't care about MOS or consensus or whatever, if I feel that it's worse for our millions of readers. The parentheticals are a way for readers to discern an item when it also has multiple meanings. Mustang is such a case. At tennis project we use (tennis) for everything whether it's players, tournaments, equipment, etc. If two players have an identical name we add more to the parentheses to further differentiate. Or perhaps add a middle name. But we wouldn't call him Roger Federer tennis player. It might be true but it's not his name nor would readers expect it. If I come to this encyclopedia I would expect Mustang to be at Mustang and upon reaching a dab page (because there are so many mustang definitions) it would lead me to the correct article. I would then expect to see Mustang (horse) or Mustang (???? horse), depending on what the equine project thought was best for our readers. I would never expect to see Mustang horse as the title. Quarter horse is it's sourced name... we don't call it a Quarter. The same thing when wikpedia decided to allow the censoring of tennis players name spellings. I didn't care what MOS or consensus decided, I will always feel it's wrong for wikipedia to banish/censor all mention of alternate spellings, especially when 90% of the sources spell it the censored way. I feel it is worse information for our readers, as is Mustang horse. It might be better for your project, but I think it's poor information for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:NATURAL and further discussion at the article. " Example: The word "English" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternative but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, mechanical fan and hand fan are preferable to fan (mechanical) and fan (implement). Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we choose elevator as the name of the lifting device." Montanabw(talk) 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, we commonly use the name hand fan we can also use it here to differentiate it. Mustang horse is not such a case. I could see it being used for Thoroughbred horse racing as opposed to Quarter horse racing, as describing a type of racing. So as long as it's a common term we could use Equine Mustang, but it's not common, nor is Mustang horse. We could use Wild Mustang in it's place. That's for your project to decide but you will not get me to think that Mustang horse is what is best for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
But I've never heard "mechanical fan" used in any context I know of other than wikipedia. Mustang horse is not a "made up" name, any more than "English people." I can respect that it feels weird to you, and we can agree to disagree on that one, but parenthetical disambiguation is even weirder and I still remember how odd THAT was to me as a new user, even though it was 8 years ago... All I really ask is that you just let the project's style have some respect. We put so many hours into getting these articles from a mishmash into something consistent with naming. Frankly, this project is a lot of work; there are so many articles we have to watchlist (when I say I have 4000 on my watchlist, 90% of them are equine-related). So these drive-by disputes are really draining. Montanabw(talk) 07:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm giving the "Project" far more respect than anyone else. You say we can't use (horse) so I'll stand by you on that. Would I use (horse)... yes, (horse) seems fine and natural to me at wikipedia. But the equine project says no so I can work with that. Wikipedia says no to "Mustang horse" so you need to work with that. I see no compromise on any of my suggestions and you haven't come up with anything else. Until you do posting here is turning into a waste of time. The watchlist thing doesn't do it for me... I must have 1000's of tennis articles on my own watchlist. If I didn't want them there or the time it takes to fix things, I'd remove them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's turning into a waste of time, but seriously, "wikipedia" does not say no to Mustang horse (and there are hundreds of animal breed articles that say yes). And yes, I am absolutely opposed to parenthetical disambiguation of horse breed/type articles and the debate is only between parenthetical disambiguation and natural disambiguation, debating different types of parenthetical disambiguation is just moving around the furniture. Honestly, if we just killed the dab discussion and left Mustang as primary, we wouldn't even have that issue. Montanabw(talk) 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it is you have a plan A to keep it at Mustang. That's cool as it could happen. You have no plan B because it is extremely unlikely to go to Mustang horse if plan A fails. Therefore it'll probably wind up at mustang (horse) as more and more non-equine editors (who don't care one iota about the equine project) weigh in. I'll go back to mostly tennis articles and you'll have Mustang (horse) because of not offering something palatable to the community when the opportunity arose. Not a big deal to me in the long run. I've offered my opinion and multiple choices, but I'm only one editor. And I'm slowly moving on from that topic, so good luck to you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(watching) Did you see my bird example? Asking if we would move Nightingale in case a singer made it to Primary topic using that name, to Nightingale bird, Nightingale (bird), Nightingale (wild bird) etc.??? I vote for leaving the bird alone and dab the singer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Welcome to Wiki. (sigh) Fyunck(click), I want to thank you for your support of capitalization at the Mustang article, but unless we get a lot more people over there, I'm just giving up. I also appreciate your willingness to keep the Mustang article from becoming a dab, but I fear that too is doomed to fail. I am going to dig in about "Mustang horse" though, as that was the previous name for the article before it was made primary, and for good reasons. If the community wants to do away with natural disambiguation (English people, etc...) then that is their perogative. Until then, I hope that we can agree to disagree in good faith. Montanabw(talk) 04:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unless someone starts to get personal or they become habitual liars, I always move on with agreeing to disagree. Wiki is too small a place to think we won't meet again on another topic. I agree and then disagree with fellow editors all the time. That's life. See you 'round. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons for tournament locations[edit]

Hey, Fyunck. I have just removed the flag icons from the tournament locations in the Lisa Raymond article: [1]. As you know, I have been a strong advocate for the appropriate and limited use of national flag icons for the sporting nationality of athletes in international competition, and I have repeatedly defended these appropriate and limited uses in MOS discussions. That being said, overuse and inappropriate use of the icons, such as these uses for geographic locations, makes it harder to defend the appropriate uses for sporting nationality. I would be grateful if you, as one of the long-time members of WP:Tennis, would raise this issue on the WP:Tennis talk page and get the project to take steps to curtail this use of the icons for tournament locations. Thank you, once again, for all you do for tennis and sports articles generally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to remember that there are only a limited number of really active tennis project members. Wolbo's and my edits have lots of flag removals also. There are thousands of the improper flags, especially from older articles, but it is low priority to remove them. I usually do it as I see them, but with the caveat that often I need to work on 20 vandalized articles and I know a particular bad-flag article will take me 10 minutes to fix... so it waits till another day. Thanks, I'll post a reminder at the project today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Understood and thanks for the response, Fyunck. I wanted to make sure there wasn't some sort of WP:Tennis local understanding that this was appropriate, and that is apparently not the case. Clean-up of legacy articles takes time and willing editors. I just purged geographic location flags from the swimming world record articles (about two dozen) and that took about two weeks to work my way through them with manual edits. It's kinda funny that there is always an anti-flag editor to argue with you about an Olympic athlete's infobox, but they're never available to help with the clean-up of articles where we all agree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Only too true. In case you come across any, remember the tennis project does it differently with Davis Cup/Fed Cup/Hopman Cup flags...flagging the national team and not the individual players, as per tennis guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang dab[edit]

Withdrew my proposal to close, didn't realize the vote was going toward keeping it as primary, and parenthetical dab is the worst-case scenario here after we got 400 horse breed articles to natural dab. Montanabw(talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Help needed[edit]

Hi Fyunck I have created the article Overall tennis records - Womens's Singles however an editor Usertalk:Bgwhite has altered stuff which has now left the article with lots of table's missing or just blank in whole sections his edit summary was about mixing and matching with AWB but if he wasn't happy about it OK alter the article but keep it's appearance looking right I have tried to put it back but can't do it can you take look much appreciated.--Navops47 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Have done it and reversed them all back.--Navops47 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks pretty good. I saw a couple errors and correct them. I'll look a bit more tomorrow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply (with explanation about Moody and Connolly) to my edit on Court's page. If you have an issue with the facts I put in the Graf article, please source a reference disputing them. Thank you.Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, this should get interesting . . . .[edit]

Just saw this: [2]. Color me interested to see what the response will be. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to forming something new, I used the closers exact words to be as fair as possible. I did it because of a conversation going on at the Village Pump where there was talk of changing the Mos/Icon section. I reminded than of this RfC and an editor complained that rules buried in RfC's really help the veteran prolific editor at he expense of the inexperienced editor, who has no idea that these archived things exist. He's right of course, but I explained that that's the way wikipedia often works. I hate giving that kind of answer. It surely could be worded better and perhaps placed a paragraph or two up or down, but the RfC is crystal clear that it belongs there. We'll see what the cat licks up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for firing the first shot. I'm game. Suffice to say that I have MOS:ICON watch-listed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Combined clay results vs Rafael Nadal[edit]

I noticed that you nuked the Federer/Djokovic results vs Nadal on clay in the Djokovic–Federer rivalry article. I was wondering if you can provide an explanation as to why? It's clearly an important part of the rivalry which compares how each man fares against Nadal. It's no different than the combined performance timelines or any other such comparisons made between the two. A rivalry is not always about player A defeating player B, but it also takes into account each men's success or failure against a clear common obstacle. Zup326 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say that your sentence "compares how each man fares against Nadal" says it all. This is an article on Djokovic vs Federer... their rivalry, not their rivalries with others. If your addition belongs anywhere (which I'm not sure about) it would be at the Big Four article where they are each compared against others in the Big Four. For all I know they already talk about it there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If I run 50 yards in 5 seconds and you run 50 yards in 5 seconds, that is part of our rivalry. If I beat Nadal 5 times and you beat Nadal 5 times, that is part of our rivalry. We can both run 50 yards in 5 seconds and we have both beaten Nadal 5 times. If you beat Nadal a 6th time or run 50 yards in 4 seconds, then you are better than me at beating Nadal and running. We could be talking about eating 6 hot dogs or climbing 6 mountains. Nadal is the yard, hot dog, or mountain in this case. I understand the Big Four consideration and I considered putting it in the Big Four article initially, but I would argue against putting it in the Big Four article because it has nothing to do with Murray at all, and that article is already quite full of tables and charts. The information in question is strictly related to how Federer and Djokovic directly compare with each other against a common obstacle which happens to be Nadal on clay. Zup326 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree, even with your first sentence. Their rivalry is how they do against each other. Now it could be possible many will agree with you so why don't you propose this on the talk page of the rivalry and see what others think? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits on AO pages[edit]

You reverted a couple of my edits with the following comment:

"The seeds are listedin the individual articles... no need to list them again."

Here are the articles I'm referring to:

Note that I wasn't adding the seeds, but the qualifiers. This follows the standard of all the newer (2009 and later) Australian Open pages, for example:

Rubyaxles (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

My mistake on the seeds, sorry. But are the qualifiers needed there anyways? If they are on the main qualifier articles why are we listing the same list on the general articles? Very strange. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Good question. The seeds are listed on both the event and the general article, but I guess the qualifiers are less important. I'll leave the pages as they are for now. - Rubyaxles (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea why the seeds are there either. Maybe I'll bring it up at Tennis Project to see what others think. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


FYI[edit]

Looks like there are some tennis players in there: [3]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hingis was on my watchlist (along with a couple thousand others) but Hewitt was not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Input on proposal ATP World Tour records article[edit]

As a regular editor to the ATP World Tour records article your input concerning a proposal to change the content scope of the article would be appreciated at ATP World Tour records / talk page. Thx!--Wolbo (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Simonne Mathieu[edit]

Hint: watch this film, especially towards the end (after 2' 20"). Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty cool. But when you look up information on most of the old tennis records... like at Wimbledon, researches will find it often spelled Simone. Important for them to know that it was spelled that way in a whole lot of sources including some of the most important books ever written on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


DRN[edit]

Your request for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed for two reasons. First, as noted, there is an existing RFC, although it is the matter of some dispute. DRN will not pre-empt an RFC. Second, there appear to be ongoing conduct issues involving a Manual of Style dispute, which can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding WP:MOS, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Case at WP:DRN[edit]

Sorry your case got closed. We only moderate discussions on minor content issues. Your problem seems more procedural/behavioral. I would suggest you put {{Admin help}} on the article talk page and ask an Admin to help sort out the procedural (RfC) issue. Good luck! -- KeithbobTalk 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks... if another RfC opens up after this one closes I will do so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Update article[edit]

Why you reverted my revision? [4] He win Kližan last night 6 0, 5 7, 6 1! I update, and why you doing?--Soundwaweserb (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe in that edit you also reverted his nationality (again). I'm not going to look through your entire edit to find the problems. You have to do that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Just shut the fuck up. You vandalize article in that way, and the second time watch what you're doing!--Soundwaweserb (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please watch the language. If you make an edit that has errors it's not our responsibility to keep weeding them out of your edits. We revert it with a summary to let you know how you can fix it. I even added some sources for you. Overall I love how you keep on top of the Djokovic article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Template Venus Williams[edit]

Dear Fyunck(click),

I had a question. I saw you deleted the seasons on Venus Williams template. Why did you do that? I do think it is useful in the that template and if you look to template of other big tennis players you also see that the seasons are in the templates. I hope to hear of you soon, Greetz Followertje (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia consensus and tennis project guidelines. Only certain players are allowed season articles. Players who have won a Grand Slam tournament that year, or if they have previously won a grand slam tournament they can have a season article id they are in the top 5 and have played at least 25 matches. Venus does not qualify for those articles and they will be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction. I didn't know that the pages got deleted, so now I can totally understand why you did it. I also do understand the reason why you did delete the season pages of Venus Williams and I totally agree with that. Good job and thanks again for you reaction! Followertje (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

Hi Fyunck(click), perhaps you have seen that I have requested a peer review of the 1877 Wimbledon Championship article? The article has GA status since mid 2013 and I have since significantly updated it and added content and citations. I am trying to get the article promoted into a FA and have it published on the homepage (TFA) during the final weekend of this year's tournament. As I'm sure you know that would make it the very first FA article of our project. I have asked a few non-tennis editors to peer review the article to provide a fresh perspective that perhaps is lost to us tennis-heads. Nevertheless you are of course welcome to also add your comments if you have time and interest. The more the merrier. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


Recent changes to Template:Medal[edit]

Hey, Fyunck. At your request, we have posted mock-ups of the before and after examples of the template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at the Whitney Reed article?[edit]

Particularly the fifth paragraph? HOW can this stuff have been allowed to remain here? Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of WP:REPEATLINKs[edit]

Why do you keep reverting edits (by different editors) and say "it's under discussion". Where? You don't give a link. If you can't give a link that trumps the link to the MOS, then don't revert. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

All the presidents (except one) link both predecessor and successor. These are very important links and are mentioned in repeatlinks under "if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes". If someone wants to change that they can bring it up on the individual talk pages or make an RfC for changing. The exception has been FDR and it's under discussion on his talk page to conform his to all the others. We are supposed to use common sense with MoS so if you want to remove a link, make it the less helpful VP links... not the presidents before and after. It's too important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
What the MOS says is "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." It is helpful to repeat a link in these other areas, but not repeat it within the infobox. That serves no purpose and makes absolutely no sense at all to me. And when another (veteran) editor makes an edit and gives a link to an MOS, and then you revert it, saying "as per all other president articles. Conformity" (there's really no such thing -- each article follows consensus by the editors of that particular article) or "it's under discussion" (and you don't give a link, so I look on the article's talk page and see nothing there) is disruptive and disrespectful. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There certainly is conformity. I have seen it brought up countless times in discussions. The diacritic wars were filled with it. And it absolutely serves a purpose in easily navigating from one article to another, especially for younger readers. You are correct that I should have done better with the summary... sorry. I'll be more specific in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It sounds to me that you take more stock in what's said in discussions than in an MOS. I can't understand how anyone can't figure out that the same name is linked just a couple of items above. It would be one thing if they were far apart but 2 places?? And what do you mean by "younger readers"? Do you mean children? That's what Simple Wikipedia is for. But even the MOS there says, "Only link a word the first time it is used in the article, but do not link the same word more than once in an article." --Musdan77 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If by "stock in what's said in discussions" you mean consensus, then yes... consensus trumps MoS easily. Always does at Wikipedia. It is an important enough category in the infobox to make sure it is linked... and others seem to agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
How do you think an MOS comes about? ...through consensus. A discussion is mostly opinion. And the most substantial comments are those that are based on MOS. But, you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you say that all president articles should conform with each other, but on the other hand you say that consensus should be found through discussion. But unless there is a project page for U.S. presidents, this really can't be done. And there's always going to be editors who follow MOS guidelines. So, it's a never-ending cycle. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
MoS "usually" comes about by consensus, not always. I've seen stuff slip in many times with no discussion at all. MoS allows for these sort of things, it's not ironclad and it tells us to use common sense when applying. I didn't ask for every link to be added over and over again, but I felt for our readers sake that the succeeded by and preceded by in the US President's infobox are too important to be left unlinked. Unlink the vp if you like as it's not as important. But those two items should be linked. And there IS a wikiproject page for U.S. presidents. Look, if the RfC fails, it fails... FDR get to keep his anomoly. If it passes we simply put a note in the infobox not to unlink per consensus. There shouldn't be an endless cycle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Player career statistics articles[edit]

A separate career statistics page for a 17-year old player? I'm appreciative of any effort to expand our tennis knowledge on wiki but perhaps this is taking it a step too far? --Wolbo (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure how to stop it. I guess the main way is that there is only supposed to be a "career statistcs article" IF it won't fit on the main page. Audrey's main page is quite sparse. I'll try to move it back to the main page with a redirect and see if it sticks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The guideline is somewhat ambiguous but I'm not sure if making guidelines more specific and restrictive is always the right approach. On the one hand it provides more clarity, which is a benefit, but having broader, more permissive guidelines allows more room for new developments and initiatives. There is always the option of tightening them if things get out of hand. In this case it's probably best to see how it develops and keep an eye out for similar career statistics articles.--Wolbo (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I hate it being too restrictive. But there were consensus talks about this some time ago. If at all possible it's best to have everything on one page. Better for readers and better for ease of updating. Updates happen more often if everything is in one place. But if a player article gets too large (because of accomplishments or popularity) the first thing we break off is a career stats page. This particular article had a tiny main page so it is an easy call. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sheldon Cooper presents: Fun with Flag(icons)[edit]

We have both been involved in several discussions on the use of flagicons and have done our tedious chores of cleaning up many a flag-invested article. Sometimes you come across an article that just makes you chuckle, an example that falls firmly into that category is 2008 ATP Challenger Series. There should be a warning tag not to navigate the page without wearing sunglasses. It's almost a shame to clean it up.--Wolbo (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Love that tv show. LOL, you're right, it's pretty bad. I wonder if I put on red/blue 3D glasses if the flags would float above the screen? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Now that flag icons are semi-legal for international athlete infoboxes, that 2008 ATP article is almost enough to make me switch sides and start campaigning for their universal ban everywhere. Seriously? How could anyone think such usage was ever appropriate? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. There are always some who will stretch things to the limit. I sometimes find articles with the most horrendous color schemes possible... purples, bright yellows and oranges... my retinas take a beating. But we usually fix them bit by bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Fyunck, I really think the Olympics, Formula One, golf, gymnastics, swimming and tennis WikiProjects ought to adopt their own flag icon guidelines that are not inconsistent with your MOS modification, but can speak in greater detail for those projects. WP:FOOTY does its own thing, and I expect they will continue to do their own thing with team rosters, etc. I think the athletics/track and field project and others would eventually join the larger group. We need to clarify basic rules of thumb that flags for the geographic locations of sports events are not acceptable, and that properly designed playoff brackets do not need to use multiple flags for the same athletes or team -- any more than every instance of the athlete or team's name needs to be linked. I've been accused of being a flag "nut," but, ironically, I spend far more time deleting them from inappropriate uses than I do adding them.
FYI, here's how WP:SWIMMING is now using them: Mary Wayte. One flag per swimmer infobox, and only used for national team members who have competed in international events. We're stripping them from bottom-of-the-page succession boxes for world records, etc., and we're stripping them from all event locations. It's an approach that would work for most athletes in the so-called "Olympic" sports. Golf and tennis would probably run in parallel, but somewhat different usage from the Olympic sports. All of the concerned sports projects should sanction a single flag for sporting nationality/national team in the athlete's infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)