User talk:Kind Tennis Fan
- 1 Welcome
- 2 Welcome!
- 3 Kind Tennis Fan, you are invited to the Teahouse
- 4 Golf major winners
- 5 Prospective events
- 6 Regarding your AIV report ...
- 7 Re: Eden Hazard
- 8 Vandalism
- 9 FAC comment?
- 10 Vandalism levels for protection
- 11 I (Who Have Nothing)
- 12 Elm Guest House child abuse scandal
- 13 Never Let Me Down Again
- 14 Weigh-in on discussion?
- 15 Nigel Farage.
- 16 Date formats on Halifax, Nova Scotia
- 17 Invitation to WikiProject Poultry
- 18 Bacon work
- 19 Choice of date format for astronomy articles
- 20 Date formats
- 21 South Shields
Kind Tennis Fan, you are invited to the Teahouse
Golf major winners
Hi, thanks for clarifying the statement about golf major winners with this edit. However, according to Grand Slam (golf)#Career Grand Slam there are 16 or 17 golfers to win at least three of the four majors (depending on whether pre-Masters-era counts), not 15. I don't see where the 15 number comes from, but I may be misunderstanding or miscounting something. Anyway, I just thought I would mention it in case you can figure it out because you probably have a better knowledge of this than me. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the 15 golfers are Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Player, Sarazen (who have won all four majors). The next 10 golfers who have won three out of the four are: Hagen, Barnes, Trevino, Armour, Snead, Mickelson, Nelson, Floyd, Watson and Palmer.
Please note that Bobby Jones did not win the Masters or the PGA Championship. Harold Hilton did not win the Masters, U.S. Open or PGA Championship. (The U.S. Amateur and British Amateur are not classed as professional major championships.)
Hi there, friendly critique ensues: As WP is an encyclopedia, it should be engaged in discussing events that have happened, and not envisioning things that could be. The best comparisons for athletes are those who they have achieved exactly as highly as, not those who they would be comparable to if in the future they achieve more highly. A list of those who have won all four golf majors belongs in an article on that topic, not in articles about golfers who have not achieved that mark but might someday do so.126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I have left your edit intact until one day perhaps Phil Mickelson wins the U.S. Open and completes the career grand slam. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your AIV report ...
I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Since I don't recognize you as a regular reporter to AIV, I should let you know that, contrary to your request, IPs are never blocked indefinitely for vandalism, no matter how much it may be repeated. Only if it's an open proxy, and proven to be so, do we block an IP indefinitely as that condition is under the control of whoever owns the server that IP resolves to. All other editing issues can change over time.
However, I have found that the IP resolves to Culford School in England. This may be of assistance in helping us control vandalism from the page (assuming that it continues and we have to keep escalating the blocks), as it's not common for an IP to resolve to a particular institution below the higher-ed level. We can, if necessary, contact the administration there since any school vandal is usually violating their institution's computer-use policies (And since it's a British school, I bet the punishment if the vandals are identified will be that they get neither meat nor pudding If they don't also get their butts whipped, which I'm not sure they do anymore). Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: Eden Hazard
Hi, sorry about not getting back to you, I glanced at your message this morning, went offline and completely forgot once I came back on. It's been protected now though. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that you do a lot of work to help improve football articles, which I appreciate, and if there are further instances of persistent vandalism on articles that I see, I will go direct to the "Requests for page protection" section and I will request admin directly there. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If we do it that way, we'll just be playing a catch-up whack-a-mole game. What I suggest is getting a list of all the IPs together, going to AN/I and asking for a rangeblock to be calculated and checked, if most of them are in the same range. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism levels for protection
Hi there. I saw your comment/question at RfPP, and thought I'd let you know my take on it. For vandalism, I'm generally looking for around 2-3 per day for 2-3 days. Obviously, if there's a very high amount on a day, then the duration is lower, so that protection can be immediate. Every admin is different, but I think the broad consensus would be the same for most of us. Feel free to ask anything else here :) GedUK 14:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. If you ever think a page needs protecting, just make the request :) GedUK 12:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I (Who Have Nothing)
While I agree that editorializing about performances has no place in the article about the song, "I (Who Have Nothing)," and that marginal recordings should not be listed alongside significant ones, the excision of numerous artists who recorded the song from the list of "other versions" seems arbitrary. Why is Robert Guillaume's version sufficiently notable to retain, but not Dee Dee Warwick's? Why the Spectres' version, but not Jordin Sparks'? Jedi Mind Tricks', but not Little Milton's? Why is Gladys Knight's rendition treated with the same disregard as that of the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain? Why is an album track by Greek singer Marinella worthy of inclusion, but not performances watched by millions on top-rated television programs such as American Idol and X-Factor?
Per WP:SONGCOVER, there is a standard of notability for inclusion in such lists, but I can't see how that standard was applied in your edit. Before addressing the issue in the article itself, I'd like to know what your thought process was. Pstoller (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pstoller. I trimmed the unsourced content because I felt it was too large an unsourced list. It was a big sprawling list of cover versions, which Wikipedia is not designed for. I didn't feel that the album track by Greek singer Marinella was particularly notable, but it did at least have a citation for it. All the content I removed did not have any references. I trimmed some of the unsourced content. I didn't remove all of it and I requested further citations on the page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Elm Guest House child abuse scandal
Hello, I have had a quick look but I cannot find that alleged claim by Chris Fay in any other news source. If you can find it in a more respectable news source (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC) than the Daily Express, then by all means put it back, but for now I have reverted Codeusirae's re-addition of your addition. Please see WP:REDFLAG. -- Alarics (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) And see also User talk:Ghmyrtle#Poor sources. -- Alarics (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your message Alarics. When the claim that was reported in the Daily Express – containing an allegation of police intimidation – was removed from the article, I accepted and understood the reason why the content was removed. When making any further edits to this particular article, I will include content from sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph rather than the Daily Express. Another editor put the content back again, which has since been removed. I have given a full reply on your talk page regarding the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Never Let Me Down Again
Hello! I noticed that you removed a lot of content under Notable covers at Never Let Me Down Again, commenting "I clicked on the reference provided and it did not verify any of these quotes by Martin Gore and Dave Gahan." What you really discovered, was a dead link to a fan message board that supposedly once contained transcripts of the source/sources in question. By deleting the passage you *almost* managed to prevent any editor from improving the section and adding better links. Next time, please use Dead link template instead of deleting content, if possible. Citation needed template is very useful, too. Thank you. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sk4170. Thank you for your comments. There has been a template at the top of the Never Let Me Down Again article for over 3 years since November 2010 requesting improved additional citations, but thank you for the advice regarding use of the Dead link template. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a policy that requires deleting of all unsourced content from Wikipedia. The refimprove and unreferenced tags are there to encourage wikipedians to give their precious time and contribute to articles. In my opinion removing content without making the effort to fix the links that aren't working or looking for better ones is not exactly an improvement. This way a lot of good content is lost forever. I want to add that not every single word needs to be sourced, unless considered incorrect. I also wouldn't consider unsourced something that is wikilinked and essential info can be read there. For people interested only in Depeche Mode, there are well over 100 wiki articles and an army of vandals of all sorts requiring attention from those who are willing to contribute a little more of their time than average. It was pure luck that I noticed what was happening at NMLDA, but don't have time to try and fix more than this tiny detail. Just some food for thought about the reality of being a Wikipedian. --Sk4170 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Weigh-in on discussion?
Thanks for your message Dan, but I did not have any involvement in the removal of the quote or this particular music article and so I did not participate in the discussion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings KTF. I mentioned you in an edit after you seemed to doubt some of the details in the source. It appears the source was incorrectly archived -& there are 2 versions of a short interview, one with & one without a video. Just what we need on a page like this! Regards JRPG (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- @JRPG: Thank you for your message to explain this. Now that I'm aware that the source was incorrectly archived, I have no further issues or concerns at present with the Nigel Farage article. Sorry for not replying earlier yesterday, but it's been a particularly busy week in the sporting calendar for people like myself who love watching tennis and association football. Yesterday there were men's semi-final matches at Wimbledon and quarter-final matches at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The days are flying by so fast at the moment - I wish that God could give us more hours in the day! Being able to spend more time with my girlfriend and on different Wikipedia articles, in addition to playing and watching plenty of tennis and football, would make it the ideal perfect day for me! Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Date formats on Halifax, Nova Scotia
We do not typically use dmy dates in Canada, we typically use mdy dates. Please correct it.02:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Poultry
Hey, I noticed you've done some work on Bacon. I'm trying to get it to GA and I was wondering if you'd like to help with some more work. In the past I've done quite some work on it with others, but it's still a ways to go from GA. Thanks. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- @Newyorkadam: Thank you for your message and for the work that you have done on Bacon. Over the coming weeks and months, when I have a bit more time available, I will do some more work on the Bacon article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Choice of date format for astronomy articles
I'm glad to see someone taking the time to make date formats consistent within articles. For most nation-specific articles, and those with obvious ties to a country or region of the world, it's somewhat straightforward to choose mdy vs. dmy. What, then, is your criteria for astronomy articles: using the prevailing format in the article, or forcing mdy or dmy? I, and presumably others in the astronomy project, would prefer that astronomy articles, for the most part being devoid of national affiliation, adopt the more-universally-accepted dmy format. I haven't brought this up yet, though, since I just noticed your edit to Galaxy (mdy) and would like to know your thoughts and procedure. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 00:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your message Tom. My thoughts when adjusting the format on the Galaxy article to mdy was firstly, as the MOS:DATEFORMAT guide says, the yyyy-dd-mm format (such as 2007-04-03) is ambiguous for some dates. But apart from that particular ambiguous format, it seemed that the mdy format was the one most predominantly used for the whole article overall. And so that is why I initially chose the mdy format.
The guidelines also state that: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page."
I have now properly studied the older revisions of the article and seen that the mdy format was the first "acceptable" format used on the article.
So going by the guidelines, the mdy format is appropriate. However, I am always happy to take on board the input of others. If on any article there is a preference among editors for the dmy format ahead of mdy then I will go with the consensus of opinion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your meticulousness; it's definitely appreciated. You've inspired me to put this on my to-do list for astro articles. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Your MOS:DATEFORMAT does not apply to citations. Access dates, AFAIK, often put in YYYY-MM-DD format (not discouraged by the MOS in citations or elsewhere, unlike the YYYY-DD-MM format you refer to in the preceding thread). To quote WP:DATEUNIFY (also see WP:CITESTYLE):seem inappropriate:
- Access and archive dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:
- the format used for publication dates in the article,
- the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article, or
The citation style admittedly was not consistent, but to many, the US date style is unfamiliar and clumsy. And if the style was inconsistent (i.e. the first two bullets here do not apply) and included many YYYY-MM-DD entries the only option explicitly mentioned by the MOS (as quoted here) as a catch-all seems to be the suggested way to go. —Quondum 18:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Quondum. I favour having a consistent style of dates for the whole of a particular article. I personally think it looks more professional to have all of the dates for an article (including access dates) to be in the same consistent format for the article overall, but I'm always willing to listen to the input and feedback of others, and if ever you do not like the changes I have made to achieve consistency for an article, I don't have an issue if you want to revert the changes. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: consistency is appropriate ("should all use the same format" in what I quoted). The only question is whether there is a way to choose one date format over another when one does make it consistent. I was providing a somewhat wikilawyerish interpretation suggesting that a particular format may be appropriate under these circumstances (please regard it is merely reflecting a preference on my part, which is to avoid the US style because it is so regional). But my real intention is merely to ensure that you are aware of the broader picture for making your own choice for these edits. —Quondum 16:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Blimey! Well done, that's great. If you are totally bored and keen on hanging around in that lovely corner of England for a few minutes more then please feel absolutely free to drop in to Whitley Bay. I had a recent look and it made me want to bang my head repeatedly on my desk. :( Thanks again for South Shields and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I had some spare time this weekend (in between watching football), so I have also had a tidy up this evening of the article on Whitley Bay. There was a lot of inappropriate unsourced promotional content and so I have removed much of it. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)