User talk:Tennis expert/Archive 1

Leave your message at the bottom, followed by a signature. I will reply on this talk page so as to maintain continuity in discussions. Be sure to monitor this page for my response as I will not notify you on your talk page. Contributions to this page, especially incivil, sarcastic, unconstructive, misleading, unsigned, or templated comments, will be deleted or archived at my discretion, in accordance with WP:UP#CMT. See WP:DRC and WP:HUSH.

Archive of certain discussions before November 19, 2008

The dubious block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As clearly stated above, and in multiple edit summaries by others, linking to dates is generally not acceptable per WP:MOS#Dates and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Furthermore, overlinking on multiple articles is not acceptable, either. Further reverts on any of these changes with little to no discussion, and a continuation of your edit warring post-block, will lead to lengthier blocks. seicer | talk | contribs 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I and many editors have noted many times on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:Tennis, there has never been and is not now a consensus to eliminate existing date links, regardless of whether there is consensus to add new date links. (Regrettably, you apparently do not understand this concept as you have not actively participated in those discussions.) See, for example, denial to use Cleanbot to remove existing date links, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. And as has been proven, there is certainly no consensus within the tennis project to eliminate date links for tennis articles. Regardless of whether there is consensus in the MOS guidelines (not a policy) to eliminate those links, English-language Wikipedia precedent is clear that a more specific consensus (for tennis articles) prevails over a more general consensus (in the MOS). See, for example, this discussion. I have simply been preserving the status quo in the face of tag-team disruptive editing (see this and this), after canvassing and without consensus by: (1) the single-purpose account Datedelinker; (2) Lightmouse, who has made thousands of controversial date delinking edits using AWB despite the policy that prohibits AWB from being used to do anything "controversial"; (3) Tony1, who often engages in blind reverts of my edits and whose legendary incivility and disruption includes, among many other things, accusing me on various discussion pages of having a mental illness and being a pig; (4) Skywalker, who often engages in blind reverts of everything I do, regardless of the nature of my edits; (5) The Rambling Man on tour, whose incivility, hostility, and false accusations continue unabated and who often engages in blind reverts of my work; (6) Closedmouth, who has done thousands of script-based and AWB edits on this issue despite being asked to stop; (7) 2008Olympian, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue; (8) Dabomb87, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue, ignored requests to stop doing so, and edit warred to enforce his date-delinking agenda (e.g., five reverts in three days, five reverts in three days); and, (9) Colonies Chris, who has done thousands of AWB-based edits on this issue. All of the preceding editors have done multiple reversions of the articles in question and should be blocked under the same (dubious) rationale. By the way, there is no editor on English-language Wikipedia who has done more to improve tennis biographies than myself (check out my tens-of-thousands of edits). And there are few editors besides myself who would try to uphold the core policy of Wikipedia concerning consensus in the face of so much hostility and incivility from the preceding editors and a few others, despite my never being hostile or incivil to them in return. This block proves that none of that matters; therefore, I am retiring from Wikipedia, effective immediately. But before I go, it's worth noting that the blocking administrator himself (assuming gender here) is making disruptively blind reverts of my edits, too. See, for example, Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam. Perhaps he should be blocked.... Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, November 19, 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, the owner of the single-purpose sockpuppet Datedelinker, said on the administrators' noticeboard that, "I believe that edits of mine which rendered dates in a consistent dmy or mdy format have also been reverted, in blatant contempt of the guideline." That is completely false. I have been very careful to preserve the correct formats and have corrected them wherever I have found errors. Ohconfucius also said, "I am aware that TE ... [has] been aggressively fighting application of WP:MOSNUM notably in relation to deprecation of date-autoformatting." That is also completely false, as I have merely been trying to preserve the existing consensus until there is a new consensus to delete existing date links. It is these kinds of intentional or grossly negligent misrepresentation of facts that has contributed to my decision to retire. Tennis expert (talk) 21:43, November 19, 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has refused to fix the unfortunate consequences of his blind reverts of the articles I listed above. That says a lot about his character, in my opinion. He also said at the administrators noticeboard, "Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten." Obviously, he doesn't understand the issue, which is that there is no policy to eliminate existing date links. Despite there not being a policy to eliminate existing date links, the editors I listed above have employed automated and semi-automated means to implement their misguided conception of the MOS. He also has made negligently false allegations against me here: (1) "Tennis Expert, from what I can infer from his contributions, has engaged in mass reverts over dozens of pages hundreds of times over." Do the math. Let's assume "500" = "hundreds of times over". Let's also assume that "36" = dozens of pages. 500 divided by 36 yields approximately 14 reverts per article. I challenge this administrator to find even one article that I even remotely reverted that much. This administrator obviously didn't bother to do his homework before slandering me. (2) "... simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here...." This is the problem that inevitably results when a lazy administrator, semiretired no less, hastily and rashly blocks without bothering to determine the facts. I have discussed the date delinking issues over-and-over-and-over-and-over, both on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:TENNIS. I also have said why I have no intention of engaging in yet another dialogue about the exact same issues with editors such as Rambling Man on Tour (RMOT), who are routinely hostile and incivil to me. See this. RMOT was aware of my intentions but continued to pointlessly harrass me on my discussion page, which is why his posts were deleted there. See WP:HUSH and WP:UP#CMT. Of course, Seicer wouldn't know about that because he didn't bother to ask. Drive-by, "I can't be bothered by the facts" blocking was his solution. Tennis expert (talk) 02:30, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has said at the administrators noticeboard, "Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out." Yet, Seicer has literally invited two editors to engage in the very edit warring that Seicer has promised will result in a block. See this post by Seicer on Ohconfuscius's talk page and this post by Seicer on 2008Olympian's talk page. How strange. Tennis expert (talk) 02:47, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

Seicer also has issued a general invitation to engage in the type of edit warring that he has promised will result in a block. I wonder if it is permissible for an administrator to block an editor, such as Tim Vickers, for behavior that the administrator is actively soliciting. Tennis expert (talk) 03:14, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

Dude. What a totally pointless issue to retire over. Don't be a diva. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though I wouldn't put it quite like MMN did. Tennis expert, I'd strongly encourage you not to retire. GlassCobra 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed x2. Your contributions to Wikipedia are valuable IMO, and your continued assistance in undoing the damage done by editors such as Ohconfuscious, Dabomb87 and Tony1 are appreciated. I do hope you'll reconsider. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that effort is futile now that administrators are willing to block our attempts to fix the damage and are unwilling to do anything to prevent AWB and scripts from being used to date-delink hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles before there is any consensus to do so. (Have a look at Lightmouse's recent contribution history.) The damage is irreperable. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, November 19, 2008 (UTC)

Your costume has arrived. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Give WP:NPA a read sometime, you might find yourself blocked someday if you continue making personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Were you hoping you'd be missed? I don't think anyone even believes you'll leave, and expressions of regret will be few and far between given your problems with WP:OWNership of articles. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardly as bad as the editors (as far as date linking go anyways) who seem to think they own Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which articles have I attempted to exercise WP:OWNership over? Tennis expert (talk) 02:36, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what the big deal is. I like the linked dates at the top of this page, though. Very droll. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think many of your early contributions have been fantastic, but of late the continual reverts have become too much. You even blind reverted edits where I added templates, corrected markup and improved articles, just to make a point. I don't understand why you couldn't have just worked on getting an article to good or featured status. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Go away, RMOT. Continue your world tour or whatever. Your ongoing incivility, hostility, exaggerations, and lying (as exemplified by your latest post) don't do anyone any good. Tennis expert (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the question as to whether User:Tennis expert's retirement is good for Wikipedia, there is no doubt that this block was wrong. In fact, there have been a number of improper blocks regarding WP:MOSDATE, due to a real dispute about consensus as to a change made in August 2008, and, even if there were a consensus, further misinterpreations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

PS Where did I accuse you "of having a mental illness and being a pig"? Are you sure? I can't imagine it. Tony (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't ask questions like this without being prepared to deal with the answers. Accusations of a mental disorder can be found here, among other places. Here are some examples of disparaging names you have called me: "Tennis pest", "Tennis fanatic", "pig", "very eccentric". And those are only the ones I know about. Contrast your hostility toward me with my empathy toward you when an RFC was started about you. When you get the time, have a look at this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(To Colonies Chris): I'm not saying Tennis expert has consensus, but Lightmouse/Lightbot/Tony1 etc. do not. I don't see Tennis expert as doing anything wrong; he shouldn't have been blocked, and the semibots removing date links should be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the name change

Hello, sorry about the bad name change (2008 US Open). I should have known there was some kind of discussion about it before moving it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to fix the problem by moving it back? If so, I accept your very gracious apology. Tennis expert (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Oxford St. has already taken care of that. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blind reverts by The Rambling Man on tour

The Rambling Man on tour inaccurately claimed here that he had not made any blind reverts. To set the record straight, I corrected his blind reverts as follows: Monica Seles, Andrea Jaeger, Natasha Zvereva, Francoise Durr, Margaret Osborne duPont, Nancye Wynne Bolton, Jana Novotna, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Malivai Washington, Wendy Turnbull, Virginia Ruzici, Cedric Pioline, Jennifer Capriati, Mima Jausovec, Conchita Martinez, Jennifer Capriati (2), Emilio Sanchez, Tony Roche, Elizabeth Ryan, Marion Jones, Christophe Rochus. Tennis expert (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

De-linking

Thanks for the note. I'll try to resolve this as peacefully as allowed. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Tennis expert (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

It's going to be harder than I thought at first. The process will have to be thought through very carefully, and examples of hypothetical cases close to the decision-making boundaries provided so that the outcomes are as objective and consistent as possible. It will take time—probably until the end of the month—before it can be trialled. Tony (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion originally on Ohconfucius's discussion page about repeated editing errors made by him

Ohconfucius "archived" the following discussion almost immediately after the last addition to it and did not correct the mistakes noted below. Tennis expert (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That article started as mdy, not dmy,[1] so according to MOSNUM, it should remain as origianlly started since it is not associated with an English-speaking country that uses dmy.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I [Ohconfucius] changed it since Spain is listed as being a dmy country, believing that to be the correct format. I have no issues to it being put back. Apologies for the inconvenience. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You [Ohconfucius] just made the same kind of error concerning Marion Bartoli, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Andrei Pavel, Alex Metreveli, and Jana Novotna with your alternate account Date delinker. You also changed Maria Bueno's middle name from "Audion" to "Audition". These incidents illustrate why the frenetic use of AWB to edit articles is often damaging to the encylopedia. Tennis expert (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I've [2008Olympian] made the same mistake before. Unless it is an English-speaking country, the date format follows whatever the article started off having. If it is an English-speaking country, then it follow the format of that country. It may not be intuitively what one would expect, but that is the current guideline. Thanks. And making that mistake has nothing to do with whether one uses a script, btw. Good thing I have a script to use actually, because that error is made all the time by lots of editors.--2008Olympian^chitchat 12:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC

Please correct the following tennis biographies where you [Ohconfucius] made the same mistake: Conchita Martinez, Virginia Ruzici, Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, Johanna Larsson, Alberto Berasategui, Sergi Bruguera, Tomas Carbonell, Alex Corretja, Albert Costa, Carlos Costa, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Lourdes Domínguez Lino, Feliciano López, Marc López, José López-Maeso, Marta Marrero, Anabel Medina Garrigues, Albert Montañés, Arantxa Parra Santonja, Rubén Ramírez Hidalgo, Magüi Serna, Santiago Ventura Bertomeu, Flavia Pennetta, Mikael Tillström, Jonas Svensson, Åsa Svensson, Henrik Sundström, Robin Söderling, Ulf Stenlund, Hans Simonsson, Christina Sandberg, Michael Ryderstedt, Sandra Roma, Mikael Pernfors, Frans Möller, Hanna Nooni, Catarina Lindqvist, Magnus Larsson, Nicklas Kulti, Lars Jonsson, Rasmus Jonasson, Torsten Johansson, Thomas Johansson, Joachim Johansson, Anders Järryd, Henrik Holm, Ebba Hay, Magnus Gustafsson, Simon Aspelin, Edith Arnheim, Jan Apell, Märtha Adlerstråhle, Jan Gunnarsson, Thorsten Grönfors, Sigrid Fick, Sven Davidson, Margareta Cederschiöld, Kent Carlsson, and Jonas Björkman. The preceding dates from roughly November 17, 2008, and, therefore, is not an exhaustive list. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

New errors of the same type made by you [Ohconfucius]: Silvija Talaja and Miloslav Mečíř. When are these errors going to stop? And when are the older errors going to be corrected? Tennis expert (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Not a congratulatory message but an offer to work together on producing a tennis player biography that'll reach FA. I don't mind who, but it'll be easier if there's at least one picture. Entirely unoffended if you choose to decline - FA is not the easiest of paths to tread. --Dweller (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's tackle a major historical figure (much better to do a historical figure than a current player because there will be fewer ongoing updates) whose article already is fleshed out. How about Billie Jean King (my preference because the article already is well researched but is still somewhat incomplete concerning her later playing years), Pete Sampras, Margaret Court, Andre Agassi? Doesn't matter too much to me. You choose (not limited to the preceding list) and let me know. Thanks for contacting me and being so accommodating. Tennis expert (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be for Pete Sampras, for his historic role in the sport and because there'll be a lot of information online about him.

I'm happy to take this on, and we may find other collaborators too. Excuse the patronising question, but are you familiar with FA, its processes and what's required? I'd strongly recommend reading WP:WIAFA and <ahem> my essay, linked in my post above.

We'll need to achieve an article that's mostly prose, supported by a modicum of statistics (the excess, whatever we decide that is, need not be deleted, but can be moved into a new article, perhaps Pete Sampras career statistical analysis?) We'll need to cite every claim made in the article. I'm good at spotting claims that need cites and I'm good at prose. I'm pretty good at hunting down citations for my specialist areas (football and cricket) but I might struggle - your expertise here in finding online and offline citations will be invaluable. I'm rubbish at wikimarkup etc and too damn lazy to do references properly using the citeref template, but others can help. Say the word, and I'm ready to start. NB my edit patterns are still a little variable following my ill-health, but I'm usually around for the same hours daily, except weekends, when I rarely edit. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll like helping out on citing issues - I have one FA to my credit. --HJensen, talk 09:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a patronizing question at all. I'll go do some reading. Pete Sampras it is! And I completely understand the need to separate the excess statistics from the main article. I'll post here again once my reading is done. Best wishes. Tennis expert (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is someone ornery?

I may be pushing the needle to the red. May need some support, since we apparently have someone with an attitude who will archive discussions that are difficult to address. -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment requested

Hello Tennis expert, glad to see you've unretired. I wonder if you might swing by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#And for 100th time, the Key Biscayne spam war starts again and clarify your position a little on why exactly the distinction between Miami and Key Biscayne is so important to you. Korlzor is currently blocked, so hopefully the discussion will not be interrupted, but I am very much interested in why this seems to be such a contentious issue. Thank you in advance. GlassCobra 17:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Acura Classic

Back then I was unsure if the policy on the French Wikipedia of merging tournaments that took place in the same city into one would be implemented here...this article[2] gives the impression that the Ginny of San Diego was a new event: it neglects to mention Fargo as one of the sponsors amongst other things. It might also have changed venue between 1982 and 1984 (based on the ITF website). A more appropriate line might be that the event was "reintroduced to the Tour a year later (1984)..." (if a full history is being provided). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Karnak666

Hello I would like to bring this user User:Karnak666 [[3]] to your attention. He continuously removes sourced content from the Andre Agassi page. I have reverted it back to the last edit which was yours. He has done this in past without discussion whatsoever and he continues to push his POV into this article . I would appreciate it if you could do something about this disruptive editing. I have come to you because you have an expertise in this field and I respect you as editor on this topic. Thanks Ninevite (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 Brisbane International article

I saw you had tagged the 2009 Brisbane International article this morning for the summaries "reading like a newspaper". Would you mind altering them to how you think they should be written? I decided to start writing summaries, with the help of several other editors, in a similar way to Grand Slam articles for the last few years. The 2008 Tennis Masters Cup article has been selected as a good article candidate using a similar approach. Thanks. 03md (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the whole article, but I will do a couple of edits there to illustrate the problem. Tennis expert (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see what you mean with some of the points but others (like 5th/fifth) are surely only minor issues and do not ruin the article. 03md (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said the article was "ruined". I said it needs improvement. Anyway, I've done enough editing of the article to illustrate the deficiencies I saw. Tennis expert (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why you reverted the changes I made to the article? ^LeaveSleaves 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't intend to. All I tried to do was subsitute "a" for "an". Must be a system glitch. Tennis expert (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I restored them. ^LeaveSleaves 08:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me with the reviews for Days 4, 5 and 6 of the Brisbane Internation. I have been trying to keep up to date and have focused on the Doha article, so Chennai and Auckland both need updates as well. Also, could you not change the format of the lead section drastically - there has been a standard formula for the leads (for example, see 2008 Hamburg Masters, 2008 Chennai Open etc.). Cheers. 03md (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason that we have to use the same leads as other articles, particularly if those articles' leads are inferior. Tennis expert (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs—I would like your opinion, especially on the draft of proposed guidelines on linking chronological items. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Musiclover query

The musiclover account has nothing to do with me. Also, regarding your query about alternate accounts, there was nothing sinister involved - I created it a while ago to mainly focus on football edits but have not used it in months. Could you stop spamming my talkpage and instead help to improve the articles. Cheers. 03md (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove here - I only created the other account so that I didn't always have to use the same one. Matcham of the Day and 03md are the only accounts I have - the other one you talk about is an ip address. I have not used MOTD account in a couple of months. Could you stop bugging me because I am trying to help the Tennis wikiproject. My edits to the Brisbane International article were intended to expand the article rather than putting limited details on matches. 03md (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer to "alternate accounts"

Firstly, I don't know why did you delete my comment here about your changes on Novak Djokovic article. It's ironical how you ask people to talk before talking actions, and you're the first one reverting and taking them.

Now, if you think that, because I'm opposing to your edits I'm anyone of those people that weren't in your side on the big discussion here, go ahead. Also, check the "new people" which also doesn't want your style here.

I can see you're mostly the only one defending that style, instead of trying to get a semi-consensus (you even got a proposal of Key Biscayne,Miami, with the second link pointing to the zone on Miami, and denied it, This shows you do not want consensus at all, but to have your own the style.

Maybe if you collaborated a little, things would be a lot better on this wikiproject, and we would have good and featured articles. Keita24 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your post above is virtually unintelligible, and the part I can make out is incivil and unconstructive. Would you mind answering my question about whether Korlzor or Wikitestor, or both, are (or were) accounts of yours? It would probably be better if you answered this question on your own talk page. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer is in my post above, which btw is perfectly readable. Keita24 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have not yet answered the question. But I certainly could understand if you're uncomfortable doing so because of the potential ramifications. By the way, I'm sure you're aware of the vandalism that Korlzor (through many IP sockpuppets) has inflicted during the last week or so. I intend to seek a remedy for that. Maybe you'll be willing to help. I'll send you the link once I've posted everything. Tennis expert (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actualy I've already answered your question, no relation at all. If you have a problem with a particular user, do not mix me inside. Just answer me on the wikiproject discussion. Keita24 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Korlzor

If you believe the blocked user Korlzor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing anonymous IPs to edit you should make a report/case at WP:RFCU immediately. WP:SSP is really only useful for behavioral similarities, but WP:RFCU may provide you with concrete proof of block evasion. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Sockpuppetry case concerning Korlzor

Hi there. Many thanks for the notification, I appreciate it. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 11:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking evidence

Can you post the diffs you have regarding incivility/misconduct of Tony, etc. in your own section at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence? Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talking of which, you just added a pile of (interesting) diffs to the Workshop page. Shouldn't it go in Evidence? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I always try to add the diffs to both places. If I've left some out, please let me know. Tennis expert (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of putting the diffs on Evidence and linking to the appropriate section there from Workshop - if only to reduce the burden of reading through the page as it expands. Would that be a hassle? Don't worry about it if so. Cheers, -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur that you are just making work for yourself. I usually just link back to to the evidence section at hand from the relevant workshop section. Anyway, Godspeed! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Can you help me out here? Yosef1987 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, thanks anyways. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Brisbane International

Good work on cleaning up the 2009 Brisbane International Article. I wrote what I thought summed up the tournament but I can see what you meant about it reading like a fansite. Are you able to write reviews for any other tournaments this year? Cheers. 03md (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Keita24

You are reverting the user's edits from article and I can understand that. But there is no need to remove his comments from the talk pages. I've restore those and I don't think they are doing any sort of harm. ^LeaveSleaves 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. This user is indefinitely blocked, i.e., banned. As such, all his edits should be reverted on sight, including talk page contributions. Those contributions ipso facto harm Wikipedia. See this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how those contributions to the talk page can be seen harmful. If anything, those comments should be stroke out in order not to confuse other editors of inconsistencies in the conversation. ^LeaveSleaves 07:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's regrettable that you don't understand this particular Wikipedia policy. Whether his contributions would've been considered useful had they been made by a reputable editor is irrelevant. His contributions are automatically disruptive and must be reverted. Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess I'm just conflicting my brain with various policies. Anyways, thanks for your explanation. ^LeaveSleaves 07:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

Is or was Keita24, Korlzor, or Wikitestor an account of yours? Feel free not to answer this question, but I'm curious given your similar editing objectives (and other, perhaps coincidental, circumstances). Thanks.

PS: Did you think "wtf"? Exactly like me . Dreamblack (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have no problem answering this legitimate question. The answer is "no". Tennis expert (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Colors

I think that if the Australian Open stuff is in Yellow the championship things on pages on the winners should be yellow instead of blue. The same goes for the United States Open for Blue is on the wikipedia page for them while on individual pages it is yellow this does not make since and needs to be rectified immediately to cause no lingering confusion. I will start working on this in the next couple of weeks to make it uniform on the individual pages. Yellow for the Australian Open and Blue for the US Open. Bluedogtn (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal does not represent the existing consensus. Discuss your proposal on WP:Tennis or the appropriate article talk pages first. Tennis expert (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

revert vandalism lol

He is moving the medalbox to the top, the other day I told him to stop but he keeps, and he did to Justine Henin also. I've warned him. Dreamblack (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "rw" mean in your edit summaries? Tennis expert (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Read it on the title of this section: ReVert Vandalism. Dreamblack (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That should be "rvv", not "rw". Tennis expert (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen somewhere, that when reverting vandalism, "rw" could be used instead of "rvv", im gonna search for it. Dreamblack (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I've seen it on Rafael Nadal's old history that time, because I can't find it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revert_vandalism , so you are true, it's rvv instead of rw. Thanks! Dreamblack (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Recall

The process is here... [4]

I am not likely to be around for a week or so as I will soon be on a boat in the Galapagos Islands and I think it unlikely I can get onto Wikipedia from there. Nevertheless, feel free to start it up whenever you like. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Renee Schuurman

Please stop inserting personal biographical information (eg. birth and death dates) without citing a reliable source. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy (see WP:V). Valrith (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not against Wikipedia policy, as I have already pointed out to you on countless occasions. Tennis expert (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth dates

Hi, I saw you made some remarks on Valrith's worrying behaviour. Is there anyone (admin, whoever) who would be able to intervene here? I've just noticed that e.g. Dita Von Teese has no birth date in English Wikipedia (she has in French, and in many others). I already had a conflict with that user on this subject, there is no way to communicate with him, it's quite disturbing. I have no time to deal with it, and I don't really know how does English Wikipedia function with this kind of problems. Best, ziel & 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort changes

Hey. I see you've undone a pile of changes I made to some Defaultsorts on tennis ladies. Can you tell me why you've done that? I at least provided a rational reason for my changes in every case, in the edit summaries. I'm none the wiser about why you've put them back the way they were. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your rational reason was that "we" call those women X instead of Y, but what you personally believe is irrelevant. You need to source the changes. Tennis expert (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand me. When I said "we", I meant that they were referred to as X throughout their Wikipedia articles, but were categorised as Y. That seemed pretty irrational to me. You would need a good supporting reason to categorise someone known as X as anything other than X, but there was no mention of any such reasons in any of those articles. That's why I changed them. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Given your lack of response, I've reinstated the edits in question. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence vs Workshop

Could you consider using the same wording in your additions to Evidence and Workshop? Reading through two blocky diffs only to realize halfway through that it's actually all the same links is doing my head in a bit. Hope you can understand. Thanks, -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you've done this via hyperlinking; thanks, it's appreciated. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tennis summaries

Hi, User:LeaveSleaves has proposed a new structure for tennis tournament summaries (see here). I have made a start on writing a review for the 2009 ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament in Rotterdam. Would you mind reading through it and checking for POV and whether it "reads like a fansite". I have not gone into detail about every match and have cited references. Thanks. 03md (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The frequent problem with these articles is the use of sports-newspaper-like adjectives and commentary, examples of which I already have listed for you. Eliminating those adjectives and the commentary and would make the articles more encyclopedic and would go a long way towards solving the fan-site issue. Tennis expert (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert at Caroline Wozniacki-article

Hi!

Regarding this revert at the Caroline Wozniacki-article you made a while back - I disagree with it. While I do understand and agree that there are certain standards that should be followed, I thought that the performance timeline back then looked bad, and that was obviously the reason for my changes.

I'd like to make my case for the changes I made:

Regarding the LQ-discoloring, I was following the {{Performance timeline legend}}, that was posted directly above it. I also changed the gray Not Held-text to lower-case the second word because it, in my opinion, was a case of over-capitalization - unlike "Tier I", which is a proper noun. I also changed the "Not held" to "NH" in cells that did not span several years, in order to not make them wrap several lines, messing up the entire table row. Also, "NH" is set as an acronym for just that in the legend I refered to earlier. For the same reason as "Not held => NH", I made "Not Tier I => NTI", in line with the NM5-acronym that had been added on. I also un-rowspanned some of the cells, because I think it suggests a relationship of some sort between the tournaments. Also, if one tournament stops having that status, the cells will need to be un-rowspanned and re-colspanned instead anyway.

If you don't have any problem with my reasoning, I'll go ahead and re-revert to my version of the timeline in a couple of days.

Regards, /AB-me (chit-chat) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are inconsistent with the performance timelines for numerous other tennis biographies. Therefore, I object to those edits. Thanks for contacting me anyway. Tennis expert (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter proposal on chronological linking

Please share your ideas at User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. -- Kendrick7^talk

Apology

I just wanted to apologize if you took any offense to the comment I made at Arthur Rubin's talk page and to pay no mind to those who would seem to want to pounce on it as some sign of weakness. I appreciate your efforts at the RFAr, and particularly your contributions to the evidence. I think you've provided exhaustive evidence of seeming coordination of these editors in pushing their POV over the objections of others. I think the only problem some have had is with the sheer size of your Workshop contributions, but you've done some work at trimming that back. If there's anything I can clarify, or if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page or contact me via e-mail here. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken and absolutely no need to apologize! Tennis expert (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pete Sampras is Petros?

Hey Mr. Expert, How are you?
I was just looking at Sampras's page, and it says his name is Petros? Is this right? I didn't think it was, but didn't want to change it without some kind of a source. Check and get back to me please? thanks ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding on to that, I see on google some instances of sites saying his birth name is Petros, but just wanted to check with you, as you might know. Hope you haven't been arguing too much with people by the way! ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that edit but didn't know if it was correct or incorrect. So, sorry, I don't know whether his birth name was Petros. Best wishes. Tennis expert (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll try to find more information! ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Urszula Radwanska citations

On the urszula radwanska page , concerning the citation needed tag, as you probably realise I have taken those quotes from the television coverage, the wimbledon quote from the BBCcoverage and the Dubai quote from Eurosport this morning. The trouble with these is, I realise, that no transcript exists that people can check. I can reference the quotes with say ' From BBC Wimbledon coverage Summer 2008' or From Eurosport t.v interview Feb 16 2009' but would that suffice. If that isn't sufficient maybe you should delete them, they are clumsy edits in a way, but sometimes I like to see a few quotes on a page so it isn't just statistics.Sayerslle (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that quotations must be sourced. Tennis expert (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Marcelo Rios

Hello I notice that you deleted my edition of Marcelo Rios twice. I accept that it has no sources and may have not the quality standars of other articles, but it seems rude to me to delete all that I wrote, if you think something is write as a fan site, just edit or delete that line, but not the entire article. The article was barely empty and I is evidently worse than my unsourced edition. Those flaws you mention are perfectaly improveable. All the information is true, just need to be improved in tecnical matters. I expect you to have criterion and acceptance of my arguments. --Tommy The Wise (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "arguments" are irrelevant. Post factual information, omit your personal opinions, and provide sources. That's what Wikipedia requires. It is not a question of rudeness. Nor is it the obligation of other editors to fix the problems you have introduced. You need to fix them yourself. See, for example, WP:BRD. Tennis expert (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence

Hello Tennis expert. I'm just letting you know that your evidence far exceeds the 100 diff maximum that is allowed on the evidence page. As clerks, we often give a little leeway, but your evidence far exceeds this and something is going to have to be done. I'm going to give you 24 hours to cut the evidence down to the maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs. One suggestion I can give is that you could move all the evidence to a subpage in your userspace (User:Tennis expert/Date delinking arbitration evidence?) and link to it from the main evidence page. You could still add a small evidence section on the main evidence page that is less than 1000 words and 100 diffs with the majority being in your userspace. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cut whatever you believe is appropriate. I've done my job, and the evidence will still be available to interested persons via the evidence subpage history even after the cuts. It's for others to decide which evidence I've posted should be considered or kept. Regards. Tennis expert (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks. I'll probably just go ahead with the subpage idea - it seems the best way not to lose anything. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seems sorta pointless, doesn't it? All you'd be doing is moving evidence from one place to another, probably to the inconvenience of the arbitrators. But it's not my call.... Tennis expert (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - it's just common practice to keep the page in order. Cheers for your cooperation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Davenport Article

Thanks for the heads-up! Totally didn't catch that it was a blog. Good catch. Appreciate it. Alonsornunez (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Korlzor

Hi, having been directly insulted, and having seen some of my edits reverted without any explanation by Korlzor and his sockpuppets in the past, I've been wondering if there is a way to block him definitively. Wasn't this investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor/Archive) precisely started to do that ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was blocked indefinitely not only for unconstructive edits and incivility, but for rampant vandalism. The problem now is that administrators are unwilling to do IP range blocks, the only effective way to keep him off Wikipedia, because those blocks could prevent innocent bystanders from editing Wikipedia. But I definitely sympathize with you because he is an ongoing, very serious problem. Tennis expert (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I don't think Korlzor is always intentionally disruptive, but he seems to believe he owns wikipedia and his opinion counts more than anyone else's, and it's practically impossible to engage a constructive discussion with him. Anyway, you know that as well as I do. Sad nothing can be done. Cheers. --Don Lope (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For several days after he was intentionally blocked, he made it his life's mission to revert every one of my edits in every article I touched. That was the worst kind of vandalism. Several editors and myself spent a lot of time undoing the damage he inflicted on Wikipedia. So, yeah, I believe he is often intentionally disruptive, as his self-admitted policy of ignoring his block proves. Tennis expert (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi ! I just wanted to let you know that I believe Korlzor has created a new sockpuppet account : User:Tell me whai/User talk:Tell me whai. This account was created today to revert one of my edits that Korzlor had previously tried to revert through different IP sockpuppets. --Don Lope (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kerry Reid

Hiya! Just wondering if you know why the article for Kerry Reid shows her as having won 2 women's doubles titles at the Australian Open/Championships, but the WTA website only shows her as having only 1 title there? I'm confused^^ (P.S. I tried to link directly to her Australian Open results, but it wouldn't let me.) Thanks! Maedin\^talk 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the finals was rained out, resulting in the title being shared. But some sources (apparently including the WTA) claim that no one won the title that year. Tennis expert (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you. Maedin\^talk 10:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

That's completely wrong. I'm unlogged user Taraborn. --62.57.238.224 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The tags were accurate at the time they were placed. IP addresses can be used by more than one user. Tennis expert (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep accusing me of sockpuppetry such as "2008 Masters France - Draw: edits by 03md and 92.4.76.105 within 3 minutes of each other on February 2, 2009" - the first edit was when I was not logged in. User:Alonsonunez is nothing to do with me, and nor are User:Musiclover and User:Whitenoise123 03md (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We shall see what checkuser says, won't we? It is highly likely that you are a sockpuppet of Musiclover565 and Whitenoise123 given the IP and other evidence. Tennis expert (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never used those accounts. Why do you have to persist with these claims? 03md (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say to you on this subject. Now, go away. Tennis expert (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SPI

 Clerk note:

I am handling the report that you filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalkman, which had been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor

When dealing with sockpuppetry, could I please ask that you adhere to the following;

• Please file reports under the name of the MASTER account, rather than the name of the latest suspected sock.
• Please do not add multiple {{sockpuppet}} templates as you did here. There can only be one master account, and adding multiple templates is just creating WP:DRAMA
• Indeed, unless you have actually filed an SPI case, you should not add even one such template, and the current concensus is that it is better to leave tagging until the relationship is confirmed.

Mayalld (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one determine which is the "MASTER account"? First in time? "Korlzor" was not the first registered account used by this problematic user. "Wikitestor" was. So, you apparently have moved my request to the wrong place. As for sockpuppet templates, please cite the Wikipedia policy where the use of them is restricted in the manner you suggested. The template itself says that "an editor has expressed concern" and there are other templates for "confirmed" sockpuppetry. So, I will continue to use the templates in the manner I have already used them unless you can show good reason not to, especially given that several previous checkusers have been completed for Wikitestor/Korlzor/et al. Tennis expert (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello accuser!

I am sorry to have to do this, but I am going to have to turn you into a wikipedia admin for fraudulent taking IP address that crutique your edits and attributing them to me as a sockpuppet and you know this is false! Get Over It! I want you to be blocked from editing on my user accounts and talk pages for a period of three months! I am no sockpuppet, which you are trying to create fraudulent evidence to do this and that is sad because I have never done that to someone else! _BLuE^DOgTn 04:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. But you cannot delete or edit an editor's post on a discussion page that belongs to a registered or IP user unless you are the owner of that page. You've claimed various registered accounts as your own and tagged them accordingly. The problem, however, is that you are editing the discussion pages of IP addresses that have no apparent link to you. So, stop doing that. Very simple concept, actually. Tennis expert (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 *Poof*. You're an admin.

Sorry, but the combination of the grammatical problem and the confused comment about the editor changing others' comments without actually claiming to be them was too great to ignore. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence

Could you please shorten the headings under your evidence section? I only ask because they are messing up the table of contents at the top of the page. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Tennis expert (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

About the article of Svetlana Kuznetsova

What's the means of "rv no context edit"? Kuznetsova as same as Kuznetsov in Slav!--Pierce (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that. However, the sentence you're adding has no context. It's just "out there" by itself. Plus, there's no need to list all the people in the world named Kuznetsov or Kuznetsova who are unrelated to her. Tennis expert (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline boxes

Hey, Tennis Expert, are we including Fed and Hopman Cup matches in the W/L rows of the Singles/Doubles/Mixed performance timeline boxes? Ordinary Person (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the Women's Tennis Association, Fed Cup but not Hopman Cup matches are included. Tennis expert (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.58.107.95.190 (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC) That was me, I forgot to sign in ... Ordinary Person (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiliams Sister rivalry

Just wondering if you could stop by the Talk page and make some more concrete suggestions or direct criticisms to help clarify the tags. Thanks AlonsornunezComments 05:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already given you the information about how to improve the article. Whether you will accept the changes and stop edit warring them into oblivion is not within my power to decide. Tennis expert (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WTA rankings problem?

Maybe you can help me with this rankings issue. Yayuk Basuki reached the quarterfinals of the Australian Open doubles in 1999, and her WTA profile's Activity Sheet indicates that she received 150 points for this. This was the only professional doubles tournament she appeared in that year. Basuki doesn't appear in the WTA's doubles rankings for that year: http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/global/Pdfs/rankings/pastyears/Doubles_Numeric_1999.pdf 150 points would see her placed around 168th. An obvious explanation is that a WTA official messed up somewhere, but I just wanted to ask you whether there is actually some logical reason unknown to me for her absence from the list. I thank you in advance for your assistance.Ordinary Person (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The probable reason is that the WTA required a player to compete in a specified minimum number of tournaments before being eligible for a ranking. Tennis expert (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stuff and all

Hey TE. It's been a long while since we "interacted". Things have moved on, and I've had time to reflect on the various discussions we've had in the past. One thing that has stood out in my mind was your statement that I'd never apologised to you. Well, re-reading all the 'evidence' you provided in the date delinking case, I found myself feeling pretty grotty about a few of the things I'd written and so I wanted to take a chance to say that I most certainly do apologise for the things I said which were out of line. I know we have (very) different views on a few things here, and most of the debates we had were over content, but ultimately I think we both want the best for tennis articles. As someone said in the 'Evidence' page, we had many disagreements which really were just that, things that we couldn't agree on. It seems appropriate for us to agree to disagree if necessary, but I wanted to make an attempt to clear the air. I'm hoping this means we can move on and, perhaps, do what I've always wanted, i.e. get some tennis articles up and promoted to GA or FA. In any case, I'm hoping this olive branch goes some way to restoring your faith in me. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)