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 but not limited to 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 discussions before 2008

My point

Actually, I went to look for citations myself, thinking that might be the better solution to this issue and, while I could find bits and pieces of it verified, I didn't see any one long reference that covered everything that I could have just tacked on to the article as "references" (I didn't look that hard admittedly, but still). I may have misspoke when I said that it needed to be cited, but it certainly needs references. After all, adding a reference for something can't be a detriment to an article, right?

If one checks my log, I've only warned four individuals that a block was imminent (yourself included) and blocked only two since I've become an admin, one of whom was a vandal-only account that was later blocked indefinitely (not counting admin training of course). In a case where WP:BLP replies, and the individual is not making any attempt to discuss the issue (commenting only in edit summaries, which cannot be directly replied to, removing messages left on talk pages), then I feel the warning of a block is appropriate. Note that above my comment in my RfA, when asked why I needed the admin tools, I responded that I wanted to use them for Protecting the biographies of living people, which I feel I was doing in this case (the policy also applies in cases of "possibly living people"). If this discussion had been had before, the whole message could have been avoided, but instead you chose to revert without discussion and revert my attempts on your talk page to discuss the issue. I would have even been happy to add the reference(s) myself if you had pointed them out. If the information is so easy to obtain, then that's the best argument I've heard for referencing something. WP:IAR only applies when it improves the project - I don't see how less referencing can achieve that end. If anything, WP:IAR applies in the sense of avoiding the exact wording of the policies that you pulled apart. My interpretation is not erroneous, just not to the letter - I think it can be agreed that when an article is without references, that it is unreferenced, hence the tag. Cheers, CP 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even quite sure how to respond to an argument that boils down to "the best way for a limited number of tennis article editors is to not reference them." I'm not asking for a citation for every fact, but certainly a general reference for her accomplishments could be provided? And quite frankly, WP:PROVEIT outright states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So it's not my job to find references for all the articles that people couldn't be bothered to reference, despite the fact that in 99% of cases they must have been looking at some source (ie. A reference) to make sure that they got the information right in the first place. If anything, my job is to remove all of the material. Let's not forget that uncited or poorly material may be removed at any time. In fact, Jimbo himself says: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." So this doesn't fall under the scope of "negative information about living persons", but it is certainly within the aegis of "all information. So yes, I do tag all of the unreferenced articles that I encounter with an unreferenced tag, because I'm ignoring all rules. If I were to follow WP:V to a tee, which says that verifiability, not truth, is the core of Wikipedia, then I would just go and delete all of the information, thus depriving people of it, which, as far as I'm concerned, is against the improvement of the project, hence WP:IAR. But those knowledge-thirsty people who read the articles have a right to know that the article is unreferenced as well, and those who task themselves in referencing articles have an equal right to know where their talents would be best used.

And when you delete someone's message without responding to them, then do the exact opposite of the point that was made without discussing it, then the message IS message ignored, whether you believe it or not. Cheers, CP 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Federer records page

Tennis expert,

please do not start edit wars. Take a look at the edit I made in detail and if you feel a need and have a good reason to restore it back, talk about it in the discussion. I know you think, at least from your name, that you are an expert on tennis, but you can't just undo people's edits. You only do that to vandalisms. Many of those "records" are comparisons to other players or the women, which is really for a blog, not wikipedia. And others are redundant, and already mentioned basically in the same article here. So be careful about simply undoing for whatever reason, even if you put those records there in the first place. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

well for one, the part that says he was in the finals of all four slams two consecutive years.

and dude seriously, you cannot undo my whole edit! you are starting a revert war, and this is unacceptable. if you don't think parts of the edit are correct, you go and fix those, not undo the whole edit. Also, you cannot just pick and choose random trivia numbers as records. Some of these are basically made up facts: they are facts that happen to be interesting, but there is a difference between a fact and record. If you want to talk about Federer's greatness, make a blog. But don't just put any statement that sounds interesting that Federer has done. You have to be mature about this. I worked for like half an hour editing this, and you just undid it without even seeing each edit I made. Some places, it is mentioned that he broke the record, but it doesn't need to say the previous record was: - this is why it's a record, nor does it need to say held by - once again, it's his record now. Let's leave that to the blogs. For crying out loud, you even undid my correction of a typo. Do you understand? I can't emphasize enough that you cannot just undo someone's edits because you think the first part of it is wrong or something. You need to take care with the article and find the parts that need to be fixed in your judgment. If that means typing the paragraph again, or copy and pasting from the previous edit, that's what you have to do. You don't just undo it. That's for vandalism. Do not start revert wars - it's against policy. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You also don't want overshadow the accomplishments of other great players with Federer's success. you seriously need to be careful about making this article a blog. It's fine to show his excellence, but you have to be careful - encyclopedic. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I just undid your edit, and put back a few notable things I'd taken out before. Remember this article is not your property. Don't go and undo the whole thing again. I took out redundant records, fixed a few typos, moved a factual reference, and combined two. thank you ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you are talking to me about good faith clauses. You undid an edit of mine that had within it 5 corrections of bad typos, among other things. and you did it twice fold. I was just saying that there are other ways to fix an edit, especially a large one. I called you on having ownership of the article simply because of the undoing of a large edit that had very much improving parts in it. Other parts you didn't agree with you could put those back in yourself. But to undo the whole edit is what was the problem. That's what I am saying. If you want to have the last word on it for whatever reason, that's fine. But I'm saying you cannot just undo an edit you haven't reviewed in full, or else you'd see there are pertinent parts to it. If you want to do that, go ahead, but make sure to re-correct the typos the previous editor had fixed, at least. Does that make sense? You don't need to argue with me, this is getting old. I hope you even read what I am writing rather than just responding. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont understand whats wrong with exactly 11, since fed and nadal streak began at french open 2005 and ended at us open 2007, so exactly 11 consecutive Grand Slams won by only these two in this period and nobody else, as 2005 AO was won by Safin and 2008 AO was won by Djokovic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhan100 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How would a reader know that no other pair in tennis history won 11, 12, 13, etc.? You know it. I know it. But we're not writing just for you and me. By the way, please SIGN your posts on my talk page! Tennis expert (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Martina Hingis

A class is reserved for articles that have passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status. You can find more information here BanRay 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please leave me a message the next time you revert my edit BanRay 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Navratilova?

Hi Tennis Expert,

I just saw a revert on federer's records page about navratilova. I've always been curious about this 1984 Australian Open result. Why doesn't it "count"? It seemed unfair to Navratilova I thought to not include it just because it was at a different time of the previous year. Can you shed some light on it? My understanding was that that AO was the 1985 one, but held at the end of 1984 that time. I may be incorrect. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

very interesting... Thanks for the info ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova

Chill mate, I was, in fact, reverting the previous edit done from an anonymous IP, using Twinkle, assuming the user was vandalizing the article. Since your edit came at almost exactly the same time, twinkle reverted it as well. As soon as I reloaded the history page and realized there was your edit in between, I restored the previous version. Now as for my request, it is a common practice on here, so I'm surprised my comment offended you. BanRay 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh believe me I will, I always do, unless I'm reverting vandalism. The fact that you've never heard of this before is irrelevant though. BanRay 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova's Australian Qualifiers

Ahh.... I see. Thanks for noting that. I will check now then to make sure all the math is right, because before it had 6 extra wins on the first year, which was wrong, just 3 I guess. Keep it up and always be friendly (nothing to do with you :) ) ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa!, I'll add that in hidden text so no one edits that. You do your research well lol. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova again

Please read my last comment on the talk page, we can't leave it that way. BanRay 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP

Thanks, but I know the rules. BanRay 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic

This Montenegrin-emigration website about Montenegrins in Belgrade: http://www.montenegro-canada.com/articles/article/4428701/74863.htm

Btw she is of the Ivanovics from Doljani a suburb of the Montenegrin Podgorica. During the referendum hers sided with the Bloc for common state with Serbia, which resulted eventually in ending the pleas for her playing for Montenegro and under its flag as well. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Article

Excuse me they are called "Ball Kids" that is how they refer to them on the TV - and that comment saying "I don't know much about tennis" is extremely harsh and rude. Especially when I was only trying to help. Your comments please. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

They are called ball boys, ball girls, and (rarely) ball kids. You have changed and reverted the tennis article over-and-over, despite being told that the article was correct as it was originally. That's not being helpful, and basing an edit on your casual watching of television isn't helpful, either. The article is well established and often edited. If "ball girl" were incorrect, something as obvious as that would have been changed long ago. Tennis expert (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ivanovic timeline

Sorry for messing it up, I use the WTA wesbite as my definitive source on these things and they haven't included it (I was vaguely aware that she'd played a few Fed Cup ties). I assumed the 3 wins on carpet were from an exhibition or something of that nature and had been added by an over-zealous fan - players such as Ivanovic and Sharapova are prone to having things like that done, it goes hand-in-hand with referring to the players by their first names. There's a tendency for these articles to descend in to fan pages or go above and beyond what is required, so I apologize, that's all I thought it was. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I agree totally with your sentiments about these articles becoming fan pages. Some of the pages for lesser known/current players are especially bad, but I don't have the time or energy to revise and monitor them. I'm concentrating on retired female players and a few well known current players. Best wishes! Tennis expert (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons in tennis article results tables

Excuse me, but you continue to change the work I have done. By having the flags, it makes that column more uniform, instead of writing the state and country each tournament is held in. If you click on the tournament, you can find out all that information. You mentioned the issue with color-blind people, but you can always roll across the flag, and I don't think we should change our entire articles for that. Tennisace101 (talk) 23 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me: (1) Neither the articles nor your contributions are "yours." See WP:OWN. (2) The way you are using the flag icons is inconsistent with the vast majority of tennis articles on Wikipedia. You have not attempted to obtain consensus. (3) Your insensitivity to color-blind people is truly and remarkably disturbing. (4) I suggest that you read carefully WP:FLAG. Tennis expert (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I never said the articles were mine. I was merely commenting on the work I had done. As I have seen up top, I am not the only one who has had a difference of opinions with you. If you want it your way, fine. Write the county the tournament was in for all I care. I thought that when it said, "flag of brazil", people would realize that the tournament was in Brazil, but I guess there are a lot of dumb people in the world and need it spelled out for them. I appreciate your work. Tennisace101 (talk) 24 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Protection request

Hey there, nice to meet you! The reason I declined the request for Rod Laver is because it hasn't been disrupted that much in the last few days. The one problematic editor has been warned; try taking the dispute to the talk page in the meantime. Protection shouldn't be used when there's only one editor pushing a POV. If you have consensus to keep the page this way and he keeps pushing, then I'll block a bit for disruption. We'll see what he does now that he's been warned. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 13:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While concerning, still not bad enough to protect; there's only one editor. I've dropped him another warning; honestly, however, I don't see what's so bad about his edits. They seem fine. Of course, I have no idea about the subject of the article, and he isn't citing sources, but he seems to be editing in good faith. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is uncivil. If he keeps ignoring requests, I'll block. Also, if you think he's a sockpuppet, check out WP:SSP if your concerns are strong. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll semiprotect for one week and we'll see how that works. You're right about the dynamic IP address. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just don't forget that you now owe me money. Just kidding, just kidding. Also, feel free to notify me if these suspected socks act up again. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Martina Hingis

Per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates, stand-alone years should generally not be linked. You said "Our practice in tennis articles is to link the years." Can I see some sort of a talk page or a Wikipedia article where I can see this consensus? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary read like an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Linking stand-alone years is considered overlinking. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is hundreds of Wikipedia tennis articles. I suggest you have a look at them. WP:CONTEXT is a guideline, not policy. "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Tennis expert (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A consensus is a general agreement. Wikipedia manual of style is indeed a consensus according to what you have quoted. Does de-linking the years defy common sense? Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And guess what, a majority of tennis-related articles don't have the sources that match the size of the articles. You can call that a consensus because a majority of editors, no doubt, added little sources to tennis-related articles. The practice in tennis articles must be to add minimal amount of sources. This is not the meaning of a consensus. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

De-linking the years "defies common sense" (your standard, not mine) in this context because it goes against the consensus of the editors of tennis-related articles. The sourcing requirement is a "policy," (WP:V) not a "guideline." Sorry you don't see the difference. Tennis expert (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So where is the consensus? Guideline or policy, those who have edited tennis-related articles obviously decided to add minimal number of sources, right? Seriously, where is the consensus. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you any further about this because you're changing the subject. Editors cannot arrive at a consensus for something that violates applicable "policy" without first changing the policy, unless the "ignore all rules" policy (WP:IAR) somehow applies. Yes, tennis articles are seriously under-sourced. You and I have no disagreement about that. Tennis expert (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument would have been compelling if there was actually a consensus. Flashing other articles that do not follow the Wikipedia guideline does not seem like a strong argument. I will offer you a equally weak evidence; I have never seen an editor who edits tennis-related articles and argues against following a Wikipedia guideline.

It is not just guidelines that should be approached with common sense. The same rule of thumb is also applied to Wikipedia policies. The articles that have little sources must have been approached with common sense too. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to argue with me any further, that's fine. I see that you will not be convinced by those mere guidelines that I have cited. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you aren't pleased with all those guidelines that I have cited, may I present you with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. And yes, rules refer to policies and guidelines. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which way do you want the links?

I've noticed that everytime I put in links to things at Tennis Statistics you change them... and you are not consistant in how you change them. What is your vision in how "not losing a set" should look, because it may be different than mine. I first linked all the slams to their home site, you changed it to the first time mentioned. Fine. I added a first time mention block of names and you re-add the slam home link to all of them. You then add a link to Borg's wimbledon '76 home site but unlike the other players you don't link it to Borg's home "draw" page. This is wacky confusing. All I want is consistancy in a framework and though you thankfully correct my many errors you are also adding inconsistancies. By the way I still think the Moody Brinker addition is wrong since Brinker not used in any other stat page or encyclopedia. It's one thing to add a married name while a player is active... it's quite another to add it when a player gets married long after she retires. Are we gonna do the same for Chis Evert Norman? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I change your edits just to torment you.... Nah, seriously, nothing should be linked more than once within a section of an article. Other tennis editors seem to like links to the draws of each Grand Slam tournament, where available. All I've done is tried to accomodate their preference (not mine). I don't know what you mean by "Borg's home 'draw' page." Tennis expert (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you goto the Borg 76 Wimbledon link you can see the entire draw... it's not just the Wimbledon 76 page (which exists). On either side of that link you have Nastase 73 French and Borg 78 French. Those links do not link to a draw page but the main 73 and 78 pages. The draw pages exist but the links don't go there. Which should it be? My personal choice is not to link to the date at all because I would have it just the player's name and then all slams he/she won with no set lost. I'm about to add another 30-50 ladies to their list and it's getting rather big with the same names listed over and over again. Or maybe the men can have it your way and the ladies, because it's nothing special for them, should have a name listed once and then the events she performed the surgery. Just my two cents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Lendl

Please may I ask why you undid my change? It is trivia after all. Sandman30s (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit added uncited information and had unencyclopedic commentary. Tennis expert (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was cited - I cited wikipedia's own tennis statistics page. Sandman30s (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia is not a valid citation. Tennis expert (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Baker Fleitz

It is Wikicivility to leave a message on the editor's talk page when an article is reverted for a reason other than vandalism. I would appreciate it if you would do that. As stated in the Edit summary, the edits were to improve the article by removing repetitive grammar. Virtually every sentence starts "Fleitz (verb) ...", which violates basic writing principles taught in elementary school. I understand your comment about a list. Perhaps we can discuss this and reach a compromise somewhere between a list and repetitive grammar? I am watching your talk page so please feel free to reply here. Truthanado (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article as it was written before your edits, but I have no problem with your revising it so long as the article is not transformed into a list. I'll take a look at what you do. Sorry, I don't notify people when I revert their edits. That's the purpose of watch lists. Tennis expert (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article reads much more smoothly with the recent edits. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

SI templates

I need some feed back on the templates. Did you remove them because you don't like them or because they are trivial to her career?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your template is a massive addition (aesthetically) to an article about a professional tennis player. At most, you should add a simple "see also." Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In your browser was it showing in collapsed form?. It is suppose to, which may be the problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

About the Sony Ericsson Open

The Sony Ericsson Open is just the sponsored name! The official name is the Miami Masters. If you do your research you will find out that a few years back the Miami Masters was called the Nasdaq 100 Open. Sony Ericsson is just the current sponsor and has a contract that runs thru 2010 or 2011, not sure when exactly. And although the tounrmanet takes place at Crandon Park in Key Biscayne the WTA consider this a tournament that takes place in Miami and that's how they state it in all of their official media information. If you don't believe me just go to their site and read it for yourself.

Here's the proof: WTA Tornament Schedule: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.76.226 (talk) 11:40, March 18, 2008 (UTC)

The official name is the Sony Ericsson Open. The name of the Wikipedia article is Miami Masters. And the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. Those are the (inconvenient to you, apparently) facts. Tennis expert (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The tournament does take place in Key Biscayne, I'm not disputing that, what I am saying is that the tournament for all WTA and media effects is promoted as being played in Miami and the tournament's OFFICIAL NAME is the Miami Masters because it is part of the Masters Tournament Series and a Tier I event of the WTA tour. The Sony Ericsson name is just the current sponsored name just as a few years back it was called the Nasdaq 100 Open. I will contact the press office of the tournament for you if you need any more proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.76.226 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go contact the press office. Maybe they can teach you how to sign your comments, too. Tennis expert (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think, I just want the location of the tournament corrected thru wikipedia. But just for fun I will contact the press office, I happen to know someone there. What will it take to convince you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.76.226 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ana Ivanović

Please do not enter current status at the end of current 2008 section. It is sufficient only to enter information after a tournament is complete. Please remember that we are not posting news events here. These topics are more relevant at Wikinews. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You should bring this up in the article discussion page. I'm not the one adding the information. I merely reverted your unexplained deletion of it. Established editors seem to prefer that the information be in the article. Tennis expert (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hullo

Hey there. I dropped a warning here; hopefully that sends the message. If he makes any more uncivil comments, please drop by again and I'll deal with it. Oh, and thank you for keeping your cool through this situation; that's very admirable of you. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From Dorftrottel's talk page: Two threads he deleted

The following are two threads from Dorfrottel's talk page that he deleted ([2] [3]) in May 2008 but that should be preserved to illustrate his practice of repeatedly being incivil and harrassing and then trying to cover his tracks by erasing the evidence. Tennis expert (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Quit deleting blank spaces in a section header on my discussion page"

You've done it four times: 1, 2, 3, 4. Vandalism of my discussion page is neither welcome nor clever. See, among other things, WP:HUSH. Tennis expert (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Acquaint yourself with what vandalism is and what vandalism is not. Dorftrottel (canvass) 05:56, May 2, 2008

I just saw your self-admission that you were Kncyu38. (Note to self: page down on user pages from now on.) In my opinion, that explains a lot. See, e.g., this and this. Tennis expert (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Amusing edit summary"

[4] this is a rather amusing edit summary, especially when one compares block logs my dear Dorfy. All this for some formatting? Come on...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting? It's a 'nil edit note' to one substandard editor who aggressively assumes ownership of many articles under a doubtful username... and don't call me Dorfy, Casi... Dorftrottel (criticise) 23:26, May 3, 2008

Hmmm....depends if one has a sense of humour on how one interprets the word 'expert' really. And what is a 'nil edit note' then? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Substandard" editor who "aggressively assumes ownership of many articles," huh. That's totally incivil and ironic coming from someone who's had ... how many is it? ... several user names, vandalized several articles, been blocked for doing so, and then intentionally evaded those blocks through anonymous IP accounts and sockpuppetry. Notice how Dorftrottel deleted the section entitled "Quit deleting blank spaces in a section header on my discussion page," which can be found here. Tennis expert (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was bemused by that as well. Ah well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have the diffs to prove it. Dorftrottel (bait) 08:23, May 4, 2008

Now I am confused - prove what? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

substandard editor who aggressively assumes ownership of many articles Dorftrottel (warn) 08:36, May 4, 2008

I'm all ears (or eyes or whatever). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm stepping outside for a while. Later. Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:43, May 4, 2008

Monica Seles

As I told Squash, I have no interest in the actual dispute itself. Just some advice on how to deal with situations like that in the future. Like I told him, an comment that says "Look, we know a bunch of random blogs think she's received some secret Hungarian citizenship that her government would publish loudly but hasn't oddly enough but we've discussed it and haven't put it in so go to the talk page and discuss it first or you'll be reverted" would lead to less drama (even if it sounds like there's plenty there). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Award!

		The Slovak Ribbon of National Merit
		For Your work on Daniela Hantuchova and other tennis players I hereby award you the Slovak Ribbon of National Merit. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeffreyneave

Ugh. Now he's abandoned his main account and is using multiple IPs, some of which appear to be used my many people and which I can't block just because he's using them... this could be problematic. I may have to contact the service providers themselves and see what I can do. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Those IPs are used by many people, though, it seems. As in, they're shared (for example, an IP that goes to a public library). Blocking them would cause collateral damage. I could block his main but there are no guarantees he won't just create more... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:02, 27 May 2008 (

The conspiracy between maters of puppets and tennis expert is outrageoues. stop conspiring a behind my back gainst me. all this obsession with sockpuppets is demeaning of you two. Whether a person signs in is irrelevant.German friend never signs it and nobody is threatening him. Its quite clear who I am each time I edit and tennis expert knows it; there is no secrecy about my edits; its just a mater of lazinees; most of the time I just can't be bothered to sign in; there is no law which says you have to. Freedom is everything and worrying about sockpuupets is very very petty. jeffreyneave 26 june 2008

And just who exactly are you,[5] Jeffreyneave (talk · contribs)? Are you the same as FreepRipper (talk · contribs) and Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs)? --Elonka 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeffreyneave is an editor who has been problematic in the past because of, among many other reasons, incivility. He either uses his registered account or any number of self-admitted anonymous IP sockpuppets (self-admitted because, to his credit, he frequently signs his name). For some indication of his incivility and the problems that another administrator has had to deal with, see this and this. I have no personal knowledge about whether Jeffreyneave is a sockpuppet of FreepRipper or Fyunck. My guess is that he is not. By the way, Jeffreyneave was temporarily blocked once in the past, but the block apparently did not motivate him to be more constructive. Tennis expert (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Has a report ever been filed at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU? If not, you might want to consider doing that, as it would be a handy way to keep all the names/IDs in one place, and then there could be a formal determination about what to do (such as requiring that Neave only log in with one named account). --Elonka 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Ágnes Szávay has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.
This is NOT vandalism, read WP:VAN. BTW what about this, this or this one? Is there a concensus or not? Squash Racket (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus. See the user Redux, the information on his discussion page, and his contributions about this subject. But only an administrator can fix the names of those articles now. And yes, the Agnes Szavay edit was vandalism. The article was renamed in accordance with consensus. Then, an anonymous IP account attempted to undo that renaming through an edit of redirects. (By the way, don't template the regulars.) Tennis expert (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit would NOT constitute vandalism, even if there was a concensus. You edited articles today that are similarly under names with diacritics (like here or here and also here), but I see no page moves... Some explanation? Squash Racket (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited the content of articles to conform them with English-language naming conventions and in accordance with the already discussed consensus and the agreed upon procedures before these changes began. I have never moved, i.e., renamed, an article using redirects. That is not the proper way to do it. I am unable to fix the names of the articles you listed because, as I already said, only administrators can do that now. Tennis expert (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a debate among administrators about the proper name usage and I also see some moves and reverts, we can't talk about real concensus. I see that you are editing a lot of tennis articles, an administrator asked me to use templates if I see wrong edit summaries, that doesn't mean I don't value your overall contributions.
That IP was simply stunned by the Anglicised name, that wasn't even a bad faith edit. Squash Racket (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As with many established editors, I do not appreciate being templated. As to whether there is consensus on English-language usage, I suggest you contact Redux directly about that and make whatever arguments you deem appropriate. Tennis expert (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbian names

First of all, all Serbs in this encyclopedia are listes whit original names whit Serbian latin letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž. There is no reason that tennis players be exeption. If you want double standards, that's your problem. --Pockey (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And why you think Pašanski (Пашански) must be Pashanski ("Пасхански"?)? That is absolutely illiterately. Learn basics of Serbian language if you want to play whit those names. Thanks. --Pockey (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of what you or I think, as that would be unacceptable original research. Instead, tennis names in Wikipedia are based on reliable sources such as the Association of Tennis Professionals. Tennis expert (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much for your comment on Admin board. This discussion deserve that. You are right about ATP, and that is case whit several other international institutions like FIFA. So, tell me, do you think all Polish, Croatian of Serbian people must be listed whitout those letters? For example Slaven Bilić is lliterately whit ć, but on FIFA site he is Bilic. You must rename all, not only tennis articles on Wikipedia, because tennis isn't ultra-extra topic. --Pockey (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! As I said before, this is not about what "I think." This is about Wikipedia policy. Tennis expert (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova intro

Let's face it. Sharapova's looks are a big part of her fame. She wouldn't get half the press or endorsements otherwise. Therefore, I believe it should be in the intro. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And your source for believing this is what? Tennis expert (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How much were Serena's endorsements when she was no. 1 by comparison? Anyway, I've added a toned-down, more integrated version to the intro. What do you think? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your intro is unsourced and needs to be deleted if it remains so. Tennis expert (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass page moves

Please stop. I do not see any real consensus. Diacritics or no diacritics is WP-wide issue and a single project should not carve out exceptions for itself. Please comment on WP:ANI. Renata (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I already have commented there. You really should take up this issue with bureaucrat Redux directly. He initiated these changes. Therefore, my talk page is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. Tennis expert (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have created a lot of work for administrators on this project. Further disruptive page moves of this nature will result in a block. Bureaucrats, by the way, get no special treatment - they are still bound by WP:CON, WP:DE and other processes. Orderinchaos 08:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I've done no such thing. (2) The page moves are not disruptive. (3) I suggest you talk with Redux directly about this matter or participate in the discussions here, here, or here. My discussion page is not the appropriate venue. Tennis expert (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am entitled to question any action by any editor, as a member of the community, and likewise, I am entitled as an administrator to advise that such conduct may get one blocked. By taking the actions, you took responsibility for them. Orderinchaos 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But when you use your administrative powers to threaten a block and impune the good faith of an editor because you personally disagree with those edits, that's a big problem. Every editor takes responsibility for everything they do. That's the way Wikipedia works. Tennis expert (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose conduct which amounts to trying to get one up in a long standing dispute by sheer brute force. I've been following this one on and off at various venues for over seven months and long ago came to the conclusion that consensus between two diametrically opposed sides is impossible, and that the policy claims being made by one of the sides in the struggle are unmerited. I have no opinion on any other edits. Orderinchaos 09:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should assume a little more good faith on my part. I had no knowledge of any longstanding disputes on this subject. The first time I became aware of the issue was when Redux began the discussion. I had long accepted and faithfully used diacritics and other non-English punctuation because I had assumed that using them was the way things should be done. But Redux provided convincing evidence to me (directly and indirectly through a dialogue between Redux and an administrator) that my assumption was incorrect. When he closed the discussion about renaming tennis articles and said to proceed and said exactly HOW to proceed, I simply implemented the decision - to the letter. Every single renaming I have done has been in accordance with the Association of Tennis Professionals or Women's Tennis Association websites. Nothing I have done is more diabolical than that. I'm sorry that you seem to be projecting onto me the bad experiences you have had in the past on this issue. But I had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with them. Tennis expert (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not personally had bad experiences on the topic - I'm a white English native speaker from Australia. However, the general consensus on Wikipedia allows for diacritics, and there is no clear reason why tennis should be an exception from this. A long and bitter battle that almost went to Arbcom twice was fought over Novak Ðoković, and there's been similar disputes elsewhere. I apologise for my earlier remarks if you were unaware of these, but please be aware this is a VERY contentious subject and likely to end up at ArbCom if it stands, as a surprising number of people who speak English are non-native speakers and take great offence at what they see as a form of English language imperialism. You're going to actually need to get the policy changed Wikipedia-wide to have any real hope of getting this through, and that will involve dealing with the geographic people amongst others. Orderinchaos 09:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And the bottom line was that the Djokovic article was renamed. Who said that was a wrong decision? Have you read Redux's arguments about renaming tennis articles? If not, I recommend you do so. You really should have assumed that I was unaware of these disputes elsewhere until you knew otherwise. That is part-and-parcel of assuming good faith. Threatening me in your initial message was not justified. Tennis expert (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was renamed despite a discussion taking place at the time, and in the absence of numerous interested editors who had been part of the original discussion three months earlier. I do apologise for not assuming good faith, I had assumed you were aware of the Novak dispute (which received a high level of prominence) and there were about three or four very, very determined anti-diacritic editors the first time it went through. On that basis, the threat to block would have been justified - I accept now that it is not. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of people undertaking massive changes which may be controversial to do their research and find out if the latest discussion is not the only discussion - surely you can understand that a lot of people would see it as very ethnocentric and be, at a very deep level, upset by it. Orderinchaos 09:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"It was renamed despite a discussion taking place at the time, and in the absence of numerous interested editors who had been part of the original discussion three months earlier." That is not entirely accurate. Most of the people opposing the move to English spelling were not tennis editors at all, but Serbian editors summoned to the talk page by a few interested editors in order to build up the use of the "using English is imperialism" argument. Do you think I should rename the article on "Copenhagen" to "Kobenhavn", because the latter is correct and the former is English imperialism? --HJensen, talk 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless there's a unique English Wikipedia policy about geographic names, why not? Their argument is that the same policy should apply throughout English Wikipedia, i.e., tennis should not be an exception. That argument would seem to support Kobenhavn over Copenhagen (although I recall strong opposition somewhere to using Wien in lieu of Vienna). Tennis expert (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I rarely edited the Djokovic article and never participated in or even looked at its discussion page. I am primarily interested in retired tennis players, especially women. That's why I rarely touch current men players' articles. There was no other discussion on the tennis project page of renaming tennis articles. This was the first and only. I have no interest in the naming of other articles. Tennis takes 100 percent of my Wikipedia editing time as it is. And finally, if an editor can't trust a bureaucrat's decision, that's a very sad state of affairs. This is why I have over-and-over asked critics of the renaming to contact Redux directly. But not one has accepted my suggestion. Instead, everyone has piled on me, and Redux seems to be on vacation from Wikipedia. Not very fair, is it? Tennis expert (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to appreciate your situation a little more acutely. :/

As an aside - a bureaucrat is trusted with awarding adminship and a number of other technical tasks - no more, no less. I trust their judgement in their actual role, but when editing content they are just another editor, like yourself or myself or anyone else on Wikipedia in good standing. Bureaucrats also have no powers of resolution of a matter over and above any other editor. (Even arbitrators don't have primacy on content, incidentally.) Orderinchaos 09:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova page - performance timeline

Wouldnt you agree it looks abit scruffy having one column bigger than the other? I also think its fairly obvious what "NH" and "NT1" stand for (though a footnote could be added if you so wish). 92.5.60.67 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't agree. There are many articles just like the Sharapova article. Tennis expert (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have only seen a handful, and I intend to edit those, too. 92.5.60.67 (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A request

Hello. I'm one of the few who attempts to keep both WP:RM and CAT:RM clean on a regular basis and was wondering if you could do me a favor to make the job easier - if you add any additional requests to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis, could you add them to the list at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Tennis? Many thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there will be many more tennis renaming requests from me. Sorry, but I don't understand why you are maintaining a list on the discussion page when there's already the list on the project page. That's double work, in my opinion. Tennis expert (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping a separate alphabetical list so I can keep up my maintenance in CAT:RM. Otherwise, I don't have a quick reference for the names when I'm looking for incomplete noms. In other words, it's to prevent me from accidentally removing {{move}} from any of your proposed pages. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: would you be opposed to my adding a sortkey to the move template to sort all of these tennis players into one place in CAT:RM? JPG-GR (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question because I'm not sure what you're proposing. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

May you somehow capture in Steffi Graf's article that Monika Seles have won all Grand Slams but Wimbledon in 1991-93 (prior to the 1993 stabbing executed by the mad Steffi Graf's fan). And that is under question if Steffi would won any further Grand Slam, starting from 1993 (with exception of Wimbledon) if Monika was unhurt. It is important to mention Monika in Steffi's article, otherwise idea of mad Steffi's fan is still living (to get rid of Monika, so that Steffi can continue with winning). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.252.224 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't do that because it would be unencyclopedic speculation ("what woulda, coulda happened"). Tennis expert (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

list of tennis scores on userspace

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Tennis_scores#User:Tennis_scores. Please leave there a comment about this ANI thread since you dealed with Lman1987 and you would be able to recognize if it's him again or a different user --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up Marina Erakovic... I'm trying to keep it updated but don't know any of the general tennis article standards & preferred sentence structures, so I appreciate you coming in and fixing everything up :) Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)

I have fully protected Tennis performance timeline comparison (women). Please discuss the issue over the {{longish}} tag on the article's talk page. In the future, please do not blind revert another user. Go to their talk page or the article talk page and get a dialogue going. That's the only way we can get things done here peacefully. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your protection of this article is completely unwarranted, and your accusation that I have blindly reverted another user is laughable because it is totally unsupported by the facts. This "longish" issue already has been discussed. As I have said about 10 times already, the tag is not deserved because tables are not considered when determining whether an article is "too long." Without the tables, this article is far from meeting the criteria for the tag. Yet, this one user insists on putting the tag on the article because, according to him or her, even though the article does not meet the criteria, readers deserve to know that the article is long. That's completely ridiculous. By the way, I'm not going to discuss this again. If you want to protect the article until the end of recorded history, that will be your decision and responsibility. Tennis expert (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Tennis statistics. Please remember that when a dispute appears, it is essential to explain changes, preferably at the article's talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I note also that you appear to be adding information to the article, but without any kind of sources. I can understand the confusion here, since the article is badly in need of additional citations. However, in cases of an edit war, it is essential that Wikipedia's policies be followed, specifically that any information added, has a source which allows verification of that information. If you don't have a source, please don't add anything, and definitely don't edit war, otherwise you may risk having your account access blocked. Thanks, --Elonka 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See this and this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Maria Sharapova

I am engaged in discussion with User:92.3.138.123 regarding your recent edits. Your actions appear to be conducive to an WP:Edit war and additionally, you appear to be reverting to make a WP:POINT. Please try to achieve WP:Consensus through discussion or, failing that, arbitration rather than performing actions that might be perceived as needlessly WP:Disruptive. -Rushyo (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See this. Tennis expert (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the criticism was levelled, specifically, at not providing reasons for repeated edits. Although you seem to have given reasonable explanations, each issue is still up for debate and, with consensus, might be removed. Probably far more crucially your actions breach WP:3RR. Although I'm not at all inclined to report you, I'd like for you to familiarise yourself with that rule so you don't get into trouble in the future! Hopefully this should be the end of it anyway. Thanks for taking the time to justify your reverts! -Rushyo (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tossing in my own $0.02 here, I think that it would be helpful to focus on including more (and better) sources. For example, in this edit, I see that you (Tennis expert) included a claim in the lead that Sharapova was a "top 10" player.[6] However, the source was merely to Sharapova's official site, which is not an acceptable source for such a claim. See WP:SELFPUB. Better would be if you could come up with a more reliable source, and that would assist other editors in verifying the information that you wish to add. Hope that helps, Elonka 17:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You still don't understand. The reference to Sharapova being a top 10 player for a long time was added by someone else (not me) and then was deleted without explanation (advance or otherwise) by User:92.3.138.123. The Sharapova article has been a collaborative effort by countless editors and was in great shape until 92.3.138.123's unilateral edits (without any attempt to obtain consensus for those edits, even after two editors had objected). I merely reinstated the article to its former state. Saying that I am trying to add things is a gross misinterpretation of what's been happening. Tennis expert (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion, I am not trying to deliberately misinterpret anything. But let me point out how this is looking to an outside observer, such as an administrator. What some of us see, is editors such as you and the anon playing tug of war with the article. Both of you are accusing the other of disruptive behavior, and neither one of you seems to be including solid reliable sources with your changes. To put it another way: If another editor, even an anon, removes unsourced information, then they have Wikipedia policy on their side. In such cases, information should not be added back, unless it has a reliable source with it. Now, if an anon was removing sourced information, then that's a different story. But with unsourced information, the policy backs the remover, not the restorer. So the next time that you see information removed, don't just do a blanket revert. Instead, it would be better to try and restore just the sourced portions (which appears to be a very small percentage, so shouldn't be too difficult). Hope that helps, --Elonka 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As you should know by now, not everything in an article needs to be sourced. WP:CITE says that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." 92.3.138.123 has not challenged anything. He or she simply does not like the length of the article and just deleted stuff without explanation. But if you, as an administrator, are prepared to use your blocking powers to force us to include sources with everything that is restored to the article because of User:92.3.138.123's unjustified, unilateral removal of perfectly relevant information against consensus, then I will have nothing more to do with the Sharapova article. I have better things to do than deal with impossible situations and administrators. By the way, this article is regularly looked at by other administrators. They saw nothing wrong with it before 92.3.138.123 started chopping away. Tennis expert (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone removes information, that is a "challenge" to the information. However, if you wish to avoid the article, that is your choice. --Elonka 22:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are grossly mistaken (again). People have all kinds of motivations for removing information from an article, ranging the whole gamut from simply wanting to vandalize the article to eliminating libelous material. It's simply preposterous to assert that every removal of information is a "challenge" in the sense that word is used in WP:CITE. Tennis expert (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have been adding sources to the Sharapova article. This is a good thing, I encourage you to continue.  :) --Elonka 04:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, everything I did got reverted by the anonymous IP account 121.152.80.151. Actually, what that user did was revert the article to about 99 percent of the article's original state (before 92.3.138.123 started making wholesale changes). Ordinarily, I wouldn't object to that at all because I was very satisfied with the original version. However, given everything that's happened, I'm going to revert 121.152.80.151 so that the article goes back to the version that existed immediately before 121.152.80.151 began editing. How ironic.... Tennis expert (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Maria Sharapova

Thank you for your note. Sorry, I've been abroad and haven't had a chance to respond. The user is most likely a sock. You may either try to reach a consensus, or else I could take a more thorough look, prepare a report, get the user blocked (assuming he is indeed a sock puppet) and revert to the last stable version. I'd prefer the former though. Cheers! BanRay 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Tennis expert, I have blocked Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) for 24 hours, for blatant incivility. However, though he phrased things poorly, he does have a point in that your communication style could stand some improvement. I know that's it's frustrating to deal with vandalism and anons and sockpuppet accounts making unhelpful edits, but I would really appreciate if you could try harder to adapt to Wikipedia's civility policy in the future. Thanks, Elonka 22:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he or she doesn't have a "point" about my communication style. Tennis expert (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Certain turns of phrase that you use, which may appear to be perfectly justifiable from your point of view, could easily be construed as uncivil by others. For example, accusing people of "gross misinterpretation", saying someone is an "impossible administrator", or using edit summaries like this, referring to someone's "obsession".[7] These kinds of comments are not conducive to the civil and collegial attitude that we are trying to promote here, and I would ask you to please review WP:CIVIL, and reconsider your communication style, thanks. --Elonka 23:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You can differ with me all you want. I simply disagree with you; therefore, I am absolutely not going to "reconsider" my communication style. You should know that picking things I've said out-of-context is not the right way to go. As for the "obsession" comment, this particular user every year around Wimbledon attempts to delete the reference to "ball ... girls" for some incomprehensible gender sensitivity reason. This is an example of why taking things out-of-context is not right - you don't know the history. As for the impossible administrator comment, as you well know, there was an implied "if" there. You misinterpreted Wikipedia policy about sourcing and implied that every single fact added to an article must be sourced, even facts that have not been challenged. And then I said that if you are going to use your blocking powers to enforce this misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, then I will leave the Sharapova article alone because "I have better things to do than deal with impossible situations and administrators." Context is everything. Tennis expert (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

For Djokovic's page, you edited it to say that Wimbledon ended on July 6, 2008, but it hasn't ended yet. I know it seems like a minor point and that you probably did it for simplification purposes, but July 6 hasn't passed, so you shouldn't say that The Championships ended when they're only in the second round. 98.193.75.7 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

I would like to invit you to talk tennis warehouse. Regards. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

I've reported User:Musiclover565. Everyone familiar with the case is welcome to contribute. Cheers. BanRay 22:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, you got reported by Whitenoise123 at WP:AN/I. (They're actually meant to notify you, but failed to.) Looks like more heat than light but what I'd suggest is just state there what is disruptive about the other user's edit(s), so you aren't accused of being hostile for labelling them such in edit summaries. Orderinchaos 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Runner-ups?

Hi. Is "runner-ups" a recognised bit of jargon in the tennis world? Normally it's pluralised as "runners-up". Can you give me a ref? Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

According to English-language Wikipedia consensus for tennis articles, "runner-ups" is used when referring to a player's multiple second place finishes while "runners-up" refers to multiple players having been the second place finishers (as in a doubles team). Tennis expert (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts in defending wikipedia from trolls and sock puppets! BanRay 10:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you know what I'm talking about, take care! BanRay 10:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is stupid

Look, weve both taken this dispute to moronic levels tonight, and have destroyed the page really. Youve technically violated 3RR tonight (you re-adding the names of the tournaments constitutes a revert) and I was going to carry on being an ass by adding one of those pretentious warnings to this page, but then I realised how stupidly immature we were both being. And please lets not deny this - you knew I didnt like listing tournament names, so you took advantage of the fact I could not make any reverts, and I tried to get round that by not-so-subtly rephrasing it.

If we worked together, we could make this article very good. I am not suggesting we hold hands and sing songs; I am suggesting we BOTH stop playing games to try and get our own way, and when an issue arises, we both start coolly reaching a consensus each time rather than us both trying to force our way and no-one elses. That can start with the question of whether tournament names should be listed, if you wish.

I honestly believe that the combination of your hard work over time, as well as mine, and others, have made this article worthy of "Good article" status, and I was planning on submitting it for that tonight. Wouldnt you agree with this?

Please do not just remove this comment without response. This is a genuine olive branch (not some trick to try and prove to admins I have tried and failed to talk to you, a trick I have attempted in the past) and an acceptance on part that I have been very immature at times over the past few weeks, so lets try and move past this. Thanks. Whitenoise123 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) If you were truly trying to be cooperative, the first thing you would do is admit fully and without reservation to being a sockpuppet master as described here and then apologizing there, on your discussion page, and on the Maria Sharapova discussion page for all the disruption and wasted time you have caused for myself and other editors. (2) I have not "played any games," today or at any other time. (3) The Maria Sharapova article is no where close to being a "good article" candidate. I will oppose its candidacy for the reasons I have stated numerous times already. The article is not even a "B" class yet. Tennis expert (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ dude, ever considered trying to get along with other people? Whitenoise123 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You ever tried being honest and cooperative with other editors? Tennis expert (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal

I don't see any point in proceeding with the revamp of the article if a user is raising an objection to it. However, I and the other editors who partook in the trimming down conceded that 2006-7 needs more detail (those two are counter-productively lean), so paradoxically I might just be holding up the necessary improvements. In order to carry on though it needs to be ascertained what the problems are. We surely agree that the article needs to be concise, holistic, and discriminating of what is notable and what is not?
You stated that the article is really bad now: on August 3, the article contained lines such as "For Nadal, the task of defending his French Open title, as well as maintaining a dominant winning record against Federer, was enormous, something that no other player had so far accomplished." and "Shifting to the clay court season" (is that meant literally?). Match wins were often the catalyst to a series of plodding statistics that impeded any flow (see 2008). The 2007 and 2008 sections also attempted to cover every tournament he played, something which failed as it gave undue weight to minor tournaments, contained menial snippets of information ("At his next tournament in Sydney, Australia, Nadal retired from his first match against Chris Guccione with a groin injury." -- Stuff like this will not be relevent in ten years time, so I don't consider it relevent now.) Excuse me if I've misinterpreted what the edit summary was saying, and I understand that you weren't defending all of the old revision, but worse now? I think the current article has been diluted excessively; it isn't bad. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My caveat to everything that follows is that I certainly may have misunderstood parts of your message. (1) A common misconception about the Wikipedia notability policy is that every detail in an article must be notable, when in fact the policy relates only to the article as a whole. See WP:N. Therefore, we (editors) decide what to include in the article, subject of course to other applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like verifiability and consensus. What is menial to you may not be menial to me. (2) I agree with you that all unencyclopedic information, including unsourced sportswriter-like commentary, should be deleted from the article and none should be added to the article. (3) We have no disagreement about improving the wording of the article. But I do not understand the philosophy of "trimming down" an article just for the sake of making it shorter. If an article is too long (when validly measured, which means not including tables), then there are excellent alternatives to trimming down. See, for example, Hurricane Ivan. (4) The Rafael Nadal article suffers when compared to many other biographies of prominent past and present tennis players. That is what I meant in my edit summary. (5) There is nothing wrong with a tournament-by-tournament summary of a tennis player's record. If the article "doesn't flow" well, then address that problem directly through better writing instead of just cutting out information. (6) No tennis biography should read like a fan website. Therefore, both his good results and his bad results should be covered to provide an accurate and balanced representation of his record. Naturally, this will often result in a very short description of a bad results tournament (because he lost early) compared to a longer description of a good results tournament. Enough for now.... Tennis expert (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I would like to see an example of a prominent player where tournament-by-tournament summaries have been done well. Not just to credit your assertion, but perhaps because I'd genuinely like to see it happen. Perhaps that is why I can't envision it being done well, as I've yet to see it happen. At the moment I'm struggling to discern what the personal preferences, Wikipedia policies, and objective rights and wrongs are on this matter so I'm going to withdraw. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Austin downs

Ta for that, I thought it had been accidently moved out - thanks for your help at the station list - cheers SatuSuro 01:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Musiclover

I've developed a draft for the conditions of unblock for Musiclover at User:AGK/Musiclover. I have re-read the points you raised on my talk page over the last few days, and factored them into the material on that page. Please feel free to comment at User talk:AGK/Musiclover, and to make minor improvements to the conditions themselves.

As a side note, I do apologise for being abrupt with you the other day on my talk page. I felt at the time that the evidence being added to that thread, where Musiclover was actively commenting, was doing nothing but raising the heat. I did appreciate your taking an interest, and continue to; I simply had to resort to crude unfriendliness to keep things settled. Trust me, I am never like that. ;-)

Hope to hear from you soon, and if not, in the future under better circumstances!

Regards, Anthøny 23:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Stick around, hear us out

Here, more opinions on the way, thank you Yosef1987 (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm around. I'm just can't be on Wikipedia 24-hours per day! I hate to eat, sleep, work, run, do chores, have fun, etc. Doesn't everyone? Tennis expert (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, maybe it is the time difference, it was very late at night here and a summer vacation, please just for Wikipedia, read my last reply very well, thank you Yosef1987 (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Andy Roddick

Can you please update 2008 performance timetable for Andy Roddick. I tout I can do it in 5 min (don't have time for a couple of days), but someone has mixed up some time ago, and big time! thanks --Göran Smith (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time, either. The Roddick article is not among those that I routinely follow. Cheers. Tennis expert (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lendl McEnroe rivalry

The following was cut out of the main article. Any reason we can't have a section on what was an intense and personal rivalry? And I am not sure how to cite comments Mac made on TSN.

After Bjorn Borg's semi-official retirement from the circuit in 1982 Lendl became the leading rival of John McEnroe who by this time had reached the number one position in tennis. The 1982 season saw Lendl win an impressive string of tournaments. By that summer he had become one of the few players on the tour to be able to read McEnroe's heavily slice left-hand serve. Many classic conflicts ensued between the two over the next few years and at times it seemed the two were bitter enemies as Lendl on occassion would slam an overhead or a short ball into McEnroe's body or neck. During the 2008 broadcasts of the US Open, McEnroe revealed that in the 1980's Lendl had driven him for more than three hours from Luxembourg to Austria where both were expected to play a tournament. In this time both players got to know each other and Lendl shared with McEnroe his political views. The rivalry between the two cooled at the end of the 1980's as both players fell from the top ranks of tennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.7.77 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem having a section about the Lendl-McEnroe rivalry. However, the section needs to be sourced because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Editors are not allowed to add their unsourced personal opinions, observations, or commentary to Wikipedia. Hope this explanation helps! Tennis expert (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nadal's accomplishments

Would you mind taking a look at this edit? Seems like a questionable claim, plus the adding of a fact tag at the end suggests something fishy. Thoughts? GlassCobra 22:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"World No. 1"

Can you explain to me why is World capitalized? ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would explain it to you if I knew why. The consensus for using "World No. 1" predates my involvement on Wikipedia. All I can tell you is that the consensus exists and should be honored. Tennis expert (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know your opinion on the matter. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider joining the discussion here. Cheers. Tennis expert (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Champion colors

Why is the Australian Open page show yellow as its color, but on say for instance Roger Federer grand slam wins it is listed as blue. Also, the U.S. Open has as its page color blue, yet the color for example on Roger Federer is shown as yellow. This has got me in a quandry. The other two majors are listed exactly and continuously as their appropriate color like green for The Championships, Wimbledon and red for the French Open. I think this needs to be changed and addressed what do you think? ☆ Bluedogtenn 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever the intention that the colors on the Australian Open and US Open pages would necessarily be the same as in the tables in tennis player biographies. My observation is that the tables are remarkably consistent in the colors they use from biography to biography, but there may be an occasional discrepancy. Sorry I couldn't be more informative. Tennis expert (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanxs

For your recent contribution to Rod Laver page. Cause your knowledge of tennis I invited you a long ago to TTalk, now there's some user there called "TennisExpert". The point is I posted in those forums that it's funny how since a while some names as Tony Sideway, Hayford Price or Carlo Coluusi appears and they are all created by some persons that read wiki, but for sure NOT THE SAME PERSONS from wikipedia (they took the names only). In this case, I'm pretty sure that you aren't that "TennisExpert". Greetings. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. The "TennisExpert" there is not me. I don't post there (yet). Take care. Tennis expert (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of Serena W. Article

Her article is way too long and it isn't neccessary to list every single event she plays in. Shouldn't we only put any major or important thing that happens to her. For example, her playing in WTT this year wasn't really needed, nor is her withdrawal from 4 tournaments in Feb.

I'm trying to make her article shorter, to only include important things. How do you feel about this? Sakya23 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not "way too long". In any event, you should discuss your opinions on the Serena Williams discussion page, not here. See, generally, WP:BRD. Cheers. Tennis expert (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova Cleanup

My favourite tennis player ever. Somehow or the other I haven't got around to working on her article much. I'll look forward to working with you in the future on it. Good job on reverting the edit war/sockpuppet vandalism. I'll request a reassessment asapOgioh (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ogioh (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you! Tennis expert (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment

Maria Sharapova has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. I'm going to reassess the article myself even though im a fan. I HATE bad wiki articles. Ogioh (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Please note that the WP:MOS has now deprecated date linking. There is no need to undo Tony1's edits. Note also the manual of style states clearly "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." - having these dates linked does not improve any of the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the so-called deprecation. But as has been discussed, there is no mandate or consensus for Tony1 or anyone else to go around delinking dates. Tennis expert (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm aware of plenty of consensus to delink the dates. The linkages just clutter articles unnecessarily and as you are aware, the tennis articles show an inconsistent approach to this currently. Therefore delinking all dates provides a clearer article, one that complies with the WP:MOS and is consistent. All of which is indicative of an improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm aware of plenty of consensus not to get rid of existing date links. Tennis expert (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But you do seem to be the only tennis project editor who thinks that, as a previous debate showed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are woefully incorrect (again). Tennis expert (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So once again, can you find me a single tennis project editor who agrees with your relinking? Meanwhile, I'll show you half a dozen who don't. And why not think about improving Sharapova rather than just reverting Tony? I think saving Sharapova from demotion would really benefit the project. Simply linking dates and individual countries isn't really taking Wikipedia in the right direction, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about just tennis editors. Have a look at the ongoing MOS discussions concerning the delinking of dates and whether there is a mandate or consensus to do so. Linking dates and individuals is taking Wikipedia in the right direction, in my and many others' opinions. And as far as the Sharapova article goes, I improve it all the time. None of my edits are "either-or". Tennis expert (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake

I apologise that I got the "wrong end of the stick". I had read / scanned the archived discussion at WP:Requested moves/Tennis and noted that the extensive list of pages to be moved were only taken to WP:RM after other editors protested and asked you to stop. As the removal of diacritics was being proposed to just about every tennis player's article whose name used diacritics, that appeared to be a "wholesale" approach. At the time, I did not feel that I said anything untoward in my comments to Tony regarding your stance / view of diacritics, but following your comment, I have dug a little deeper and now see your comments about implementing the changes proposed by Redux & other community members. I note that Redux is an administrator, and I would have done same or similar in an alike situation. I am obviously at fault of not having looked properly before forming a view of the situation, and I am sorry. I don't normally take quick and uninformed opinions, but I did in that case and am suitably embarrassed!

There is some debate on the delinking of dates & common terms. As the matter seems to be something which can be agreed by consensus, I would like to get started on reaching a conclusion to the matter on the WikiProject Tennis talk page. I'm new to the project and to Wikipedia in general, and hope that my comments would not be unwelcome there. I hesitate to call for support and opposes, but that seems like the best way to resolve the matter currently. Do you have alternative suggestions on how it can be approached?

Many thanks, and apologies once again for my blunder and misunderstanding, Maedin\^talk 09:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Even before the page move issue was taken to WP:RM, I looked at reliable English-language sources to determine whether the names of articles should be changed, in accordance with the requirements of WP:UE. Neither Redux nor myself ever said that diacritics should be removed wherever they appear. I really get tired of people spreading inaccurate rumors about my motivations or intentions. And gossiping about people on a discussion page is highly inappropriate anyway.

The tennis Wikiproject already has discussed the linking of years and dates. No consensus to overturn the existing consensus was reached there. The existing consensus, as overwhelminingly evidenced by thousands of tennis articles, is to link years and dates. (Lightbot has changed many articles in this regard, but because a bot is not a human editor, its changes do not count when trying to determine the existing consensus.) By the way, I am opposed to linking years but am in favor of linking dates. Tennis expert (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the last discussion here, there was in a consensus to follow the manual of style which clearly states "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." and also states "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated." - so therefore it seems that you are reverting the delinking against consensus. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was no such consensus. Aside from that, three or four people cannot overrule a pre-existing consensus that was formed by hundreds of editors. Tennis expert (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you've said before. But since WP:TENNIS is now devoid of regular editors, we have to move be more pragmatic. And this is a wiki. Therefore anyone is entitled to edit. How many people represents a consensus in your opinion? That poll has been open for a month now. Your opinion was the minority. And you continue to edit contrary to WP:MOS. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, I have to keep repeating myself because you persist in not understanding me and in misrepresenting my opinions. Devoid of regular editors? There's no evidence of that. Besides, WP:TENNIS is not the only allowable source of consensus for tennis-related articles. I'm surprised you would believe otherwise. Finally, I am editing in accordance with the clear consensus for tennis-related articles. Clear precedent provides that a more specific consensus overrides a more general consensus (assuming that there is general consensus, which there is not concerning the removal of existing date linkages). Tennis expert (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So your consensus is purely derived from whatever exists stands. It's a little like saying "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?". The fact that tennis articles are woefully below the general standard for good or featured article is surely a sign that they need an overhaul. But you forcefully resist. How odd. You have been shown you are isolated in your belief and seem almost proud that the project has no real featured or good quality articles. How strange. Well, good luck. Most of us here wish to improve Wikipedia rather than stick it in the mud. Sadly Sharapova looks like it's on its way to being demoted from GA too. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)