User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 4

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



Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 11:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at GoodIntentionedFreak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viktorija Rajicic

Just a quick comment about your edit history. It was not a case of "not realising", it was a case of "not believing". The article had been subject to two previous deletion discussions. It had not been speedy deleted then. The CSD guidelines say that CSD should be used when admins "have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion." The article does not qualify for WP:SD#G4 because she has since joined the ITP tour, and is not far from meeting our tennis notability criteria. My invitation for you to nominate the article for speedy deletion was an invitation for you to exercise your democratic rights. I would suggest that it is a very bad idea to "put words" into other users' mouths. Fly by Night (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to put words in your mouth if it sounded that way. Me saying "It seems the editor who nominated this for afd did not realize it qualified for speedy deletion" meant maybe you did not realize it qualified for speedy delete... nothing more. I believed it did qualify for speedy delete per your afd but after looking closer I have now however decided I was wrong and redacted it as she was in the main doubles draw of the Aussie Open in 2011. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the AfD template from the article. I forgot to do it myself. Fly by Night (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Viktorija Rajicic. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  15:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the afd notice when it was closed. Some admin then reopened it and this stupid bot appears here. LOL. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Qualifying Draws

Pardon me. I always got a bit confused with everyone putting the qualification draws in their separate pages, then some other bloke creating a new page for it, and then someone else saying "that's not how you do it" and then another page someone doing something different etc. And the guidelines page also being rather vague about the issue. But now I see that it does indeed say Do not create standalone articles for the qualifying rounds of smaller tournaments. Just add them below the main draw in the Draw article. I've no idea what they mean by "smaller tournaments", but I'll assume it means not Grand Slams. I do apologise for any inconvience my confusion and misreading may've caused. Kapitan110295 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No apologies needed, I just keep merging the draws and I figured it would sure save me some time if they were created in the correct place to begin with. It's a thankless tedious job to create the qualifying draws so I really appreciate you taking the time to do it. We need that at wiki projecttennis (and I don't like to do it myself). Thanks a lot Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Hormazabal

He played Davis Cup in 2009, although it was a dead rubber. Chile lost that tie by 5-0 and this was the fourth rubber. It is not unusual that lowest ranked player in the team is given a chance in a dead rubber match. But this then makes them notable according to our guidelines. This puts questionable players in for a WP article. I wonder whether we should try to put an exception in the guidelines, so that Davis Cup or Fed Cup play only satisfies NTENNIS if it was not only dead rubber match(es). MakeSense64 (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I should have guessed... a Davis Cup match. Good catch by you. I have no good answer about playing in the dead rubbers and whether they are notable or not. I was assuming that simply being announced as being on the team qualified you for being notable at NTENNIS. Whether it should I just don't know and would have to chew on it a bit. What I do wish is that if a player is pretty unknown and an article gets made about them, that the editor/creator should be "required" to put in why that player is notable. Tournaments too. That way we wouldn't have to do all the searching to see if they have merit or not. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Davis (Fed) Cup banana peel. Happens to all of us. I use a software called oncourt (unfortunately not free) to pull up any match/results for any player since 1998 or so. That's why I am quick, but not always right ;-)
I think being on the Davis of Fed Cup team is not enough to be notable. Must have played at least in one match. Actually, it's not always easy (or even possible) to find out the 5 names that were on some Davis or Fed Cup team 5 or 10 years ago , especially when they were not in world group. We can only confirm them if they have actually played and are thus appearing on the player's record.
Davis Cup now gives ranking points for play in Davis Cup matches, but no points are given if it is dead rubber match [1]. This gives us a good argument that play in dead rubbers is not notable. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Court

OK will bring it up on the talk page... Edelmand (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My rationale for including the information has now been put on the talk page, thanks.Edelmand (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
No prob. You are supposed to be bold and add it so no quarrel there. But upon revert we either move on or if determined bring it to talk to see if persuasion will work. I'll take a look at your rationale. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Fyunck Edelmand (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Special character entry

I'm not sure if it was your intention to come across as patronising, but that's the way I read it, no need for that. Regarding your point, well, you're wrong I'm afraid. Those special character entry symbols are not visible to people using wikipedia on screen readers hence using dagger as this makes them visible. That was the reason I put them in the list, if you want the list to reach featured standard, they will have to be used, I haven't looked to see whether you've removed them or not, but I assure you should the list go back to FLC, they will need to be used.

I did not intend anything other than to give examples of what is proper in wikipedia and I backed it up with wikipedia's own rule page on special characters. That's all I intended so sorry if it came out any other way. I just tried to be thorough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Okie dokie no problem, but if the list does go to FLC again they will need to be used, but I guess that can wait till it goes back there. NapHit (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me ask you this then... Why that particular symbol? I can absolutely say that &ndash or {{ndash}} are not needed for FLC pages in tennis... plenty have passed muster with a simple "–" symbol. In fact the &ndash is being systematically removed from all wiki articles in favor of the unicode symbol. So why is the dagger different and why does wikipedia itself recommend using only the symbol on it's character page if it is against FLC quality? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Its too with accessibility issues. For people using a computer there is no issue with the dagger as we can see it clearly. However, people using screen readers have difficulty seeing the dagger, hence why the template was created so this problem can be averted. This is now commonplace at FLC, every list that now goes through the process (which uses daggers) employs this template. The dash must be visible by screen readers as must other symbols such as the asterix, as for the conflict with wikipedia's own rules, I guess that needs updating! NapHit (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you point me to the place where it says that FLC must have {{dagger}} or it won't get approved? In looking around it appears the dagger is not in the Latin 1 script that screen readers use but then neither are ndashes and mdashes. If there is no place then can you point me to an administrator that makes those decisions so I can figure out the ambiguity? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is an FLC where the dagger issue is discussed. If you've got questions about the dagger and dash etc, i suggest you talk to RexxS as he ivory knowledgeable about accessibility issues and i'm sure he would be able to answer any of your questions. NapHit (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving Stuff

Hi Bloom6312 is moving players records into the main article which is fine in the case of John McEnroe but he has transfered all of Jimmy Connors career statistics article to one page which is not in line with his decision just to add the records section with other players V Strange, In case you have noticed I' trying to tidy the WTA records up a bit space wise as with the ATP one think there looking a bit better regards --Navops47 (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry very strange all back to normal don't know what I was looking at--Navops47 (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The page was way to big as it was but now it looks kind of wimpy. I had to fix his career stat link as it was broken. We have to put the grand slam tournament chart back in (although in smaller form). As I was told many times, ideally we have a career stat page for all who have won a Major in their careers, and also yearly pages of all their wins.... 1935 Fred Perry Tennis Season, etc... But we only make these separate pages when and if there is enough material that it spills from the main page. I'll put the slam chart back in expurgated form. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi can you check Connors am I seeing two GS performance charts on his main page I keep thinking it a problem with my computer ta--Navops47 (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL...probably me... I added at the same time he corrected it so there were two. Mine is a smaller version so I keept it but I don't have the year end total wins and losses so they were left with ? marks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
now the totals are there as are both year end championships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks they look good and complete now--Navops47 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
On the other stuff we have been talking about check this site out click the tennis section at the top --Navops47 (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

what do you think of this player?

Poojashree Venkatesha

I see only some $10k titles. Does a silver medal at Commonwealth Youth Games satisfy NTENNIS? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked and she played FedCup for India in 2010 and 2011. You might want to add that fact somewhere in her references so we don't have to look again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at Template talk:R from diacritics.
Message added 22:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

David Savic

You've given him two different birth dates - please check your sources. PamD 11:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks... no idea why I did that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1931 in tennis

Hello. Thank you for your help in identifying the dates, but they would also need the references. I came across some dates while Googling, but most of them were forums. So if you please share the sources for them in the date coloumn it would be splendid (after that they could be easily moved to their appropriate month section). I hope we can make 1931 an example for further pre-open era year articles. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually not every single thing needs a source. Things that are likely to be challenged need sources... like the winners and scores. The dates are pretty iffy in the whole scheme of things. Also, in the past we at tennis project have discussed the importance of one particular forum called It isn't the first or second choice for a source here at tennis project but the blast from the past section expertise on scores and dates has been used many times in articles here. The experts there have access to yearly almanacs and newspapers that no one else has. Many old tournaments articles at wikipedia wouldn't exist at all if not for Rollo and his friends at So we get secondary sources for scores and such if possible, then tertiary sources and then we turn to Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that wouldn't stand the reliability test of a larger Wikipedia committee (larger than tennis wikiproject) would be even rejected in a featured article nomination - I think. And if we keep on focusing on creating featured tennis articles we must ignore forums no matter how many experts are registered there (sadly). So I would emphasise using our own newspaper resources and books on the internet. As you can see it's not an impossible task to do considering most of the 1931 dated press materials are 70+ free of copyright and easy to access. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 07:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, many of the tournaments pre-1960 on wikipdeia have been done using as have many of the tennis records. Or the articles wouldn't exist. I would always emphasize newsprint and books first, But I don't throw out info if the only place it exists is tennisforum. You have a source for 1931 but what it doesn't tell you is how big a tourney is. That Finnish championships (indoor and outdoor) I believe was so minor as to be ITF quality these days, which isn't notable. Some of the info you have listed may not pass muster as far as being a quality tournament. Also ESPN has at times used tennisforum for it's sources so when you see a record on espn that's where it may have come from. I have no doubt that it would not pass FA, but then again none of our tennis articles pass FA even with tremendous sources. You say it's not impossible... on some dates that may be true, but I believe on most older years it is impossible to find that information where some of the only books/magazines are owned by tennisforum editors. Without tennisforum many tennis articles would simply vanish and that would be a shame. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Another thing. The site name is but that doesn't mean everything in it is a forum. What I am talking about is the moderated massive database it contains at Blast From The Past. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I will check it. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right about tournament notability. I couldn't sort it out since there's no standard for it. The most I could do is narrowing them to main nationals (they were big things before professional tennis) and international championships with several nations represented. Also I didn't link their names (only the ones that have legal successor). I've listed the other tournaments in the written prose intro for each month, and not included them in the detailed wikitable (as I did for German tournaments where only Germans competed and the Pro tour, which was extremely limited at that time - the same four players beat each other around). Anyhow it's still shorter than its Italian wikipage counterpart and half the size than e.g. the 2011 ATP World Tour. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Okay, so if the dates came from then then they were wrong . I checked the Czechoslovakian Championships, which you and they [2] dated to 8-15 Septembre. The things that the Hungarian Championships were held from 2-11 September, which is 100% sure and that Hyotare Sato were present in both of them creates an anomaly. There's not even a slight chance for traveling the distance within the given time since he was a winner of the first and runner-up for the latter. Now the thing is that there's a detailed report in the Hungarian comtemporary tennis newspaper Tennisz és golf [3] about the Hungarian Championships and they claim that by the time of the entries made there Sato was already a Czechoslovakian champion...I think that makes the forum quite unreliable Face-confused.svg. Please - if you feel like - answer me on my talk page. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 09:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Two things. Errors in transcribing can always happen. Also the info for 1931 results is sourced to "Lowes Lawn Tennis Annual 1932" so it is possible the error lies there. Also, those results are for women only so the men's final may have overlapped a few days. It also has the Hungarian Championships as running from September 1-8. I'll ask someone there to explain the difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy others get the chance to read Tennisz és Golf. It's a rarity that such an old periodical survived the times and can be accessed via a legal site. Adding the fact that no tennis newspaper even exists in Hungary to this day it's more of a value. Hope we get to know the date of the Czechoslovakian champs soon. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 09:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
and almost forgot. If you want to post a source for the "1-8 September date" to the forum than link this issue, page 61. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 13:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay problem solved. I did my background research and it turned out that the Czech tournament was indeed from 8-14, but not in Septembre but three month earlier in JUNE. page 132. So now the forum can correct it as well. Make sure they credit Wikipedia Smile eye.png. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi. I'm really not sure where things stand, in regards to a player's article name, so hoping you can clear things up. To date I've been going by whichever version of their name has the most incoming links (it's usually about 80% + one way). I did have a look at the WP:Tennis guidelines and noted that ATP and ITF spelling should be used, which would always seem to be the English spelling. However I then keep seeing pages like Robin Söderling, Juan Martín del Potro, Petra Kvitová etc (those at Category:Czech male tennis players invariably have their Czech names too). Is there a reason why diacritics are used in these cases or is it just a case of conflicting naming preferences between those in the tennis wikiproject and those from else where? Jevansen (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't deny that there is some strife amongst editors. Tennis project policy is to use ATP, ITF, Davis Cup, US/UK/Aussie or Canadian newspapers for sourcing in this English Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is split down the middle. There is the number one tennis player in the world at Novak Djokovic and hockey project which just moved Marek Židlický to Marek Zidlicky. I follow the tennis guidelines as they are right there for all to see and if I encounter page moves or new pages (most of the thousands of which I miss) I do my best to check those sources and move if needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RE:Ladies names

That's a strange thing. Let's take a present-day example to get a clear picture. By that standard (better known married name on pre-marriage draws) it would mean that we should rename "Miroslava Vavrinec" to Mirka Federer in e.g. the 1999 French Open – Women's Singles, just because she is known by that name now and probably she'll be remembered like Mrs. Federer forever. I think that would look awkward, wouldn't it? So I'd apply the same logic on older tennis-related pages as well. What's your opinion? Lajbi Holla @ meCP 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine line but it was argued about in the past. If you look at List of Grand Slam women's singles champions you'll see the gals with their married names. Even Maureen Connolly Brinker... and she was married after she retired! I'm not making a case either way, I'm just saying that's the way it's been done here for quite awhile. For me, I would want to use the same name throughout every article for consistency for our readers (plus charts we make). What name that should be is up for debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
That's okay when choosing the main article title for a player. But until redirects and [[whatever|other whatever]] syntax allow us to adjust the draws as they actually happened I would stick to the names that were in use when the draw was made. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 14:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
And one more important thing: With her marriage Hilde Krahwinkel also changed her nationaly to Danish. Kea Bouman and Margaretha Dros-Canters gave up their sport careers after they married. So we can declare that in 30s marriage change the life of women. So giving the impression that they were married at a certain time when they actually weren't would mislead the readers. It's just like giving a Danish flagicon to Miss Krahwinkel to each pre-1933 article. I don't know when married names was discussed in the Wikiproject but I'd recommend it to be rediscussed. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It's probably reasonable to keep the names in the draw as they were portrayed at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Kromann

New tennis article. He appears not to be notable. However, I'm not sure on the Men's side. Could you take a look? If he is notable, could you tell me why, so I can learn. Bgwhite (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I sure can help. The players should always have an ITF and ATP link on the bottom of the page, as does Thomas Kromann. Look at the ATP link and you'll notice a career won-loss record in singles and doubles. If you look at the ITF link you'll see the same thing under "main draw" tour level only. Sometimes the win-loss doesn't match the atp and itf... I don't know why. Now according to Tennis Project Guidelines a player is notable if he has EVER played in the main draw of a tour level event... whether they win or lose or whether it's doubles or singles. So those win-loss records are dead giveaways of notability. If you look at the ATP playing activity it goes year by year and if you see a win or a loss at the top you can scroll down and find the actual tournament he played in. Instead of F1 or F2 (Futures) or Ch (Challenger)'ll see blah blah 250, blah blah 500... those are tour events. In Thomas's case you see something different. In 2012 activity you see SLO vs. DEN EAGI 1st Rd... that's a Davis Cup event and simply playing in that also make a player instantly notable. To confirm you can go to and do a player search under Denmark and his name will appear. This guy is notable per tennis guidelines.
It's not in our guidelines but I'm gonna talk to editors about it. Any new player article should really have a ref to that notability source to help out wikipedia in sorting good articles from bad. I have been trying to do that myself in the last bunch of new players I've added. I'll put this on you talk page too so you'll always be able to find it in your archives if needed. I hope this helps you out and happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I knew that Davis Cup players were notable, but like you explained, I didn't know where to find it. Oh, I am a page stalker of yours. I've asked so many questions in the past and will probably in the future, that I have you on speed dial. Bgwhite (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Love it.... speed dial :-) I'm not always right (as others have pointed out)... but I do try my best and I always help if I can. And I lose my share of consensus polls too... I just move on if I'm on the losing end and follow the new consensus. There's so much to do at tennis project it's not worth continuing the arguing once an admin settles it. By the way Fed Cup, Hopman Cup, and Wightman Cup also make one notable if it ever comes up. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is always right. However, you always explain things so well. I completely understand what you are talking about. I hate tennis, but the best WikiProject is Tennis... organized (best as chaos can get) and great explanations. Bgwhite (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

José Pereira (tennis)

Hey, see talk page there. ;) Kante4 (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I just did... he fails but you can try to get the rules changed at Project Tennis. I'd probably vote against it though as we have too many players listed already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Race, ancestry, and language edit on CT page

I'm just curious as to why you stated that on the Race, ancestry, and language section of the Connecticut page that there was a "strange addition of flags that violates MOS on flags". I didn't put the flags there, but I can see where there are useful. Having the flags there allowed one to quickly identify, visually, the different ancestry's represented in the state. I also didn't see where in the MOS that it was a violation to include those in a list. I only saw that headings should not contain flag icons. Can you clarify that? Dbroer (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As I now look, the person that did do it also added those same flags to a dozen states and was reverted in all of them for the same reasons. The flags should never be associated with ethnicities - if they get used at all it is to designate items associated with the actual country. I meant to say MOS:FLAG instead of just MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic and Djokovic–Murray rivalry

I asked you what you have against the tennis player Novak Djokovic and you did not answered, you and another user consistently perform violence on Wikipedia especially when the article was linked to Novak Djokovic? Why this behavior? Do you have an explanation? Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I love Novak and his tennis. I don't like useless tennis articles. This is not a fan site this is an encyclopedia and certain things do not belong here. Djokovic-Murray article is against our rules which I didn't write, I just follow the rules. Sorry if that bothers you but it is what it is. The Roger Federer stat page is oversized by 35k (about a third too big) and that will have to be trimmed way back. Those are the rules, which again I didn't make, and people will be unhappy with me and other tennis editors but it has to be done. That's the way it works here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Facundo Arguello (tennis) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Facundo Arguello (tennis) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facundo Arguello (tennis) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Find and replace

  • Please be more careful when using find and replace in the future. Usages in file names and interwiki templates are the way they were for a reason, and you broke three links to Commons in that switch around. Courcelles 20:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I was just gonna do it by hand but when it came up with 150 entries that needed to be changed I just used MS Word. I was careful for the bottom links and categories but must have missed 3 inbetweens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, though I don't know any way to do it with Word, I've seen the issue pop up with AWB before, and that's easier to check as it shows diffs you can go through to make sure you didn't find and replace anything you didn't want to. Courcelles 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not registered to use AutoWikBrowser so MSWord has always done the job quickly, but it doesn't show differences that I know of. I usually go back and immediately check for new broken links but I got called away and forgot this time. I would have quickly caught the two pics but still would have missed your first correction of the commons link. As you said, sloppy on my part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Aaah, now, see, that problem I can solve. ;) Happy editing. Courcelles 21:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... I'll give it a shot to see how it works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dénes Lukács

You are in a serious mistake here. "moved against sources, tennis project consensus, and tennis project guidelines" is nothing to do with the facts. Tennis project consensus has nothing to do Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The 90% of English sources don't/can't use accents. Tomáš Berdych, Feliciano López, Marc López, Gastón Etlis, Michaël Llodra, Gaël Monfils - and the list goes on - are represented here with accents, though a bunch of English sources, even ITF doesn't use their accents (I guess they couldn't even find it in their keyboard) and also I can drop a hundred Hungarian ones that puts on the proper accents. That's really the wrong way if it is backed up with some sort of project consensus because it's non-sense. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) I'm not part of Wikiproject Tennis. But, yes, Wikiprojects can and do have guidelines on diacritics/accents. WikiProject Hockey states the title for a player must be how it is spelled in English sources, but the native way to spell the name must show up in the first sentence of the article. Most English sources do not use diacritics/accents. For Tennis, ATP and ITF sources usually don't use diacritics/accents.
The guidelines on Wikipedia as a whole is at WP:DIACRITICS.... "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". Remember that this is WikiProject ENGLISH. Bgwhite (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay but what you don't know is that an accent can make a difference between two different words (thus in this case persons). If you erase the accents than two names with distinct spellings can become one. But that's just one important point. I don't want to get into linguistics but it simply isn't how it works. Only non-arabic (cyrillic, Chinese) letters are usually transcripted. It would start a serious confusion if every European language starts to remove letters and accents that don't exist in their ones. Speculating further that not every phonemes (the real basis of human speech) equals with one letter, then even more digraphes come into play, which could result in more removals, just because they don't exist in English (and vice versa in Wikipedia language sister projects). The pro-conversion reasoning is more simple than rational, which is malicious. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 23:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I completely understand about accents and making distinct spellings. You have your views, but saying 95%+ of the English world is doing this to be malicious is going too far. Transliteration, transcripting or translating from one system to another is never going to be perfect. As the old saying goes... you say tomato, I say tomahto. Bgwhite (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny but your "saying" shows how that doesn't work here. Following that logic you should entitle the article Daenesh Lookats. But apart of that joke please note that "cs" is one letter in Hungarian so you probably has to change that to "ts" and it's not funny. That's what the accent logic would result. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
And it is what Tennis Project has been using for 4 years though I realize that some editors don't follow it... I do. The last consensus was "no diacritics" but that really went against wiki policy so if the multitude of English sources use diacritics we'll go with that, if not we go with the standard English alphabet as always here. And the ITF doesn't seem to "always" have problems with diacritics as in my edits I have noticed players listed there from cities where the city names have diacritics but the player names does not. It must be a conscious effort on their part to use common English in the player's name. And check out the Czech wikipedia and you'll see they change the English spelling of people like Serena Williams to Serena Williamsová... that's fine because if that's the way they spell it in Czech with Czech sources then that's the way it should be. Here we use the English alphabet if it is also done that way by the ITF, ATP, WTA, Davis Cup, Wimbledon etc... When my family goes to Poland we spell one of our surnames Kołodziej, but in the USA and UK we spell it Kolodziej. I know we agree 90% of the time but this is just one of those times I guess where we are on opposite sides of the same fence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
What about those tons of articles I've listed (and could list even more of them)? Don't tell me that in the majority of English sources "López" is spelled correctly instead of just writing "Lopez". Even when it comes to lower ranked ones, like Marc López or Guillermo-Garcia López so to say. I'm also sure that the "¨" is missing from "ä" many times let it be French or German names. So this whole source logic is just isn't true.
Your example about the "ová" is not what we are talking about. It's another instance of oversimplifing the problem. In Slovakian and Czech it is just the "female mark", it's not more than Miss or Mrs. in English. Hungarian uses "né" at the end of a women's name to indicite she's married (and I'm pretty sure English sources make the same mistake when labelling someones Mrs. Navratilová (CZE) or Mrs. Schréderné (HUN) instead of using just one of the "marks") So returning to Hungarian that's what agglutinative languages do - they "add" (they add "of", "to", "at", "from" ...etc to the end of the word, but that doesn't mean they change the core nor that they use it like that from then on). In that case removing would be okay, because English rather put attributes before the word and not stick onto its end. But English doesn't have a rule to compulsorily remove accents from names for sure. It doesn't distuingish anything in English but does in the affected language. That's why I said not to get into linguistics because things will probably be mixed up.
I would say leave this decision to players. Novak Đoković deliberately and officially changed his name to Novak Djokovic about 5 years ago and it's his choice. Mirka Federer uses that name instead of Mirka Federerová, which would be the one that she should be using as being a Czech woman. Don't do it in their places. Tennis articles here use Novak Đoković in early draws, I'm pretty sure 2007 English sources don't give a damn about that accent on D, it's Wikipedia who cares, because we can be better than that. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Those tons of articles are plentiful on the non-diacritic side also so listing them is pointless, but we go with the English sources we can find on the internet... wikipedia needs to be sourced. Plus consensus here has been to use those sources for years... I can't help it if editors don't read the talk pages or guidelines. The English alphabet has no diacritics so any name that gets added to English invariably drops them. And the articles that use Novak Đoković in the early draws do so because Tennis project hasn't gotten round to change them yet. It takes time to correct them all. We have criteria like WP:UE, WP:UCN, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:RS to work with and we've taken those things and by consensus have used them to mold a working rule on Project tennis. You may not like it but that's how it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an answer from an administrator from my talk page:"Hey. Please see WP:CUTPASTE on why cut-and-paste moves should never be performed. I'm not gonna merge the page histories in this case since you can just re-add the source. Other than that, I agree with you. Stripping of diacritics being proper English is a myth often propagated but easily debunked; authoritative sources show that the opposite is true. Prolog (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Not the admin I give two hoots about as far as diacritics. He is a diacritic diehard and is as biased as anyone can be on wikipedia on that subject. He has written his own essay page and directed editors to it as if it was wiki policy (which it is not). That essay was talked about by others and he now has to make sure that links go to the heading that it's a personal essay. He loses as many battles as he wins in the diacritics wars that have gone on at wikipedia for years. It has stalled many an article unless a project has taken a stand on how to settle it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So now even admins don't count and it's you who decide it. It seems to me that every time I came up with a really good reasoning it remains unanswered. Anyway next time don't move an article arbitrary referencing Wikiproject Tennis because obviously it overlaps other Wikiprojects' sphere of interest and has to be discussed with them as well and their rules has to taken into account. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 09:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that admin when it comes to diacritics... I know his history and have dealt with him. And many of us at tennis project will continue to move articles based on our project's consensus and guidelines whether you like it or not, just like others move tennis articles by their own sets of rules. It happens all the time and that's the way it works here. Now if it gets moved back, that's a different story. Then it goes to talk or move requests. But please don't tell me what I can or can't do... that's not your decision to make. Again I think it's time to call this because we are getting nowhere quick. I agree with most of what you do here but in this case we are 180 degrees apart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


Could you please revisit this CfD discussion after I amended the original proposal? Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tomáš Berdych

Not a single English source using his name as "Tomáš Berdych". ATP, Telegraph, Herald Sun, ESPN, Huffington Post, USA Today, BBC Sport, Dailymail, Guardian, Washington Post, NBC I guess it would upset many Czech editors if I start a mass renaming of Czech tennis players. I guess the consensus will be re written soon and I will head the flagship. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably would be tough with Tomas Berdych but you never know. It started out as Tomas Berdych and has been moved back and forth many times. It's not always easy with so many users wanting to use their foreign tongues and alphabets. It took awhile to change Djokovic, Ivanovic and Navratilova too... we win some and we lose some. Plus we also find, particularly with Swedish names, that if you change to proper English they will illegally canvas on their own language's wikis. So all of a sudden a huge group who barely speak English jump in and tag team Project Tennis into exhaustion. We can but try player by player to fix it. That rule has held for years here as with other projects so I doubt it'll change much. I sure hope not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Other that the admin's stance on this question there's one thing you didn't take into consideration:every player is part of tennis wikiproject AND his own nationailty wikiproject. Dénes Lukács is probably under the scope of WP:HUNGARY as other Hungarian players (I know the template is not there, but it is something that had been missed at the creation), and Wikiproject:Hungary ALLOWS the usage of accents. I think the same goes for Czechs or French. You have the same right to move the page as them for re-move. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 16:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That's true but none of these tennis players are notable because they come from Hungary... they are usually notable and included at wikipedia for one reason only.... they play tennis well. Tennis project decides if they belong here at all. And if the other projects can back up the spelling with a preponderance of English sourced diacritics then that's cool. This really should be discussed off my talk page and into the main project page if it goes much further, just so others can see what's being talked about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No mostly they are notable because they play tennis for Hungary (Davis Cup) ! If they were from the USA they don't have their own page because they wouldn't be drafted next to Fish, Isner and the Bryans. Plus all pre-open era player's bios are based on DC or majors (no official tour existed). So it definitely matters where they came from and that the national governing body drafted them in. Anyway that doesn't affect Wikipropject affiliations and still WP:HUNGARY has the same rights (there's no such restriction that the creator's wikiproject has a veto or something). And I don't know any rules that stick naming to English source usage. That's also something you or wikiproject tennis invented so it doesn't affect WP:HUNGARY's criteria. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Their project can do whatever they like. I know what we do at Tennis Project and I don't keep up with all the other wiki projects. Um, and try the wiki guideline "when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." But thanks for the accusation... I will always assume good faith with you as I usually do with all wikipedians. We're obviously getting nowhere here so I think we should drop it and just keep on doing what we do. Everything usually works out ok in the end. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't accused you and if you feel like then I'm sorry. I'm pretty sure you were the part of the process (which is not bad) when this rule was created and I tried to highlight the one-sided view of such a rule. My accusations are against the rule, which weren't really answered in this debate. This rule bleeds heavily from numerous wounds and it needs to be fixed. Still if you mean by "dropping" to leave it as it is (or leave Denes Lukacs) then it won't work. Look: tennis is a well documented media topic nowdays but think of the 1931 articles I've created - 20% of sources available in English - or think of history-related articles, where every nation puts in his knowledge based on their books. You can't restrict wikipedia to English sources because 70% of the current articles wouldn't even exist. And so you can't say naming should follow the English sources. Also journalists are not professors I wouldn't rely on them when deciding how to name someone. You can bring the thing up in WP:TENNIS but every other project needs to be involved, otherwise it will result in a same incapable rule that is valid now. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
And no I'm not telling you what you can or can't do. Next time I put every senetence in passive voice to make it PC. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
First I did not make the "use English sources" guideline for all of wikipedia... that was long before my time. Second I don't believe I was part of the consensus back in 2007-2008 to give that rule teeth here at Tennis Project. I was editing a few random tennis articles back then but I was too timid and too green to vote on rules at the project. I doubt I even knew it was happening. But I do follow them. And you are misinterpreting "Use English." What that means is we use English sources for names and such, and for 99% of tennis articles that works fine. But some items can only be found (as in your 1931 article) using non-English sources. Of course when English sources fail to turn things up we go down the line and use whatever we can find that we can source. It's a preference thing for this English language wikipedia and our tennis project. And also each nation's wikipedia is written from their own point of view. Certainly here English speakers' views will, and should, prevail over say... China's or Iran'a point of view. Just like when I have friends read me the German wikipedia they laugh at how opposite many things are written compared to this English wikipedia. But that's ok since they have their own wikipedia and their own standards. I'm good with that. But I do have a problem if non-English standards start getting imposed on this English wikipedia. I can't help it, that's the way I'm built. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

I have replied on my talk page. Span (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page.Span (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of Flags

Wikipedia manual of style suggest that using flags in infoboxes gives undue prominence to these fields at the expense of others. It is not commonplace on most articles, tennis articles included. The manual of style is important, its purpose is to encourage uniformity and good presentation. Please respect that. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And a lot of that section in the manual of style was thrown in recently without discussion or consensus as was pointed out in talk. It is not a requirement and many many tennis articles use it because players represent different countries regardless of citizenship. Last I saw the Major championships require a representative country as does Davis Cup, Hopman Cup, Fed Cup, Olympics, Wightman Cuo, etc... and it's why we use them. Readers have told us it's one of the first things they look for in tennis personalities. Please respect our project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The manual of style has said for years that flags in individual athletes' info boxes is discouraged. This is nothing new. I don't know where you get your information on what readers have told you, but no-one is suggesting that the countries they represent should be removed. And I'm not disputing that there is a clear difference between country represented and nationality (which is largely irrelevant in these cases). But tennis players do not, generally speaking, represent a country while competing. Only in particular competitions, so it is not the most notable fact about them. It does not require the undue emphasis of a icon decoration.
Could you direct me to where the Tennis project decided to over-rule the manual of style and place these icons in info boxes? There is nothing on the infobox template. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that that sentence is nothing new...most of the rest is though. The manual of style is not being over-ruled since it's not a rule and there are exceptions such as international competitions which most tennis events are. It is certainly not very appropriate to run around deleting dozens of flags that have been there quite awhile without first talking about it to the tennis project. Where it is located I'll have to check tomorrow as it's getting late for me but nationality is mentioned all the time in these internationally open tournaments; that a particular country has won (even if not technically true). Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. But I feel you are still missing my point. Nationality and/or country of representation is not the issue, icon decoration with flags is. It is possible to list the country a player represents without a flag, and indeed preferable. Whether the MOS is being over-ruled, ignored, discounted or over-looked is just semantics. Bottom line is that it is not being applied. The guideline suggest that this is ok if there's good reason. Do you know what that reason is? It is my understanding that what the MOS says is precisely relevant in these cases. Having flags emphasises unduly one field in the infobox for no good reason other than flags look pretty.
Discussion about exceptions for international competitions is irrelevant. We're not talking about those, we're talking about an infobox for an individual tennis players, not a tournament. The country they represent in some competitions is just one part of their identity. By all means, let it feature prominently in appropriate international competitions, but there is no reason for it here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not preferable at Tennis project. You seem to think wiki guidelines are this all guiding force when in fact it is thrown aside by "wiki consensus" at will. I gave up at Global Warming articles because consensus is ironclad there. Diacritics in names would barely exist if we followed wiki guidelines, except in hockey articles which rewrote the rules completely to stop arguments. It stopped the arguing though the rule is blatantly against all wiki guidelines. That said... I'm not all gungho on the flags in infoboxes. I personally like them in tennis because I "want" the person's name and country to stand out since that's what the readers find important in that box. It is a summary of the article. If however we wind up with the player's-name and country-represented-name in bold right at the top of the infobox, that would be fine too. Even left with unbolded country representation I can live with but wouldn't be very happy about. It's not some huge deal in my opinion. What is a big deal is going against tradition and consensus of the project. Once ok'd by tennis editors and the project I follow those things very tightly. If someone messes with it, I revert it. I checked the last fight about it and it was a bunch against one, where the one was shouted down but no actual poll was taken. It's back in project archive #7. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The very first point in the archived discussion just about says it all. So it's a pity that most of what followed totally ignored the point made and argued over the red-herring about nationality vs represented country and whether each/both/which should appear. Fact is that these tennis articles are not following MOS in their use of flags, and that will affect any attempt to gain them featured article status. The tennis project may not care about that, but it should. If you think that the country they represents is important then is the order in which it appears in the box not adequate? Why are tennis players so different from all other sports-persons that they need this? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
No, just the order is not really adequate. The sport is certainly different than American football, hockey, basketball and baseball. It is an individual sport and each event is international as if it were a whole bunch of World Cups or Olympics. When tennis players compete in the Olympics it's really no big deal because ALL their competitions are international affairs already. Fans cheer loudly for their own countrymen and want to know exactly who their own countrymen are... even if it's not Davis Cup or Fed Cup. It's very nation oriented and it's why that fact should stand out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sasa Hirszon

Why was the requested move closed by a non-admin? Can we ask for admin closure?
It is kind of ridiculous that these diacritics questions continue to be closed so inconsistently. Virtually every English source writes his name without diacritics. If that's not concensus then what is? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Things are often closed by non-admins from what I've seen. And with the fact that many closures want 2/3 or more consensus in one direction to make a change and we had 7–2 against the move, no matter who closed it the result would have been the same. When it's 7–2 pretty much anyone steps in and closes just like when a week goes by and it's 3–0 it's gets closed. I'm not happy about it but that's the way these things go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
But it is 116 to 1 concensus. We are not counting the heads, do we? At least that's what I read here WP:CLOSE under 'how to determine the outcome'. Arguments that disregard policy are to be discarded. Taking that into account there is no 7-2, because their is argument is "this is how it is spelled", which flatly negates policy. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not a head count per wiki rules. But per reality it is usually a head count. I've learned to live with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I just found the relevant policy here WP:RMCI, and it is clear that this should not be closed by a non-admin in this case. So I have asked to reopen it, also because I didn't get the time to answer in the ongoing debate. So also the minimum 24 hours after latest comment was thrown to the wind in this RM. Why was there such a hurry to close while discussion was ongoing? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you'll get anywhere with the end result. 90% of the time no move is made on these diacritic challenges. I look at it as I tried but foreign editors are pretty strong around here. Plus consensus usually trumps all guidelines... that's not wiki policy but it's usually true. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Whether the result will change doesn't matter. We will see. If a certain policy isn't used anymore then it should be rewritten, so that editors have clarity. Now we have mish-mash, it doesn't serve any purpose. Regardless the outcome of this RM, I plan on opening one about all tennis names. We cannot work with the current situation and too much time goes to waste in these ever recurring diacritics related RM. We have some nice ongoing examples. Actually Prolog's essay gives us very good arguments for not using diacritics in tennis articles.
The non-admin who closed the RM had good intention. But the rules call for admin closure when there has been contentious debate. And I am also thinking that if the admins' backlog gets longer and longer, then maybe it will lead us quicker to the point where it is understood that some real solution is needed that solves the question for all of tennis (and maybe for several other sports) ;-) MakeSense64 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wembley Championship

Have you got a specific reference for the statement you added back in. A London tournament is listed at the Grand Prix page, but this info does not appear to be referenced. When you go to the ATP stats page it only goes back to 2007. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ATP results go back to 1967 when I just checked. On the grand prix talk page you can see what was talked about so it would be better to ask this over there. We had access to World of Tennis to help with some sourcing. Since the grand prix page was created with the tournament listings it's a minor deal to simply say Wembley was part of the Grand prix tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Akiko Omae

I Proded her awhile back and was deleted. It was then recreated. I can't Prod it again. Could you take a look? I want to be sure before I take it to AFD. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey I can easily miss something too. I see no Jr rated 3 or above and no jr slam titles. Her two ITF wins look to be a singles 10,000 and $25,000 neither of which qualify. And I don't see her on the Fed Cup team. It's up to the creator to let us know why she is notable and he hasn't. I'd nominate her for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I couldn't fine anything, but I have missed things before, which is why I asked your expert opinion. Bgwhite (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL...just watch... I'll probably be wrong here. But if so at least we'll get a source to put in the article. That's the way I look at it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Name bolding

Are you sure about full name bolding not needed? We have to use WP:BOLDTITLE, and in a lot of articles that are put under a common name, I see that article start with the full official name in bold , e.g. as in Barack Obama or Lady Gaga. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I Many articles, some here forever, do not have the alternate bolded so the guideline appears to not be "policy." But below that section you pointed out it does show bolding but it doesn't say it requires bolding. A bit ambiguous. If you insist on it being there I won't revert it, but if the diacritic editors continue to revert things against guidelines I doubt I'll be bolding the alternative diacritic names that I always include in articles I create. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Manual of style stuff is not my forte, so I try to look up that kind of things (which are somehow never in one place together). WP:MOSBIO also applies, so it says we "should" give the full name (if known) in the first paragraph (this suggests to me we need to have a source for the full name), and alternative names go within parentheses (not bolded). In practice that means we often start the first sentence with the full name of the person, and WP:BOLDTITLE asks us for bolding of the subject on its first mention in the article, so that means we typically have the full name in bold at the very beginning , followed by any alternative names in parentheses. The foreign language names not normally used in English should not be bolded, as is explained a little lower, and sometimes we have to include the pronunciation between parentheses. As if that is not complicated enough, nicknames can also be included. An example is Rafael "Rafa" Nadal Parera in the Nadal article. "Arantxa" is also a nickname included in the Sanchez Vicario article. So, in fact Novak "Nole" Djokovic would be acceptable to open the Djokovic article.
Maybe we should just not bother to try to summarize the manual of style in our tennis project guidelines, and just refer to these relevant guidelines pages for the full names and the bolding. If we mention all these details about nicknames and so, then it may start going even more crazy than it already is. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Self added dispute resolution info

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Saša Hiršzon - Alternate name policy". Thank you. --Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about this article?

Sergio Tacchini . Is notable because of his Davis Cup play, but the article is completely taken over by "sponsorships". I doubt whether this can fly on WP. ? I'll question it on BLP noticeboard. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda funky. I could well be that he is notable for tennis and fashion, but then I'm no expert on what is notable in the fashion industry. I guess the proper place to ask would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion. If they say he passes notability per their guidelines, then great. I would follow the advise of their project because of their higher knowledge on the subject matter, unlike what happens in the tennis project where we often get ignored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I just it up here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sergio_Tacchini. I added a tennis project tag to the Talk page and then I notice he is of Mid-importance for some fashion and Italy projects, so quite clearly they will have more to say on it then we have. Would we add a tennis player infobox to that page? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know... If he's more notable for fashion, would the infobox actually be in they way? I would think it would be ok to have it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Full names in leads

I have posted to User talk:In ictu oculi#Full names in leads since discussing the same thing in seven places is impractical. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sasa Tuksar

Now, that's a funny closing at the Tuksar RM. The admin says the discussion was balanced, but then decides to move it on the basis of ongoing comments at an essay, which are comments made outside the RM discussion. He talks about "decision" at RfC. What decision was made there? This must be a first on WP. I checked his edit log and this admin did another RM 6 minutes before the Tuksar move. So it took him 6 minutes to read the RM discussion and the comments at the essay? Hmmm, that's probably the time it takes to count the votes. That's becoming rather common on WP. Editors are reportedly quitting WP in droves and it's not hard to see why. Most AfD now need to get relisted 3 or even 4 times, because almost nobody shows up anymore. In AfD tennis articles we are not rarely two of the three editors that comment. And then it's not even summer yet. At WP:ANI I was seeing a busy discussion about an admin who is making some 20% errors and works too fast according to some. But it turns out he is the only admin who does the work in some departments, so he passes 100 cases a day. The writing is on the wall, as the saying goes. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What can I say. There are good editors around and there are good administrators around. But many more have left and it seems wiki has gotten a bit too big for its britches. There was a good administrator who worked on getting articles to FA status. He quit the FA part of his volunteer time because it was political and too hard to get to FA these days with all the new restrictions. Editors battle to get their names listed on an FA article so they can tally more than the next guy. FA just isn't worth it under today's leadership. Non-to-fair English speakers are rising in percentages as I have said before, making this a non-English wikipedia... leaving their own language wikipedias to rot. Don't get me wrong, foreign editors can help a great deal since they can translate and add things most can't. But to change this English language to their own universal language is ridiculous and wrong and with more and more it'll soon be their way or the highway. You're right...more and more are taking the highway as it ceases to be fun and a little more controlled. That decision on Tuksar was a horrid one. I don't know what he thought he was reading at the rfc, but at least you got a real administrator this time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, foreign editors can translate and know how certain names are written in native spelling. But according to policy we need a source showing the native spelling if we want to add it in. So, basically we should not have the diacritics names in tournament and draw articles, unless a source is added for every name that is given diacritics in the text. By the way, here is an interesting RM: Talk:Nico_Hülkenberg#Requested_move. Not all admins are counting the votes, they just never seem to come to tennis RM MakeSense64 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Gees... maybe we should have re-opened Tuksar or certainly Mate Pavic from last year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
And did you notice, the closing of that Hulkenberg RM was quickly overturned by another admin, the very same admin who did the horrid closing at Sasa Tuksar. So there we have admins disagreeing among each other and reversing closures on the basis of their personal opinions, and on 'counting the heads'. I don't know how this going to end, but I guess it's going to be a spectacle to watch. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. And now we have In ictu oculi attempting a whole mess of tennis page moves. <shakes head>... Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. If IIO starts moving bunches of pages, encouraged by recent "results", then maybe some admins will finally wake up to the fact that all this moving back and forth doesn't make sense any longer, probably ceased making sense years ago. And while national projects can be a good thing, maybe the editors of some countries could work a bit more on the WP in their own language. For example, this is the article about Ivan Ljubicic on the Serbian WP: [4], it consists of exactly one line, but at least they pulled out a photo somewhere. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Xroads.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Xroads.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that can pretty much go the way of the dodo. I forgot it was still around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrej Kracman

Hi, in the last revision you have introduced some mistakes, like citing him using the right hand instead of his height and similar. Per what guideline is the year written as '09'? --Eleassar my talk 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I know exactly what happened. I was comparing an old edit to your edit and I opened both pages as if to edit for any copy and pastes. I must then have saved the wrong page. My mistake as I agreed with your changes when I read them last night. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA please

Putting this on a pre-RM discussion falls in the range of a PA. "And now it looks like you drove an editor to take a break from editing here at wikipedia." who would that be?" This appears groundless since I know of no one other than yourself who is this set or your ITF policy, and you are still editing. Please stick to discussion of WP guidelines and presentation of reliable printed academic sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct... that should have been mentioned at the Tennis project page not at the RM page. Sorry. However you can't seem to read properly when it comes to my posts. I have said all along that we follow the English sources: the ITF, the ATP the WTA, Davis Cup, the newspapers, the tv, books... not just the ITF policy. The ITF may be the most important source but it is by no means the only English source. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? And knock off the ridiculous "academic sources" as there are plenty of other sources that are just as good and that are accepted by wikipedia. Narrowing your sources to one type is against policy here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Academic sources tend to use diacritics for Eastern European names. Take any random East European latin alphabet + diacritic surname and try it in Google Scholar and you'll find the name being used for chemists, writers, researchers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
And you don't see me going around changing every chemist and writer in wikipedia. But in tennis, with the sport being in English, and it being written in the bylaws as such, and with the overwhelming English sources also using the English alphabet, the article name should be in the English alphabet based on wiki rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Beyoncé Knowles GMA 2011 cropped.jpg Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Saw you're reply just now, and I just wanted to drop by say don't bother. We're apparently stupid and lazy anyway, based on what a bunch of the assholes commenting in IIO's rfc are saying. So, I'm just gonna say "fuck them", and simply ignore the whole thing. If they want to change policy then fine... let em. It really doesn't make a difference anyway.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, what are you gonna do. I'll make a few comments and if the proposal gets submitted to wikipedia for a major !vote there are others who might jump in. What I think is happening is there are many more foreign editors intent on making this a universal language wikipedia and many older editors deciding it's not as fun editing here as it used to be. A couple tennis editors just recently had enough of this non-English stuff and took a hiatus so your way of being upset but standing back is probably the sane way to go. I have a little more bulldog in me but I have my limits also. And my biggest beef now is that I find it unfathomable that we have editors saying we can't mention the spelling used by almost all English speakers, yet we can mention a shoesize. Oh well. Right now I'm worrying more about my LA Kings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    I don't know about "foreign editors". I suspect that most of this stuff about diacritics comes from French speaking people. The French have a rather... er, Imperialistic stance on linguistic issues. Just take a look at the Quebecois for example, many of whom still want to secede from Canada largely over language issues. The way I read things, most of the "we have to use diacritics!!1!1" folks just need some lessons in multiculturalism. Europeans tend to be a bit snobby about culture issues, probably because they don't grow up in a "melting pot" similar to the one that those of use who live in the US and Canada tend to grow up in.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I guess that I'm ignoring my own advice now. Oh well.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that. All we can do is try to be civil, make our points, and hope others agree. Like you said it's only wikipedia, not a family crisis. I believe those with an opposing view are basically good people whose viewpoints are simply coming from a different view of what this English language wikipedia is here for. Well, maybe not one them. :-)
One of the main problems is that policies and guidelines have become spread out over too many different pages, and have slowly been edited to point where they start diverging and even contradicting. That's why even admins do not always know what to do anymore, as we saw recently in the RM of Nico Hulkenberg. It's a mess.
One of the good things that may come out of the recent wave of RMs and the ongoing diacritics saga is that these policy conflicts are now starting to be looked into. I just pulled up this one : Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names#Contrasting_phrases_in_MOS_and_MOSPN. We will see what comes out of it, but once the different policy and guidelines pages are consistent again a lot of things may start to become smoother. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just when you thought...

..that things couldn't get any worse. I came across this article : Justin Bieber on Twitter.
So maybe we should brace ourselves for articles like Serena Williams on Twitter and Novak Djokovic on Facebook, or why not List of hands shaken by Vladimir Putin.
While it is easy to get frustrated on wp, I think the only liveable attitude here is to just "watch in amusement". MakeSense64 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God! I think your attitude is probably correct but still I'm amazed and bracing myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and useful things like first aid instructions seem to be banned from WP. Go figure! See: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Acute_usefulness. - MakeSense64 (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I read that. I wonder what sort of liability wikipedia worries about if a spammer changes something useful to deadly and it isn't fixed right away? Then that little girl kills her father instead of helping him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't wikihow have just the same liabilities? And the first aid pages (or sections) could be protected. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah right after a wrote that I thought to myself...any articles on first aid should really be protected, just in case. I personally wouldn't use wiki for first aid being fearful of it being wrong... I have links to emedicine, etc... on my browser startup page for that sort of thing, plus hard copy books at home too. But as long as first aid pages are protected I can't understand why we wouldn't have them vs a Justin Bieber twitter page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You must have missed the Lady Gaga on Twitter page. I threw up in mouth just typing that. I actually shook hands with Putin at the Kremlin. He walked by when I was with a tour group and he shook hands with everybody. Off to create a new article with me listed in it... Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL.... Don't give anyone more ideas. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Benach i Pascual

I am puzzled as to why you tagged this article as unreferenced when at the time of your edit[5] it had 3 references? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. It very well could have been a mistake on my part. There were many tagged as "unsourced" or "unreferenced" for multiple years that I put up for deletion and it appears I boo-booed on that one. Sorry. I thought I removed them all anyway but must have missed that particular article. One thing though is that as I look at it today, sections 2,3 and 4 do require sourcing. As a BLP it is required and had it been submitted for checking after it was created it would have been deleted on the spot or put back in user:Jarashi sandbox. Things like "He was member of Left Nationalists (NE) from 1979 to 1986" must have a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


It's amazing to see what kind of "logic" is being produced to try to keep Dokic at a diacritics spelling. If this article is not moved, then I guess we will soon be discussing to move Andrea Petkovic back to diacritics title, she lived 6 months in Yugoslavia, didn't she? Never mind that WP:CYR naming convention for Serbian names and words is making it very clear that we prefer to use the "conventional English name" if there is one. That means that Jankovic should be at her conventional English name as well. How much longer can this continue until this is taken "higher up" (ANI or ArbCom)? After all, why have WP:UE and WP:ON besides several naming conventions that all say the same thing, only to see closing admins brush all these policies aside and close RM based on what?(their own preferences perhaps?). Let's watch the parade. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Is it necessary that we mention "Roman Catholic" in the "Early life" section of Caroline Wozniacki? I normally don't see references to religion in BLP of athletes. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I would look at it this way. It is not necessary but perhaps we don't know very many other player's family religions. And what I really don't like is a cookie cutter formula for each and every player where everything has to be in the same order. So it doesn't bother me where it is nor would it bother me if it was moved lower. I'll leave that to you and others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic

I suggest you go look at my case at the talk page because I basically evicerate the wrong side in the matter. I am not pro or anti diacritics, I just want to see our policies implemented.HotHat (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open

Hi, please note that the article 2004 Estoril Open has been nominated for deletion along with the subarticles Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open--Wolbo (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 6, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


In this source BBC tennis commentator Jonathan Overend said the following about Djokovic:

"This guy surely now has a genuine claim to be labelled as one of the all-time greats".

In this source Andy Murray said the following about his match with Djokovic in the semi-finals of the Australian Open:

"I was very close there against one of the greatest players ever".

So, as you can see, both sources support the sentence: "Djokovic is regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time". However, to compromise, I am willing to stop adding those two sources if you stop adding the number "100" to the sentence. (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That first one is nothing...basically it means it's possible he's one of the alltime greats, of which there are about 100. It does not support it. The second one is Murry being asked after a match when he's dejected. But either way there are the 2 other sources that were listed there and that should be enough and it's why they were left in place. If we have patience he my very well get there. I'll leave the 100 out but I put in just what the quotes said... #40 and one of the greatest. I mean Kim Clijsters is one of the alltime greats too. If you win a few Majors you become one of the greatest of all time. It's not like Djokovic is in the top 10 in anyone's eyes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you see this discussion?

On GoodDay's usertalk: User_talk:GoodDay#Retirement_plans.3F
Several editors agree with me that there is no reason why an alternative spelling (any alternative spelling) of a name should not be mentioned in the lede, if there are at least two cites in the article showing that spelling. To remove a piece of information that is backed by several sources is disruptive. One experienced editor brings the example of Peter Orno, where no less than three alternate names are given in the lede. We would not remove them on the argument that they are "obvious".
So, there are no policy based reasons not to include the alternative spelling(s) in tennis BLP articles, where we often have more than two references showing an alternative spelling. In fact, quite often we do not have two English-language sources to back up the native spelling. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I had seen the thread but hadn't checked it recently. Thanks for the update. Another admin had told me something similar and it's why I tried multiple versions to appease certain fanatics. English:, professionally known as:, simply "or", alternate spelling: ,... but nothing short of zero tolerance seemed to suffice for some editors. I guess the one reasonable addition was to add a couple sources (of which most articles only have non-diacritic sources anyway). A good read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Tennis Goals

Hi Fyunck, I recently added a section on our WikiProject Tennis talk page with a few questions and suggestions about the project's goals as they are currently formulated (see WP Tennis – Goals). Looking for a bit more feedback than received so far (are we too buy with the diacritics issue?) and would appreciate if you can drop by and give your thoughts so we can hopefully (further) improve our tennis project / goals. Thx!--Wolbo (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Tommy Haas

His article now says "Country: United States" in the infobox, and he has indeed gained dual nationality recently. But the cite for that information also clearly states that he will keep playing for Germany in the Davis Cup. So shouldn't it be "Country: Germany" in the infobox? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Looks like it just got changed by I changed it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

2004 Estoril Open Test Page

I've just had a look at it and couldn't help but think that the set-up is OK but also that it will look rather oversized once the three qualifying draws – now de rigueur with articles of this sort – that were also part of the Open are added into the mix. If the reaction of the MMA WikiProject to similar omnibus articles is anything to go by then it may be a step too far to merge all the results of this particular event into one page. Merging the results of men and women-only tournaments such as the AEGON Classic and the AEGON Championships may, however, be more worthwhile since there are fewer draws to deal with. Totalinarian (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing though. These articles were on the verge of being deleted last week because they are way "undersized" with no prose. The talk now is to delete EVERY draw and replace it with a link to the actual tournament draw and merging them into something large would certainly help. To be honest I forgot about the qualifiers but they are only about 10k a piece and the "key" wouldn't need to be replicated for each draw. And these are not heavily trafficked articles by any means... after a year goes by there is little to no editing and probably readership is probably very low also. Once done the articles aren't every expanded like a Novak Djokovic article would be. If we could keep it to 100k I think it is doable. We'd be weighing a long scrolling list vs editing all in one place, no scattered articles, no worries about it getting put out for deletion every so often. I might put all the qualifiers on the page bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Jelena Dokic

I won't revert your 'diacritics' addition ;) It's too bad though, you can't make that kinda addition to the intro at Zoë Baird, or any other diacritized titled articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I automatically add them to all the tennis articles. I look at it as: if there are a lot of sources that spell a name a certain way then any "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." This is wiki policy and not having them there is censorship. While I look at this as an English wikipedia where we should be using English sources per policy and guidelines, I realize that many people (especially tennis players) have alternate spellings or pseudonyms and the same guidelines apply there. When I create a tennis article, if the English sources and registered names heavily point to non-diacritic use, I title the article in non-diacritics, and if I found there were diacritics in their homeland or in a minority of English sources I always added the foreign alphabetic spelling after the English lead spelling. It seems more informative for every reader, wherever they live in the world. And vice-versa, if I see an article (again especially tennis) that is at a diacritic title and a significant number of English sources say it is spelled with no diacritics, then if it fails to get moved to what i feel is a proper sourced title, I make sure that the English spelling is right after the Foreign lead. It only makes sense. I'm not picky about how it's presented, just so long as it's not censored here at wikipedia. I know you already know all this but I wanted it written down so I can refer to it at a later time. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Grand slam results Color key

Hi, I think it must be best to tone down the colors and to use a scheme where the background color for quarterfinal, semifinal, and final round losers are in sequence, probably approaching the color for winners. Given that you have chosen green, here are two pure green examples with all four colors in sequence.

  • ddffdd, ccffcc, bbffbb, aaffaa
  • eeffee, ccffcc, aaffaa, 88ff88

The latter differences are twice as great, ie double steps of the former size.

My home made table User:P64/Bridge#geometric colors may be useful. I have "redd" the example sequences from the row labeled GREEN in column pale.

Alternatively you could use a sequence of five colors beginning with one for early-round loser, which would make a sequence of six with white (ffffff) for non-participation, if you choose that. For this page, however, where the focus is on breaking a streak or a grand slam, it is probably worth distinguishing non-participation more sharply and with one more than one type: injured, too dangerous to travel, too expensive to travel (amateur era), unknown. --P64 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about... I don't recall adding any new colors for quite awhile. If this is about our timelines we have a strict guideline at ATP timelines which works well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I can only write such long comments by moving too hastily between them. I badly misinterpreted something in watchlist or edit history.
But it turns out that I did mean the implementation of that color code (Article guidelines#Player Performance Timelines) at Grand slam (tennis). I detest that color code, mainly because it doesn't use colors in sequence for meanings in sequence; also because its colors don't match those used immediately preceding that section "Player Performance Timelines".
I have seen only here, but I have viewed very few other tennis articles. Does it originate with WP Tennis or follow some broader industry standard?
Anyway thanks for the pointer to WP Tennis guidelines. --P64 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It originates here at WP Tennis. Through the years many many color schemes have been used and every article had their own. Through months of arguing about what was best the project finally agreed to the one in the timelines, and that is now used in 1000s and 1000s of tennis articles. All the players of any stature are supposed to have one on the main page. If a player has a very extensive one like Federer it is supposed to be on his career stats page but one that has only the 4 Majors is still supposed to be on his main page. Maybe it's through continued use but I kinda like the color scheme. Fairly soft colors except wins and semi/finals because we want those to somewhat stick out for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

most consecutive grand slam women's singles titles

Hello, I do not understand how Martina Navratilova won 6 consecutive grand slam titles in the years 1983-84 when Chris Evert won the French in 83 and she also won the AO in 1984. How then did Martina win 6 consecutive titles in these two years? iswawik Iswawik (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

the AO was the last slam of the year back then Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Naveenswiki#flag vs flagicon

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at Naveenswiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Fyunck(click), thx for the tennis barnstar. The assessment updates of the tennis articles are indeed pretty tedious. Probably a good thing I didn't quite realize what I got myself into when I started. Now, almost 5000 edits later, it's nice to see the progress. I think it's worthwhile, the assessment table provides an important overview of where we stand with the Tennis Project. I'll keep doing these updates but at a bit slower pace (to keep my sanity). The year articles of the Grand Slam tournaments can also be somewhat tedious but are generally more fun to work on. Had to dive into a part of the tennis history that I was not very familiar with (the very early days until WWII). It introduced me to a lot of interesting players and opportunities to work on their bios. Most fun part has been creating 30 or so new player articles, mainly U.S. players from the late 19th and early 20th century, and digging into the treasure trove of the NY Times archives and other sources to find info and old player photos. Sometimes a bit surprised at the poor Wiki coverage of this period but, on the positive side, it provides a lot of opportunities to contribute. Also a bit of a shame that it's so quiet on the Project front, hopefully that will pick up sometime. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics RM

les stoefen's 131 mph serve

Someone, a one-time editor, has just added a remarkable statement at On the face of it, this is ridiculous. For years it was considered that Gorgo had the fastest recorded serve at 112 mph. And that was well after the retirement of Stoefen. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually Gonzales' 112 record is a bit dubious too. I'm sure the guy got the quote from a legitimate book by Lance Tingay called The Book of Tennis Facts and Feats. On page 19 it says "Big Bill' Tilden, in 1931, was credited with 163.3 mph 262.8 km/h. Lester Stoefen, American also, was credited with 131 mph 211 km/h in the 1930s. In the post-war game Jack Kramer was accorded 110 mph 177 km/h and Richard Gonzales 112 mph 180 km/h."
We also have another source in John Newcomb's The Book of Tennis Lists. It says "Big Bill' Tilden delivered the fastest serve ever officially measured. It was timed at 163.6 mph in 1931. Britain's Mike Sangster had a serve timed at 154 mph in 1963. Ellsworth Vines was clocked at 128 mph and his 1930s contemporary Lester Rollo Stoeten sent down a serve timed at 131 mph. The fastest serve scientifically timed was the 137 mph cannonball from American Scott Carnahan at Los Angeles in 1976. Then in 1981 a West German lawn tennis coach and statistician, Horst Goepper, claimed a serving speed of 199.53 mph during a test in Weinheim."
So whether we use 1930 records, 1950 records or 1970 records, Stoefen had a fast serve but not the fastest serve. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: your repeated adding of a dubious and unsourced statement to an article


Would you please stop re-adding the dubious and unsourced clause "and known professionally as Sophie Lefevre"? Several editors have removed it, so there appears to be a consensus against including it. Your insistence on re-adding it can well be perceived as disruptive.


HandsomeFella (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And others have thought it just fine. It is certainly not unsourced as almost all sources have it spelled that way. I can reword it if you like but please do not censor wikipdeia. That is not what we are here for. Also, please try to keep your summaries truthful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, if you can find a reliable source that says that she is "also known as Sophie Lefevre" – i.e. in addition to being known as Sophie Lefèvre (her name correctly spelled) – then the addition might be appropriate. The mere fact that some sources overlook/omit the diacritic does not in itself motivate such an addition. I imagine that finding a source with such a rediculous statement will no doubt be hard. You may remember a now blocked editor, who kept re-adding "English: Zoe Baird"". This was deemed disruptive. (He also used the "censorship" argument.) Your addition is similar. I'm going to remove it again. Your next re-addition will bring you straight to ANI. Consider yourself warned. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The page is already sourced... I've listed a bunch including the WTA and ITF. She registers with the ITF as Sophie Lefevre. What more do you want? I had asked administrators if it was fine to do this and it was fine. I can't speak for others subjects but in tennis and at tennis project the official governing bodies spell it Sophie Lefevre. It's one thing not to have the article name as a common term, but to eradicate it as not existing at all is censorship. I love editing here but if it means not being able to create articles with a sourced name, or add heavily used spelling to the lead, then I can find something else to do. Our policy states "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." In tennis as opposed to other categories readers are exposed to English spelling at the grand slams and all governing bodies. Many of these players sign their names diacritic free also. I tried to make sure that if the topic was in English that the foreign spelling was also in the lead. It made sense for our readers. The opposite is also true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Everybody knows that "Sophie Lefèvre" and "Sophie Lefevre" refers to the same player – at least until another player shows up who actually spells her name wihout the diacritic. Your addition is pointless. It's not the question of a stagename, where a person has a completely different name, or a person whose name nobody really knows how to correctly spell (for instance, a historic person). Yes, there are sources that spell her name without the diacritic. But that does not disprove that her name is correctly spelled with it, nor does it constitute a a "significant alternative name". HandsomeFella (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
No, not everyone knows that. Players spell their names multiple ways when they register at the ITF. It IS an English pseudonym at it's carried by the most prominent organizations in tennis. And it's not that "some" sources spell her name without diacritics... almost "ALL" English sources spell her name without diacritics. It's not like I changed the article title... I just made sure that both major spellings were there for our many readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for widespread edit warring at Jelena Jankovic, as well as other articles, see Talk page at that article for background. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. j⚛e deckertalk 02:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What? I'm sitting here for multiple days answering your questions without changing anything while I wait for you to comment on a situation that might help us out, and I get blocked? As I read the synopsis of your decision I'm not so shocked as disappointed. It seemed you were genuinely trying to ask the questions that would help in determining a way to move forward on this series of reverts (none of which had a diacritic word in it), yet absolutely nothing was decided to help us move forward. Plus others deeply involved seem to have escaped (afaict) without even a warning, let alone a block. They'll soon be reverting these things again, but now with less opposition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Afaik it takes at least 2 to edit war, so who is the other editor(s) that got a 48 hour block about this? By blocking only one of the involved editors the admin is effectively taking sides in the discussion. WP remains an exercise in disfunctionality, and next they wonder why the place goes on losing editors. Just watch in amusement, Fyunck. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It's easy to check who else got blocked and who was missed. But I'll just take it for two days. I know many like to fight the blocks (some successfully) but I just assume the spirit is to take the hit. It's kinda funny but I asked for page protection early on so we would be forced to discuss without reverting going on... I was denied. Instead someone else asks and gets 2 of us blocked. What sucks is that I really thought Joe Decker was going to help give some insight on the situation... with the questions he asked I was kinda anxious to hear his views. Instead we get 2 sanctions and nothing to help, AND now both articles in question stand on the new censored versions, the only difference being I can no longer do anything about it. I think I'm more sad than upset because it's our readers who lose big. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It's the "some heads have to roll over this" principle, nothing new under the sun... I can only notice that some editors seem to have good "guardian angels", can go on reverting diacritics-related edits all over WP on a daily basis, without as much as a slap on the wrist. And meanwhile an editor like HandsomeFella, who did a grand total of 3 edits on the Jankovic page, somehow gets a block. It's a travesty, but what to do? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I'm not going to respond to every point here, I understand you're upset. But I do want to clarify one thing that you seem to have missed. You did get a resolution to the policy question. There is no unambiguous ground in existing policy preventing your wording, nor requiring it. Both your policy arguments that your wording was required, and the opposition's arguments that your wording was prohibited are mistaken. I hope you find this clarification helpful. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You had not worded it that exact way in your brief, nor had you issued warnings when I wrote the above so I redacted the sentence. The biggest ringmaster is still on the loose, sort of the puppet master pulling the strings by issuing heads-ups to editors and letting them do the dirty work but we'll see what happens in the near term. The rfc you recommended will only partially work as each genre has their own issues and probably shouldn't be lumped together. You'll notice I didn't touch disciplines other than tennis. Maybe some !votes. I have no idea if the governing bodies of Music, Hockey, Art, etc..., demand the English alphabet as does tennis, nor do I know if all the hockey tournaments, art galleries, and concert halls demand the English alphabet as does tennis. Others better endowed with knowledge of those subjects (probably their own project leaders) would know those things. I'd like to know one bit of compromising editors have done in regards to my editing... I think you'll find none. I at least tried multiple things and placements. I at least tried to get advice from my betters. And now I see that after all the dust has settled only one person was And I see that HandsomeFella is just as vitriol as ever on the subject. That's enlightening and yes, very disappointing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
First, I'm genuinely sorry if my close was unclear. I am quite open to the idea that I have not seen every instance, as you no doubt have noticed, this is an enormous dispute, not about the specific article, but about a great number of articles. I know I haven't seen every applicable edit.
May I cut to the center of this, hopefully constructively? The only way we're going to settle the critical diacritical question is to get some *broad* consensus on this *specific question*, at MOS/Bio's talk, etc. Would you be willing to hold off rereverting and reinserting your lede options and instead leave articles in place (with respect to this question) until there's some resolution there? Being willing to do that would help matters enormously. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
First, I've always been open to dialog... usually it's me who starts it in my summaries with stuff like "what if we tweak it this way" or "what if we try this". The response has usually been NO, it's my way or the highway. I also felt that if a page was in a particular place for a couple months that it was the original reverser who should start a dialog on the talk page to convince others of its removal. That is how I was told wikipedia works. You would also note that I only added the phrase after IIO kept moving 1000's of pages and removed ALL English traces. I tried not to just walk up to an article like Bjorn Borg and randomly add the line. Either that or it was a page I created. IIO was moving pages by the dozenload every single day. We won't even discuss IIO's behavior towards me to the point I can't believe a word he has ever said or will ever say. I also noticed that Handsomefellow is 100% unrepentant and unapologetic and quite belligerent in his tones towards me on his talk page as compared to my tones toward him. He appears to have membership in some clubs I don't. All that said, I will hold off re-reverting those previous protected articles of yours and I will not add any more name spelling used by the governing bodies of all of tennis while we wait for a resolution, as you request here. But let me ask you a question. There are plenty of pages that have a format of John Doe (Serbian: John Doé). What happens if IIO or Handsomefellow moves those pages and removes all traces of the English name while we are on hold? It would seem in that case that only one side of this issue is being restrained and they would have free reign. It is one thing to move a page to it's foreign spelling which I may not agree with but bow to consensus, but it's another if while on hold all traces of English spelling are systematically removed as has been done 1000s of times. Do you understand my concerns here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that is incredibly helpful. I will unblock you immediately. I would very much like you to participate at the RfC I'm preparing here All I ask is that you find other issues to pursue until that process reaches a consensus. If it doesn't, let's get back together and try and deal. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. You might want a subsection on a general rfc..."what constitutes a significant alternate name?" It would go down the line as far as preciseness. Does usage in the English press always or usually confer a degree of significance? Do the authoritative bodies in a person's profession add to the the significance of an alternate name? Do the major events a person performs his profession add to the the significance of an alternate name? Does a person's registration add to the the significance of an alternate name? Does a person's own personal English websites and English signature add to the the significance of an alternate name? These things will vary depending on the person but answers may give us a guideline as to how we handle different situations when they arise in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You must be joking. Of the 27 sources used for the Jelena Jankovic article (some are dead links that need fixing), there are 25 sources giving the "Jelena Jankovic" rendering, even including her own website. It actually took a few Serbian sources to find a ref for the rendering with diacritics. So on what basis are editors removing a piece of info that is backed up by 25 sources used for the article? Last time I checked it was considered disruptive editing to remove relevant info that is properly referenced by multiple sources. Per our editing policy it is generally better to provide more information. Then why is a significant alternative rendering of her name being kept away from the wp readers? You are right that we do not have a policy preventing or requiring the wording that Fyunck added. But we definitely have a clear policy that prevents the removal of properly sourced and relevant information from an article. That's something you seem to have forgotten. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot

Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, just stopping by with a one-time reminder that we would really like to hear from you! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Federer article should be protected

Hello Fyunck, a consensus has been reached on the Federer talk page as to how the opening sentence of the article should read, but User 76 has made a habit of deleting the "GOAT" reference altogether.

I would like to see an admin protect at least the first paragraph indefinitely, and the default wording should reflect the consensus view. What do you think? Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, what a surprise. TennisAnalyst going around again to people's talk pages crying about me and telling more of his lies. Haha. He's apparently obsessed with me. The fact of the matter is that I simply reverted back to what two administrators had reverted to temporarily, until a consensus was reached. Interesting how TA fails to mentions his own revert today of putting it back to the "widely considered" version, plus his history of edit-warring according to administrator Slakr. Those things just slipped his mind, I guess. ;) And he also fails to mention the 10 or so other reverts by other users over the past day. -- (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Just wanted to say, hi :) GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's gotta be discouraging for you. I know it is for me. So much is who you know and how many editors you are friends with (sort of a country club attitude). My enjoyment is certainly fading from here. Good luck to you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A trout

Isn't it nice to see how WP really "works"? The same DJsasso who came out to argue that IIO changing other editor's comments is not "complaint worthy", is at the same time trying to get extra banning or blocking for GoodDay, who has committed the grave crime of mentioning our names on his User Talk. That is "complaint worthy", then??
It was interesting to watch the "bailout" operations and how fair questions were systematically negated. But anyway, it was refreshing to see somebody say the truth: avoiding questions, obstructing discussion, annoying tricks, .. is now officially "part of how it goes". I am just wondering, then what is ANI needed for if all this is "part of how it goes"? And how would we fare if we were to use the same "techniques"?
The advice we get is to stay away from IIO. Makes me wonder about the competence of our "custodians". Telling us to stay away gives the "mildly disruptive editor" exactly what he wants, and becomes an effective form of votestacking in "their" discussions. Can't they see that? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We both know what would happen if the tables were turned. I don't lump all admins/editors together because some are really good, fair, and listen to all sides. But some are less than stellar, and some are downright powerdrunk and biased to the hilt. GoodDay is the victim of an old-fashioned Salem witch hunt and it's jaw dropping and unfair what is happening to him. You'll notice IIO goes right on making the same claims with the same behavior yet nothing befalls him, and when we say nothing it's simply taken as the truth. I think that's the way it works around here my friend, and outside views of wikipedia seem to show the same thing. I guess we just deal with it under those terms or move on and do something else. My own editing has dropped off because of the unfairness of it all. It's just not as fun. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I have given them something to chew in their "Enforcement" department, not that I expect it to make any difference. So, we have enforcement, but the admins are not police, right? Where does all this botched logic come from?
It is not fun to edit, at least not in the contentious "arenas". And the problem is the passive-aggressive tactics that have been growing like weeds all over the place. But it can be fun to expose the hypocrisy, the corruption, the stonewalling, the double standards, the lack of common sense and even the lack of basic respect, wherever they happen. It's only a question of making it fun. At the end of the day, wikipedia needs its editors more than the editors need wikipedia. Can't keep volunteers working if you can't keep them happy. So, I am thinking about creating a "wiki-strike" template. Wikibreak sounds too nice, why not make a statement: I am on strike (in all or part of wp), drop me a note when things have improved over here. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Lars Graff

This page should be nominated for deletion, then. (Personally I disagree that highest level tennis umpires should not be WP notable.)

It was debated a short while ago at tennis project when some at wiki wanted to delete them completely. It was determined to merge them into one article instead. Lars just needs a redirect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

talk on Burma and over commenting discussion

Hoping that User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington gives better details here on my supposed multiple disruptive political statements and huge amounts of inappropriate comments on many many threads I've made at the Burma talk page. I don't see it but perhaps he can shed some light on the matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


I changed and I think that the only compromise that, Rod Laver and Pat Cash are said to be among the best and see if he really is, to compromise is the only proper, greeting.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

He is absolutely not one of the 10 greatest players of all time... that is actually worse that simply saying greatest. Two links given say #40 and #82 so I think top 100 is a safe margin of error. To be honest it's already in the section lower down the page so I wouldn't have it listed in the intro at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese RfC

You might like to add your voice here. User:Lajbi might also be interested. LittleBen (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I had already been commenting there and watching the page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags on the career finals of tennis athletes

Hello, I made edit for wikipedia since one year and i guess sometimes i make mistakes but in this case i don't think that the edit is correct. For me it isn't correct because it's hard and difficult to read the text but with the images of the flags you connect automatically the tournament to the country. I would like to know what do you think about it. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag icons are frowned upon in almost all uses on wikipedia. At wikipedia tennis project it had been discussed and agreed that they are only used to acknowledge the nationality of a player in international events. Not for countries or cities. The charts begin to look more cluttered with them plus most readers cannot identify a country by flag anyway. Proper charts are talked about at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think of the flagicons to indicate the tournament country/city in articles like 1979 Grand Prix (tennis)? I'm inclined to remove them to make the articles compatible with our common usage of flagicons.--Wolbo (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I would be inclined to do the same thing. As you said, it keeps it in line with our other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

Hello Fyunck.

As you might have seen on the talkpage of José Benítez, the removal of the "known professionally as..." addition was supported. Please don't add it back again. It might be perceived as disruptive.

Thank you.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a request for move, not a rfc... which is ongoing. rfc's do not happen in rms. The rfc has us hold back on things at least until it's closed so I shall bring this to the admin who handled it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No-one has said that rfcs happen in rms. But there was an aditional point being discussed, and 5 out of 7 editors adressed it, all in favour of the proposal. If you think that you have a veto here, I guess you'll regularly find yourself at ani.
It appears I will as long as you're around. Changing of wikipedia policy doesn't happen in requested moves... and certainly not when we're working with an administrator on the situation and yet you go ahead and revert the wording twice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It was not the question of changing a wikipedia policy. It was a decision on a talkpage. The wikipedia policy does not require a diacriticless version to be added to the lede. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what it is... a policy and censorship question trying to be forced in a simple move request, and it's why an administrator has stepped in yet again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The "censorship" and "forcing" arguments have previously been used by two other editors, Dolovis and GoodDay. They are now blocked. Are you following in their footsteps? And why is it not "forcing" when you add that nonsensical clause to the lede? HandsomeFella (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I really don't care who has said what. And for someone who been blocked twice himself recently for edit warring your statement is kind of strange. We obviously have a difference of opinion on policy and censorship that won't get resolved by you continually bringing people to ani, by you making multiple reverts when told not to, and by you always giving backhanded block warnings. I have tried multiple wordings and placements...some of which were suggested by administrators. I've seen nothing from you except complete elimination. If you have a constructive way of compromising I'll listen. If all you want to do is criticize, ramble on, and send ani's left and right, then please stay off my talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The RM also discussed the removal of that clause.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Great... just what everyone needs... more frivolous ani's by you. It's already being discussed on whether it's against wiki policy to remove sourced alternate spellings, but I guess I'll have to come up with a response there tomorrow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


I know we disagree about diacritics, but stuff like this is really good. It seems that lots of sports-related articles get little flag pictures plastered all over anything which might possibly be associated with a place or a nationality, but I think that's pretty unhelpful... thanks for helping restore a little sanity to articles beset by flagicons! bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well hell... I was trying to disagree with you on everything. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk)


You appear to be canvassing the Burma -> Myanmar RM. Are you notifying editors on only one side of the issue, or every editor who commented in previous RM's? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the notice? If you did you'll have your answer. I've only gotten through the H's on my list so far because my hand was cramping. Fyunck(click) (talk)
No, I just saw your notices to two editors on my watchlist and looked at your contribs. If you're doing the right thing, then my apologies for not invesitigating more thoroughly before I commented here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. I did the same thing last time and was praised for taking the time to do it, since it has to be done manually. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done I think I got everyone. I had my old list (a joint effort from before the last go around) and then I had to look for new entries since. My lists don't say who voted for what (on purpose). I sure wish there was an automated way to send out the notifications instead of one by one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So why is this on topic at Australian Wikipedians' notice board? --99of9 (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It was placed on multiple nearby countries by some editors and several other English speaking counties for a balance of English sources also. I have no problem if you remove it but I thought it might balance the few editors responses from the UK and I didn't want to show favoritism to either. But to only have neighboring countries was also biased in one direction and I thought we needed a little more outside opinion. Anyway that was my thinking at the time. I guess some of those other posts in neighboring projects felt the same way as you, though it wasn't me who posted them there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think this is canvassing but perhaps certain elements could have been handled a little bit better (disclaimer: I voted in support of a move to Myanmar). The selection of notification recipients seems fine and neutral. The message itself is also largely neutral although the phrase 'so here we go again' shows some bias and could/should have been left out. The selection of the UK and Australian WikiProjects initially appears biased and perhaps troublesome but the explanation given is reasonable. It's at least not blatantly manipulative as starting a WP:RM for 180 Ice Hockey players and informing the relevant country WikiProject but not the WikiProject Ice Hockey itself. I added a RM notification to WikiProject Countries because this WP was listed on the Burma Talk page and they had not yet received a notification. My impression of the RM process based on experience so far is that it is lacking clear and unambiguous guidelines for certain aspects of the process. This includes guidelines for the neutral invitation of editors which should at least include (automatically?) the WikiProjects listed on the Talk page(s) and guidelines on the allowed frequency of RM requests and the minimum amount of time that should pass between two similar or identical move requests. It would also be beneficial if links to previous RMs are always visible and easily accessible on an article's Talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree that the "here we go again" should have been left out - though it fits my sentiments fairly accurately :). Other than that, the notice is neutral and, without even checking, I'm sure that Fyunck will certainly have informed editors on all sides of the issue. --regentspark (comment) 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Never mind that changing just a few lines of software code would prepare wp to allow for multiple article titles, and this kind of RM would become completely unnecessary. It's amazing how much editor time goes to waste in this kind of ever recurring RM discussions. As if wikipedians are addicted to wasting time. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I did not feel canvassed, especially as we usually are of different opionions at RMs. Last I checked we are here as well. Agathoclea (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... shouldn't there be an easier way of doing it? I've had to do it twice now for this topic and it takes me an hour. Thinking about it I could have left off the "here we go again"... it was based on frustration not of the name but of the fact we pretty much just did this and i have to bother these editors once again with a notice. For some I noticed that the last item on their talk page was the notice I had left the last go around. So now they have two in a row. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced choice of countries

In addition to posting on about a hundred different individual user:talk pages, you also posted to the WikiProjects for Australia, England and UK — and only those. Why not US and Canada, or many others? If you post to WikiProjects which have no geographical connection to Burma/Myanmar (ie, Asia, Southeast Asia, immediately bordering countries, etc), then you should have chosen more widely and evenhandedly. At this point in the discussion (two full weeks after the start of the RM), everyone who participated is surely aware that the UK has a strong regional usage preference for "Burma", even if they were not aware of this at the start of the RM. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually someone, who I forgot, sent them out only to neighboring countries which was grossly unfair. I was simply going to make sure that the UK was listed because of their longtime ties to Burma/Myanmar but I thought that might be unbalanced to so I figured most editors in Aussie would probably be more pro Myanmar to keep things smooth. That at least was my thinking. I can certainly add the USA and Canada if you'd like. I thought they would be sort of a wash too but maybe I was wrong. Would you think it better if I also included USA and Canada? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I was the one who posted to WikiProjects of neighboring countries, but that was only a couple of hours after the RM was initiated, before much discussion had taken place. It was stated in the subsequent discussion that Thailand favors "Burma" while India favors "Myanmar". However after two weeks of discussion, you probably should have been aware about UK regional usage. Also, the number of UK-affiliated users on English Wikipedia is likely far, far larger than the number of Thailand or India affiliated users, so the effect is much greater. If I had posted to the UK board, I would certainly have posted to US and Canada and even various European boards too (but I think posting to the UK board was inadvisable in the first place: I got feedback a few months ago that that was too off-topic with no geographic affiliation). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering these 3 posts were done only 24 hours ago, maybe they should be undone? From the comments on the page over the past 24 hours its been the messages to people who have previously debated these matters that has led to an influx. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that's better I shall do so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

comment vanished

I noticed your comment had mysteriously disappeared [6], and have taken the liberty to restore it since I was going to comment on it. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I found that edit so strange that I took a good look into that editor: Necrothesp. Where did he suddenly come from? If you look into his edit history, and lay it next to the one of @IIO, then it gets interesting. Almost invariably Necrothesp is editing when IIO is not, and it cannot be explained by simple timezone difference. I have looked back for last week, and not rarely when IIO is not editing for 45 minutes, @N is doing an editing stint exactly within that timeframe. Then he stops and within minutes IIO gets editing again. Can you see that too, or am I just seeing ghosts? They also seem to have overlapping interests according to their userpage, churches and religion immediately stands out. All coincidences? This would instantly explain a number of things. On @IIO Talk page a few editors have been telling him they would support him for adminship, but he shows no interest. Logical if he already has an admin account. It would also explain what happens when there is any complaint against him. Make your own conclusions. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for repairing the vandalism. I'm sure it was just an error on Necrothesp's part, or at least I hope so. In the past I had found Necrothesp to be more open with foreign spellings. He is a little tighter on what he would use for English sources than myself, but he has stated to me he believes we should use English sources for names at wikipedia. As for the overlap that would be hard to venture a guess but I would say no... a habit of thinking the best in people unless shown to be unworthy as IIO (who I ignore and try to have nothing to do with unless provoked). The only odd thing about the post removal by an administrator was no summary, which should be pretty darned mandatory when removing a talk page edit. It's why I think it was simply a mistake. Thank you for noticing and fixing... I probably would never have noticed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this strange delete as well and was pondering to undo it when MakeSense64 beat me to it. AGF leads me to believe it was indeed a simple mistake but it would nevertheless still be a good idea to ask for an explanation just to get the picture clear. MS64, I highly doubt these two are the same person (what would be the purpose?) even if the pattern you claim to have discovered is peculiar. It may warrant looking into further, a weeks pattern might just be coincidental but if the pattern extends then that seems unlikely. Still let's not get paranoid here, even if this pattern is confirmed there may well be an innocent explanation for it.--Wolbo (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh Fyunck(click), now that you're ignoring IIO (can't say I blame you) perhaps you can use the freed up time to pay a visit to WP Tennis, there are lots of interesting issues that could use your input. :-) Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Well I can't ignore when he makes comments on ani's or plots to get me banned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not unusual for admins to have a 2nd account and it is not forbidden, but I think they are generally required to disclose it. If it is not disclosed, then it would surely raise questions when both accounts starts being used against a certain editor, if only to "needle" him. I have never seen Necrothesp before. The pattern I saw (and I only looked for last 7 days) does have pretty low odds imo, but nothing is impossible of course.(by the way: @IIO seemed to be a completely proficient editor from the get go). It's also not unusual for some people to be completely nice and reasonable in their official function, while the nasties come out under a different persona. That's especially easy under the cloak of anonymity that wp provides. In fact, if you look at it, assuming good faith is completely unrealistic in an anonymous setting where getting caught does have little or no consequences. That's exactly the kind of setting that brings out the worst in some people, it is a setting that attracts zealots of all kinds (what better playground for them than a group of people who are required to assume good faith?). That's wp big problem, and it doesn't seem to find answers to it. In fact it gets worse because now many people have more than one internet connection (landline + mobile), never mind the wifi hotspots everywhere. A single person could be working multiple accounts and never get caught. Not only that. Last week I got an email from an editor, I didn't know that was even possible. So, if I respond to him then we would have each others email address, and we could start coordinating our activities off-wiki. So, WP itself is providing the tools needed to "game the system". It's as if this place has been designed to be disfunctional. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Like I said... I don't really see it as the same person. For one thing Necrothesp has argued with IIO, plus the fact that Necrothesp has usually been reasonable in his posts. I'd move on from this point of view and concentrate on articles and ani's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nina (Dalayrac).

Hello and excuse me about my poor english langage,
I think that the title Nina (Dalayrac) is wrong. In french version i can't create an internal link to your article. I think it may be more accurate to write Nina ou la Folle par amour. What do you think? Friendly. --Fguinard (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

career finals

I know that even if you put only the first letter of the phrase with giant character people tends to confuse the paragraph and so i put every letter in giant size. It isn't bad voluntee. I heard your tip about the flags and as wiki project says i've provided to cancel the problems in every player of 2012 WTA and 2012 ATP tour that has reached the quarterfinals in singles and the final in doubles. Thanks for your wounderful tips — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was me I probably would capitalize each letter also for emphasis, but it is wiki protocol in all article to leave the letters small in headings except for the very first letter and that's what we follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Next days i will try to correct all the errors that i've made. Sorry for my mistakes (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a learning curve here at wikipedia but we are always glad to have new editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

tennis records of the open era

Hey, in response to your message on the data being from the ATP website, i have to disagree with you. All data are indeed coming from there, unless there are some bugs that we change whenever we find them. A lot of times these bugs are found internally, within the ATP site (e.g. connors' grass court titles are 10 when you count them on the Titles/finals page of his profile, but 9 in the overview of Match Records), sometimes within affiliated sites like the Davis Cup or even the ITF. The fact that we correct these bugs doesn't mean the statistics are not coming from the ATP site. Even so, we are talking about maybe 3 or 4 bugs as far as i know. So i will leave that comment the way it is.

With all due respect, I have noticed you guys drive quite a dictating regime at ATP World Tour Records, with just a few people deciding what's right and wrong. That's fine, but it was also one of the reasons why i created this page in the first place (besides the proper cut off year of 1968). I would really appreciate that that's not going to be the case at Tennis Records of the Open Era. Thanks, regards. Kendu020 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, having the page is great, and the fact we could have both mens and ladies singles records for that time period gets a thumbs up from me. But if every single stat does not come from the ATP site then you can't have a sentence that says "all stats come from the atp site." Plus open era records will encompass much more than the atp gives us since they ignore certain things in that time period. That's my only beef. Anf the ITF and Davis Cup are not really affiliated sites as they are different organizations. ITF titles are not the same as ATP or WTA titles. So that sentence must be changed to be accurate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack Kramer

Someone has made a strange edit at the Jack Kramer article. If Big Jake isn't one of the greatest players of all time, and one who could still be considered the best ever, then who is? Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually what he added was pretty good. I simply re-added that he's one of the greatest, backed with a few sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

10 picture limit

who came up with that junk! I will not abide because we are taking out Nadal and King on the Wimbledon page they clearly belong, we need to have a champion times standard and a finalist times standard in order of inclusion not a picture number that makes the page incongruous with the history of the slams.HotHat (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I took most way down below because we have to make sure wikipedia is neutral and has the champions and finalist that are able to fit into the then limit even if that means deleting others' as well.HotHat (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been talked about at tennis project and also other places at wikipedia that many articles have way too many pics. Most do fine with 3 to 5 but exceptional cases are articles approaching the absolute 100k limit might have as many as 5-10 pics. There is really "rarely" a case when an article needs more and it's why it's in our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
One of the other problems is inferior pictures... people put up any and everything they find. Obviously old b&w pics aren't going to be the best but some shot of a player that you need a microscope to see isn't good at all. Some of the pics I find on articles I edit myself to enlarge the player. I think some pages like Serena Williams was sitting at 11 pics for quite awhile. I didn't want to split hairs so I left it alone. I look today and it's at 13 pics and will continue to grow and grow. Having a top limit helps when one trims for the better of the article. Plus Serena is over 130k in size and Nadal is at 166k. The wiki limit is 100k, but best if it's at 60k. I trimmed Murray to 80k and now it looks like I have a daunting task with these other two. At least we have the 100k wikipedia barrier to use if someone complains. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

World Hard Court Championships

Just like to ask why the WHCC is not a recognised major tournament... was it not at the time? It's common knowledge it's considered the precursor to the French, though I can see why that can be seen as not being 100% accurate/official. But it surely is considered a major tournament of its era, as high as slams at the time as far as I know? It's also listed in Grand Slam Tennis Archive ( as one of the majors, alongside the four current slams and pro slams. Perhaps a new infobox label/field could be added (same with pro slams)... Thoughts? Asmazif (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2012 (GMT)

We have to go by sources like espn, reuters news, London Times, etc... none of them recognize the WHCC as a Major. The US tennis association didn't recognize it as a championship at the time, though players did go there to play. And remember the World Covered Court Championships was also considered a championship by the ITF but the rest of the world pretty much looked at it as nothing special. And the French Open doesn't consider the WHHC a precursor to the French. Now, should there be a separate section in the infobox, separate from the majors and olympics, that acknowledges the WHCC?... I think it's important enough to have it. The only problem I see is that the info boxes can get quite long to begin with, and if we add a WHCC section others might want a year-end-championship section, and a covered court championship section, etc... it could get longer than the player's actual biography. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok... I did change the infobox documentation to allow WHCC and WCCC results, and did so at Decugis's article. It seemed like other players could benefit from the addition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
great work, thank you. I'll go ahead and add the pro slams to the template as well if that is OK by you? (and this shouldn't result in cluttering the infobox as the timespan of WHCC/WCCC and pro slams don't overlap... though there might be a few cases, we'll have to judge) Asmazif (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (GMT)
examples - Hans Nüsslein and Pancho Gonzales. Asmazif (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2012 (GMT)

Tennisz & golf

Of course if you wish so, I can translate some pages or an edition for you, if needed. At least I can practise my English skills other than communicating. Face-grin.svg Tell me what issue are you interested in. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 15:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Lahyani

Since you participated in this discussion, and may have noticed I closed it, this is just a courtesy notice that on request I've reopened it. Further comments welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, again

For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California#Premature_close, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California#Requested move. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding The Triple Crown

I understand why you removed Alice Weiwers' from the table I made, but the reason you stated is not correct. It's not as simple as "it was not a major", because it was the French Championship and that by default was a major. And no international body has "unrecognized" those championships except the country where they are held. And neither tennis nor Wikipedia is under French law. However since the opinion of the current organizers of the event is relevant, I have agreed with your decision to remove it from the table. It's important to clarify all this so I've added notes in that section Loginnigol (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not true "by definition" or sources. It was not an international major by almost all sources from 1940-1945 and it was not an international major before 1925. All sports almanacs, encyclopedias, etc... agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That's just not true. [The Encyclopedia of Tennis] for example lists those wartime French championships. By the way I have no issue with the pre-1925. My issue even in the 1941-45 ones is not so much that those stats are not put in the tables, but the fact that not even some kind of notice is put somewhere that INFORMS readers. That's what I don't like: shoving things under the carpet and pretending nothing happened - that is tantamount to withholding information (= misinformation). Because just simply omitting things without notice gives readers a false impression. So it's important to leave explanations even when deciding to "delist" such things. That's what asterisks are for Loginnigol (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I 100% agree with you that some mention must be made and it has been. We can't just sweep them away like they didn't happen. However you are making an error in your perception of the Grand Slam worthiness of that event. I own that Max Roberson book along with many others and there is a special notation that the the event was closed in the war years and had a different name. The Germans "told" who would play and who would not. When that Robertson book talks about the French Championships in it's France section, it omits the ww2 years. It was not a Major Championship. You try and find many other sources for consensus that lists the ww2 winners and you'll come up short. So mentioning things yes...putting things in main charts when the overwhelming sources say it's wrong is another. We have listings at Tournoi de France (tennis) and at places like List of French Open men's singles champions with special notations, so it's not being swept under the rug and buried. But there is a HUGE difference between being a French Champion and being a Major title holder. That ww2 info belongs in French Championship articles not Major/Grand Slam articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Table columns

Why are you making everything 200px wide? There's no need for that. Some columns may need to be narrower than that - some wider than that. It all depends on what information it contains.Loginnigol (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean or what articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As I look at a couple of your changes I'm not sure I'm the one who institutes always keeping things at 200px. If editors want 227 pixels it's fine with me. What I do like though is consistency within an article. Multiple tables with multiple sizes in a single article looks messy. Sometimes its inevitable because one table is so much smaller than another. But if we are only talking 20-30 pixels it's much better to keep all tables within an article the same size. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Wimbledon s doubles champions

Hi Fyunck, you're right they weren't held at Wimbledon. However they were called the "All England Championships", so there's a clear connection to the Wimbledon Championships (also the "All England Championships"). In 1884, or 1913 resp., the tournaments simply moved their venue to Wimbledon. You can see the relevance of the tournaments by the field of participants, all top players of that time. I'm not sure whether seperating the list and putting it into a whole new article is a good idea. Noone will find it and now it looks like All England Doubles championships weren't played until they were introduced at Wimbledon. What do you think about moving the articles to somewhat like "List of All England doubles champions"?--Kompakt (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a poor idea. Wimbledon is etched in history and is the most prestigious tournament in tennis. Almost blasphemy to move it. You can bring this up at the tennis project talk page but I don't think you'll get much traction at all... I could be wrong. People will find it if there is a link from the bottom of the wimbledon page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, alright. I'll follow your advice and create seperate articles for the lists of English pre-Wimbledon champions. I'm going to put a link into the Wimbledon-articles, and maybe add a sentence to the introduction.--Kompakt (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. We may need to link it to other articles as well. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Vietnamese city diacritic RM

This is one of a group of geography titles IIO moved recently. This notification due to your participation in Talk:My Linh Kauffner (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

golden slam

Hello Fyunck, You recently deleted a correction I made to the Grand Slam section on wikipedia dealing with Golden Grand Slams. My dad as a doubles partner with Robert Seguso have in fact completed a Golden Slam by winning 4 grand slam titles and an olympic gold medal in doubles tennis in 1988 Seoul Korea. You say my facts are wrong but you can check them on my dad's wiki page, Ken Flach. And also Robert Segusos page to review the qualifications of a Golden Slam. Which they have completed. Sorry for not mentioning this the moment I made the change to the wiki page.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybusche (talkcontribs) 06:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll note you added that to the section "Doubles partners that have together won a Career Golden Slam." I think you have the definition wrong. It's not winning 4 grand slams titles... it's winning ALL 4 of the different grand slam titles. So to win a career golden slam a team has to have won the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US championships AND the Olympic Gold Medal. If you check Ken Flach you'll see he only won the US Open, Wimbledon and the Gold medal. No French and No Australian championships. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at Bloom6132's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bloom6132 (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Margaret Court backhand.jpg

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Margaret Court backhand.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Checked and I stand by the fair use of this photo and have described the situation on the file pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:MollaMallory1924a.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MollaMallory1924a.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done, added proper link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Serena Williams

You have new message on that page.HotHat (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Grand Slam vs. Grand Slam tournament

Hi, I was wondering whether you think there should be more overhaul articles in Wikipedia where it is written "Grand Slam" without qualification even though the editor actually intended to mean Grand Slam in the broader sense (and not just the calendar achievement)? Loginnigol (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I always think that way. I also use the term "Major" on a regular basis as it is more accurate, but since "grand slam tournament" is interchangeable with it in these modern days I intersperse the two terms liberally. I don't want readers confused with winning a grand slam (all 4 in the same year) and winning an individual grand slam tournament. There are plenty of first time tennis readers that might come here. I also just changed a couple Martina tch flags you removed. Not all of them... just the ones from '75 when she was still under Czech auspices till after the US Open of 1975. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know the proper way to deal with Navratilova (because she actually didn't become American until 1981. From 1975-1981 she was technically neither Czech nor American but "stateless"!!! Loginnigol (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Those flags have nothing to do with citizenship. She has to tell wimbledon, etc what country is representing her, and the US agreed to represent her after the US Open of 1975. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar / Burma edits.

You said that I was doing vandalism when I changed "Burma, also known as Myanmar" to "Myanmar, also know as Burma". I don't understand why that is considered vandalism, since on the official page of Myanmeese goverment it states that the name is "Myanmar" and on most other professional pages and literature the name of country is "Myanmar". I did a right thing, not vandalism, so I don't understand the message aboout me doing vandalism. Explain it please. Thanks. (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

sure. If you check the talk page you will see this has been an ongoing discussion for years of massive proportions. We just had a large naming discussion a month or two ago and it was decided to leave it at Burma for a multitude of reasons. Now, wiki policy is to be bold but you should check the talk pages to see if there is a reason behind the naming. You changed it, which is within policy, and it was changed right back. You should then never change it again until talked about on the discussion page. I could have perhaps waited one more edit from you before tagging as vandalism but this page gets lots of that kind of stuff and you were an anonymous IP, plus another anonymous IP made a reverted change in between yours. From this conversation I'm think that perhaps yours was an honest mistake of the rules around here. Sorry for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Weekes

This article looks like pure promotion. As you are the tennis expert, could you take a look and see if it can be saved or what can be removed. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article and I would tend to agree with your assessment as a promotion page. As a coach he does not appear notable. The author has done very little editing though he also worked on Cinsay Inc. which to me reads like a brochure, not an encyclopaedic article. I think I'll bring this to the attention of tennis project to get more widespread opinion. Thanks for keeping an eye open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)