User talk:Socratead

September 2023

Hello, I'm Fyunck(click). I noticed that you recently removed content from Billie Jean King without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This has been here for years... it's not some suspect event to discredit others. Bring it to talk if you want it removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There are always two stats in tennis. Singles and Doubles. There are actually 2 different rankings and two different pages for every player. There is no context to count together the tournament wins. I think I explained enough and I will delete the counting together every time I see it and have time to do it. Socratead (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been here for years. The WTA reports it as I gave your alter ego 99.225.155.30 in the summary. If you want this removed bring it to the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Fyunck(click). I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Serena Williams, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm not sure what you are aiming for, but sockpuppetry and unsourced controversial info on Serena Williams article is heading you in the wrong direction. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You already reported me to the community so I have replied to you in debt on your reporting. Once you reported me, I don't see any reason for us to talk privately. Socratead (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Billie Jean King, you may be blocked from editing. There are multiple editors reverting you in this crusade to remove long-standing info. Please bring your case to the article talk page and convince others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Billie Jean King. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Socratead reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: ). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"Edit warring" is done by someone who reverts 3 times the information. Now, there a dispute between me and Mr Fyunck(click). Each of us could be accused of "warring" because I deleted 3 times whatever he added 3 times. So, the question is who is right??? Why am I banned and not him? I gave 5 arguments to support my behavior and he only repeated one, that someone can find that information on the net. What is that? Wikipedia is not just repeating information for the net, is not about parroting here right? It is about creating a compendium of valid information that makes sense. If every informatoin from the net would be on Wikipedia then what? So Fyunck(click), finding an informatoin on the net is not enough as an argument. The question is to answer to my artuments that the information is FAKE stat and creates a false hierachy of value, therefore if shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I kindly request to be unblocked and please block Fyunck(click) for warring. Socratead (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Serena Williams, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The problem here is your weaselish "However, some experts take the position..." You may not put such commentary (because that is what it is: this is you talking) on any Wikipedia page; you are clearly impugning the subject's character. The BLP is not negotiable. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Negative information about the character of Serena Williams is true and is presented with factual proof on tennis.com and many other reputable sites. Presenting factual information about someone is not a DEFAMATION. Prior to BLOCKING me you should prove that: 1. It was not sourced? 2. It was defamatory? 3. You are citing an initial version "However, some experts take the position..." that I corrected. Wikipedia is a public knowledge site where the truth will previal. I expect answer to my questions or I will raise it with administrators to have you blocked. Socratead (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

First I believe you could consider to block Fyunck if blocking is the solution.

However, if Wikipedia is an institution who is in search of universal human knowlegde then whenever there is a disagreement only reason should prevail, EGOS should be second. Therefore, I provided to Fyunck with a number of argument and instead of him answering I was blocked. Why? Socratead (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

On the following address Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Wikipedia Fyunck reported me and I have raised the a number of reasons for my change that he was not able to respond to. Why would you block me prior to establish that my argument are true or false. There are the arguments below:

There is separate ranking and separate counting YEAR over YEAR for Singles and Doubles in Tennis. There is no STAT that counts as "number one" player in a year by counting tournament wins in BOTH, singles and doubles. There is no END OF YEAR title that counts tournament wins single and double together. There are separate pages for the same player for SINGLE and DOUBLES. It makes ZERO sense to put together a sum for a CAREER when these are not connected in any way. I understand why some would like to count them together for their advantage because they are behind now in single, however, if they are not related in a year there is NO REASON to lump them together in a career? Socratead (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counting DOUBLE and SINGLE result together and creating all time list is a flawed statistic. A flawed statistic is one that DOESN'T reflect any reality at a certain moment in time, it is just lumping together things that at any moment DO NOT CORELATE. Let us take the year 2023. If Alcaraz wins a US Open in Doubles this will not make him numbber 1 in singles because SINGLES and DOUBLES are not counting together during the career of any individual. If you count them together in the end of the career you are actually altering the reality because you are creating an all time list that is not reflective of ANY SPECIFIC MOMENT OF TIME during the career. There is no moment in a tennis career when a player by winning a SINGLE tournament will receive any recognition in the DOUBLE rankings. Same applies and there is no moment in a tennis career when a player by winning a DOUBLE tournament will receive any recognition in the SINGLE rankings. These are completely separate career paths and lumping them together creates the impression that a player who played only singles or only doubles was a less important player than another one that played both. Socratead (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever creates FAKE "end of career" statistics that lump together SINGLE and DOUBLE results would have to explain how Siniakova with 7 "majors" is a better and more respected tennis player than Ash Barty with 4 "majors". It's a no brainer that this is completely FAKE! Socratead (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now about the "mixed double" which are a JOKE. There is no criteria to equate "mixed double Grand Slam" having the same weight as a Single Grand Slam Winner. For your reference, Billie Jean King who is highly promoted for political reasons, has won 1967 mixed double Grand Slam by playing quarter finals, semifinals and finals - 3 matches to win the Grand Slam on mixed -. I would like to remind you that the Winner of a Grand Slam Single needs to win 7 matches, a winner of a 1000 single tournament needs to win 5 or 6 matches, a winner of a 250 tournament still need to win at least 4. So the numbers of wins requred for the Mixed Grand Slam is LOWER than a 250 single tournament!!! It is OUTRAGEOUS that someone would count MIXED and SINGLES together becaue they only share the location NOTHING ELSE. Socratead (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Socratead (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"Why would you block me prior to establish that my argument are true or false." Because you were edit warring, and your behavior was bad enough to warrant blocking. I don't care about your singles/doubles discourse and I have no opinion on it; it doesn't matter. "I understand why some would like to count them together..."--I don't care one way or another. Finally, you may disagree with my warning about what you did in the Serena Williams article, that's fine. However, you better not respond by making the same edits all over again, because that will provoke the same response, and I am going to leave a templated notification below that should show you how important this is. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you consider this an answer because it is NOT? Why do you say that the information about Serena was defamatory or was not properly cited? "I don't care about your discourse" this is what everyone can say... This is not an argument. This is talking like children, I don't care about what you say is the lowest level of argument between people. So, if you block me you have to have arguments that the information that I delete is worthy of starying there, and the information that I add is unworthy to stay there. You didn't provide either, you just blocked me without engaging in any conversatoin. I added a number of arguments and you say you don't care about my arguments? Are you serious? You thing that blocking ability makes you right? Socratead (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You said that you blocked me for because mey behavior was bad enough. If are a true judge of behaviour at least make sure you take the time understand who misbehaved. Please look at the back and forth between Fyunck(click) and me. I've engaged in a number of reasons why his position was wrong, however he basically just reverted my change and made sure to have me blocked. Moreover, did you see what type of language Fyunck(click) used? I cite here Fyunck(click) "I looked at this as a sockpuppet vandalizing". This is how one engage in a conversation with someone else on Wikipedia? By calling names? It appear that Fyunck(click) is really low level intellect and he is not able to argue on value. His only argument is that something is present somewhere on the net. Now, if something is present on the net doesn't necesarily has to be on Wikipedia because if so, wikipedia would just copy all the articles or links to articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be a cmpendium of reliable informatoion that MAKES SENSE. For example if a stat appears on internet doesn't mean that Wikipedia should just use that stat witohut thinking is that stat makes sense or not. So, I claim that counting Grand Slams together in Tennis is misleagin and fake stats. The fact the Billie Jean King is promoting herself by adding doesn't mean that Wikipedia should just blindly take numbers and put them there. It is like making a stat about Empires and saying: Roman had 1 empire and Zulus had 1 empire. And publish it as a stat Number of empires per culture. It wouldn't make any sense, one would confuse names with numbers. As far as tennis, Grand Slams for Single, Double amd Mixed have different requirements and they cannot be equated. It is a matter of decision if that number is in or out.

You mention that it can be either way. OK. I'm asking what is more right if it can be either way, now what is more right? Counting them together or not counting them together? Because if it is more right to not count them together, this would be enough reason to delete it because it's a dubios information. Socratead (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "contentious topics", I would like to remind that Serena Williams has information that would be printed on 77 pages in Wikipedia english. It is almost like a small book already. Moreover, all the information is POSITIVE on 77 pages. If there is a negative information on a half of page in what way is this "contentious". It is TRUE information that was PROPERLY formated and cited from a PROPER source. Is is somehow Wikipedia an organ of propaganda or a compendium of knowledge? Why would be only "positive information" about Serene on 77 pages and no "negative" information would be allowed. This looks like 1984 type of Ministry of Truth instead of Wikipedia... What is not right about half a page of negative information about a living perosn when you already have 77 pages of positive information? Socratead (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I was somewhat at fault for not better explaining how Wikipedia works. I doesn't matter if things are true, sourced, trivial, or whatever. You should be bold and add well sourced things (as long as they are not written in a contentious fashion). You were bold but the wording was incredibly harsh on the Serena drug issue... and the article also said that many many players did the exact same thing since it's within the rules. However, if your article change is challenged you don't add it back. Editor CWenger also reverted your addition but he should not have had to. You just don't keep adding back challenged edits. Instead you bring it to the article talk page or wikiproject talk page and try to convince others of it's worthiness. There you might work out a compromise that all can agree with and then re-add the section. I asked you to bring it to talk, not a personal page, so others might join in, but I wasn't clear about why. That's a bad on me. Sorry. After a couple mentions I had to start the Billie Jean King talk issue... I shouldn't have had to do that either, but I did. The content of the numbers on King and Williams is not the issue, it's that you should never have added them back without agreement once challenged. The drug issue on Williams is a bit different. She did everything above board, no charges were filed, many many players did the exact same thing with no charges filed, and Serena was tested more than any other player. Did she run along the edge of the rules... perhaps. Certainly the writer from Tennis.com thinks so, however most articles written at the same time say Serena was treated unfairly in that she gets tested much more often than anyone else.

Play by Wikipedia rules, bring these issues to the talk pages and agree not to add them back unless agreed upon by multiple editors, and this probably goes away quickly... or at least I hope it does. The administrator wants you to acknowledge you understand the way things work at Wikipedia and that you will stay within that framework. Especially with the Serena drug addition... biographies of living persons have a much higher bar if it is derogatory content. I actually feel badly that I did not explain this better to a newish editor. Again, sorry for that omission. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

BLP

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.