User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 3

ATP Records revert
Why did you revert the edit about the Bryan brothers having the most Grand Slam titles. It's listed on their pages that they currently have 12. If the Woods have 11, as was suggested, they no longer hold the record. Am I missing something here? It seems pretty straight forward. 98.198.217.237 (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I only count 9 doubles slams for that team, as did someone else. Where are you getting 12 from? I looked at Bob and Mike Byron's pages and it only lists 9. Are you perhaps also counting the tour finals wins? Those wins should really not be under grand slams. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

About reverting back to old versions
I don't see the point of reverting back to an old version of document and after that making couple small additions to the document. Would be more constructive to do so in reverse order during "reversal war" between editors. That way the useful additions would not be wiped out--Mrmarble (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple bad changes made so that I have to make 5 reversals, or I can revert the whole thing and make 2 re-additions, sometimes that's easier. Especially if the two re-additions need to be fudged a bit themselves. But I have no idea what your problem is as the section you keep adding is in the article already in its proper place and it is an extreme minority view at that (really only one entity uses it.) As a newer editor name with only 30 edits under his belt maybe you don't realize that this sort of change should be brought up in the article's talk section if it's controversial. 18:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Atp or Era open
I noticed this distinction at ATP Record, but the ceasura of 1972 is inconsequential. Look at the whole statistics, for example all matches (and wins) of greatest player, like Connors or Borg, or other one. There are numbers which includes the matches before atp created. Look at the atpworldtour.com. All of statistics from this official website includes the matches and the victories since Open ERA started not since atp was founded. Why for example the fan of tennis finds different information about the tournament wins of Nastase on wikipedia's atp record and on atpworldtour.com

Can you explain entirely logically why we should take the year of 1972, independently only that then atp created, if everywhere on Earth, the fans of tennis distinguished two parts of modern history of tennis - Tennis before 1968 and after it. Look on the second side, if you or in particulary the statisticians of tennis want to gather full comparable data, then you should analise professional tennis from 1990. I think that point 1972 is incorrect. Perhaps you have better view. Then, please, explain me that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edamian (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure no problem. The name of this particular article is "ATP World Tour records‎" not "Open era records." There are plenty of pages on wikipedia with open era records. I didn't start this page but it exists as a page of ATP records from its inception in 1972. Tennis has all kinds of clumps in its history... pre-1922 with the Majors having a challenge round, 1925 when the French Championships became a major, the pro tours, the Open era, the Atp and Wta, grass being turned into an almost irrelevant surface except for Wimbledon, oversized graphite rackets, etc... people categorize these things all the time on wikipedia and this page is about the ATP from its inception in 1972. Borg was pretty much after the ATP and the Connors records we start from January 1972 onwards. That's the way this article is set up. I hope that helps a little. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Connors
You are completely right, thanks for correcting my error. Even after updating this page for quite a while I still managed to fall into the ATP Era vs. Open Era trap. Gap9551 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gap9551 (talk • contribs)

Performance Timelines (Tennis)
Hi, could you help me in restoring any lengthy tables back to the way they use to be? Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed two things. One, you changed it and it was changed right back so there is controversy. That's a problem as I'm not going to get into an edit war. Two, when you changed it back to the table with less info the article actually got bigger by 4000 bytes. That means the new table with more info takes up less room than the old table. At the very least the new design is better for bandwidth even if the info is overkill. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only '''5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Tilden
Can you explain why you are listing 15 combined titles and not 14 for overall grand slam and pro slam wins I can't find the 1 missing title? I have checked here Tilden. and here Pro Slam. you mentioned WHCC in your reverted edit is an abbreviation for what? listed here 3. the only WHCC I could find is here WHCC just to clear matters up can you point me in the direction of the referenced article stating 15 titles..--Navops47 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing but the note section has the link right there for all to see. World Hard Court Championships. Remember I didn't write the article but you'll note that Tilden had a little d and Cochet has a little e after their names. There are many historians and people here on wikipedia that have felt that prior to the French Championships being opened internationally in 1925 that the World Hard Court Championships were the true French championships and the itlf considered it one of the 3 biggest titles in tennis. I think there was an argument several years ago about whether to include the WHCCs in this particular list and including them won out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that bit of information what's your views on definition of a Major? both pre-1969 and post 1969 on all the material I have read over the years the Pro Slams by today's terms would be nothing less than Majors as they were professional events competed for both (prestige,prize money/points?), which you could argue is the whole basis of today's modern tour from the players point of view and why 1969 became such a landmark year in tennis history. --Navops47 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd let you know I'm intrigued by this so have fired off an email to the International Tennis Federation for clarification--Navops47 (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A Major in tennis by common usage and international press is AO, FO, W and USO. It is the term that has been around the longest to describe the 4 premier events in tennis. Today, though really incorrectly, they have also become known as the grand slam tournaments or slams since the 80s or so. Grand Slam has one meaning, winning all the 4 Majors in a calendar year. The French Open is not a grand slam but it is a grand slam tournament. Having said all that we go to the pro slams. They usually had only 16 players so only 4 rounds, but they included the best players in tennis playing for the most money of any event. The term Pro Slam has been used by writers and the press to describe the French pro, US pro and Wembley pro so certainly there is an argument that they are pro Majors. The only problem is that while they were usually the 3 biggest pro events of the year, they were not always as such. In 1936 the US Pro only had pro teachers... none of the leading pro players played at all. In the late 50's the Pro Tournament of Champions was probably a bigger tournament than the US Pro. So looking at what I just wrote my opinion on the Pro Slams: are they at least tier one masters events, yes. Are they an extra 3 Majors to add to the 4 we already have, usually. Of course my opinion doesn't mean very much. Heck from 1913 to 1925 the ILTF governing body said there were three world championships... Wimbledon, World Hard Court Championships and World Covered Court Championships (The USA was not a part of the ILTF until 1925) so applying today's terms to past events will always be a bit squirrelly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Thank you very much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

links for WTA in Margaret Court and Maria Bueno
Although my only intention is to improve wiki with usefull information, you reverted my edits. I did my job, but if you believe in a link that gives wrong information it's OK. We're talking about 43 Grand Slam Titles, but maybe you don't think it's important.Caiaffa (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked it out and found the slam information. It's right there on the site. Remember also that it's a WTA site which didn't start until 1973. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's curious how you find the info "right there" as even the WTA webmaster agree with me. When I saw the problem my action was alert WTA people and remove the bad links. Your action is revert my justified edits... very good. But as I told you before, you must know what you do given to Wikipedia users wrong info. Follow my email and the reply from WTA webmaster.

From: fernandocaiaffa+at+gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:02 PM

To: Webmaster+at+wtatennis.com

Subject: Feedback regarding: Web Content Issues

Posted from http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Contact/0,,12781,00.html

The pages of Maria Esther Bueno, who has 19 Grand Slam titles and Margaret Court, who has 24, informs that "This player has no Grand Slam Activity". If you don't have capacity to inform, at least remove the wrong information. It's not a blog, it is the WTA site, you have responsibility with the people who use your site.

From: Webmaster+at+wtatennis.com Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 13:22

To: fernandocaiaffa+at+gmail.com

Re: Feedback regarding: Web Content Issues

You are correct about the incomplete data. We are in the process of trying to improve it for our historical players, in which a lot of the statistical information is hard to come by. But yes, removing the data in the meantime may be the way to go. Thanks for your comment.

Caiaffa (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Gees, just because one part of the page has no info one can click to "activities" on the tab. No problem for me. You must be looking under "stats" which is year to date stuff and of course there is no info. I click to here for Bueno: [] and to here for Court: [] and find a wealth of info. The WTA and ATP sites have errors all over and good info all over. One just needs to look at the tabs and click on them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut/paste movie
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Internazionali BNL d'Italia a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. You should open a WP:RM request to have the article moved rather than simply cut and pasting Tassedethe (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * However that page "Italian Open (tennis)" already existed. So then what should be done? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC). Ah I see now that I read more carefully. Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to add a move request, the instructions are hereWP:RM. You should include a link to the Tennis Project guidelines and/or other evidence for the new name etc. Ah, good. Heppy editingTassedethe (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agassi sentencing
Hi. Minor issue, but I thought I'd clear things up, with regards to this sentence...

"Agassi's father stepped in, told Brown that he could play his son and put up his house for the wager."

The simple use of "told" looks much too casual in print. It seems more like something that people would speak to each other in informal conversation.

Since we're writing formal prose here, I've replaced it with "and told Brown that. . ." One could also use ". . .stepped in, telling Brown that. . ." I'll stop before I start to sound like I'm conducting a lecture. Cheers. -- James26 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I'd have done if I had caught it. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Figured. :) While I'm here, can I ask your opinion on the Julia Goerges naming issue (mentioned on the talk page)? We'll probably start a re-nomination within a day or so. If you've got the time then, I'd appreciate knowing whether you think it should be Görges or Goerges. -- James26 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User:400 not out
Hey, how can we stop him from reverting the day-by-day summaries? He is a sockpuppet from KnowlG i see and that is what i thought when he started editing. Kante4 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he IS a sockpuppet... I leave that to the upper echelon to figure out. We can but help by reverting content removal asap. And even if they block someone they can come back and cause havoc with new accounts and anonymous accounts so we'd still have to do lots of reverts. There are editors like user:Tennis_expert that come back from time to time and ravage an article to the point administrators stop all editing on it for a week to hope it dies down. We'll have to wait and see what happens but the administrators around here are pretty good at taking the proper steps at the proper time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins have taken care of him. Kante4 (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

French Open
Hey, just saw you reverted my edit, i never edited the flag of Tommy Haas, i know he is german because so am i. I just added the "r" in the sup template at the Djokovic match, maybe something collided there? Kante4 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry...are you sure? You need to be specific as to where since I work on so many pages. I do see an edit I made "back" to your version here French Open 2011. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is the mistake, thought you reverted my edit, was reading it too quick it seems. Already slapped myself in the face, sorry. Kante4 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

day by day info
I don't really write the article, I just get it from the roland garros website and shorten it.Dencod16 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Performance Timelines Proposal
Could you please give your input on my proposals, thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

winning streaks ATP records
Concerning the winning streak of Borg (43, 1978) in the ATP world tour records, i disagree with your view that a winning streak with walkovers is the same as one without - most sport/newschannels don't consider his winning streak real either, anyway. so i still think it deserves a mention in a list like that, he's the only one in this list with walkovers. no need to be degrading about my description of walkovers to clarify. Kendu020 (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or I think. The rules are the walkovers don't count. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Golden Slam
Point was not to be "unfair" to the Aussie as a major - but rather to make sure that people understood that the dates at the top of the article are not indicative of when the 'chance' for a Golden Slam came into play. I suggest that adding the 1924 status of the US Open, rather than deleting the status of the Aussie, is the way to go here. The real point is that the tennis players of pre-1988 aren't a bunch of screw-ups for failing to win a Golden Slam, because the 4 "Majors" did not exist as Majors before 1924, then Olympic tennis did not exist until 1988.Jmg38 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, I understand what you were trying to do now. The question is how to word it. The 4 Majors were recognized 'officially' as starting in 1925. Before that the ILTF (now the ITF) recognized the 3 Majors as Wimbledon, The World Hard Court Championship and The World Covered Court Championship. The world in general probably looked at it being Wimbledon, US Championship, World Hard Court Championship and maybe the Australasian Championship. How about we tweak your original wording to this:
 * "As there were only three Major championships designated by the International Lawn Tennis Federation before 1925, no tennis players who retired before 1988 had the chance to complete a single season Golden Slam. There was a small window for the gold medal winners from the 1920 Olympics or 1924 Olympics, if they chose to travel, to complete a career golden slam." I'll add it to the same spot you had it before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work.Jmg38 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rivalries
Jankovic - V. Williams agreed to a competition, all you competition. There is no reason for deletion. Competition in these two very contentious and there are good matches. Both are great players and very competitive matches between them. Deleting isn't required.Alptns90 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But it's not a true rivalry. Rivalries in tennis are something special. Anyway, express your view on the afd page where you might have people agree with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dementieva - S. Williams rivalry like a Jankovic - V. Williams rivalry. Their rivalry is true, however this too so. I think is the real rivalry.Alptns90 (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Help?
Hi. Could you please assist me in ensuring that performance timelines for players meet the new guidelines? So if you see a timeline that was deemed unacceptable for use in the discussion could you please change it into an acceptable timeline? Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can do so... I don't edit very many individual player bios or the timelines, so most are not on my watchlist, but I'll try to do my part. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the help. JayJ47 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Re: This reversion of my edit. Please feel free to revert me any time you see me reverting block evading editors. You don't need to explain anything - tennis is obviously not my forte. I'll assume you're "taking ownership" of that person's edit. Thanks for boldly fixing it! Kuru  (talk)  01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I realized what you had done and assumed you'd understand as well. From prior wiki experience I just felt it was better to over summarize than to say too little... if not for you then perhaps for the next editor to come along. I don't know how you (and other admins) can stay on top of "sockpuppets" as well as you do. It seems never-ending....Kudus to you all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Burmyanmar and Soapboxing
Ah, I realize that my "I'll push just once more" comment and smilie might've come off as a sinister threat. But I honestly meant that I was reverting it that one last time, and then if anyone else agreed, they could speak up... and if no one else agreed, then maybe I'm wrong, right? Because I don't know, I don't know. Maybe part of me was just thinking you were biased against Huaiwei because, frankly, I'm not entirely sure whether my comment after that was soapboxing, you know? Arguing about the subject instead of talking about the article counts as soapboxing, but the very nature of article disagreements mean that people will argue about the subject for the purpose of trying to improve the article. So I don't know. You can take it out, but that makes my own comment seem to come out of left field. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we don't always agree but I do respect your thoughts. When you disagreed with me, as opposed to some off the shelf anonymous IP, I was thinking that maybe I was not 100% fair...so I didn't revert it back. I didn't think your comment was soapboxing at all. I do think his was and even more so after his second comment. Plus he has soapboxed before. But I'm not going to worry about this one thing with so much to do on wikipedia. I can't tell you how many times in the tennis articles we have come to a consensus 100% opposite of what I think is correct. I'm momentarily unhappy about it but then I defend the new consensus just as vociferously as the old way. I believe we were thinking around the same lines on this issue and all we can do is try to be consistent and fair and be able to live with it. You felt it wasn't soapboxing so I respect that. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find national rankings?
Hi, I don't think that there are any articles in which the #1 players are listed for various countries on a year-by-year basis, ie, Budge 1939, Riggs 1940, Kramer 1946, etc. etc. I have a couple of *real* encyclopedias where I can get the yearly ratings for the American players (generally the top 10 for each year), and I recently found a nice Australian Website where they have a page with the top Aussies each year from 1930 through 1976. I could therefore compile my own lists from these. But no matter how much I Google I can't find similar pages for the British, French, and, oh, the Germans. Can you direct me to anything? Many thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quarter Finals/Quarterfinals
Hi,

I disagree with you - 'Quarter Finals' is by far the most commonly-used method. If you search on Google, practically every result is written this way. 'Quarterfinals' may be acceptable but it is not correct as is shown elsewhere on Wikipedia. Why do you feel the need to undo my edits? I am not being a vandal - I am merely correcting poor grammar. What gives you the right to say that 'quarterfinals' is the preferred version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FingersLily (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not say it was the preferred version. You kept writing that it was incorrect, and that is false. The preferred spelling I learned was actually Quarter-final but they are all correct and I think I have seen all versions throughout wikipedia. However once something is reverted or contested protocol is to leave it as it was originally and bring it up on the talk page for all editors to weigh in. And it is absolutely FORBIDDEN on wikipedia to revert something more that 3x in 24 hours. You will be blocked by the administration regardless on whether you are right or wrong. You won't be able to edit at all. I did not report you but gave out a warning instead in the summary. I hope that explains why I reverted you and told you to bring it up on the talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand what you are saying but I still don't see why you had to repeatedly undo my changes when what I had altered was correct. You may disagree with my comment that it was incorrect but there was no need to undo what I had changed. Thank you for the warning rather than blocking me. I reverted because I did not understand why you undid all my hard work. I wasn't aware that I was not logged in - that is why I made the 1st attempts under my IP then later ones under my username. I apologise that I am not au fait with the protocol but I am still annoyed that you couldn't just leave my updates alone. (talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC).


 * I do not have the authority to block you, that is an administrators job. I could see you were new so I wasn't going to do anything rash. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong here, it matters what can be sourced. I noticed you made 4 or 5 reverts in an edit war with someone named Prunesqualer and that you were going to get yourself in trouble. Policy here is to "be bold" but if someone questions you by reverting you should bring it up on talk pages before adding it again. You kept saying the spelling was wrong. I quickly checked two dictionaries and they both showed that you were wrong. Quarterfinal is a legal word. It may not be the spelling of choice but it is legal which you said it wasn't... so I reverted your edit war back to the beginning and told you to take it to talk. You then reverted me, I warned your user page and told you to self revert lest you get blocked. That's how I see it. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am grateful that you have taken the time & trouble to explain your actions & where I went wrong. I raised this query in the Language Reference Desk & the answers were much the same. It appears that 'Quarterfinal' is the American English version but, according to the Oxford Manual of Style, 'Quarter-Final' is the recommendation. Seeing as Wimbledon is an English tournament, can we use the English version? If I was to change the page again, would it be allowed? My biggest irritation is the inconsistency. Both versions are even used on the very page we are discussing! Can I now make 'Quarter-Final' the accepted format on the Wimbledon pages? FingersLily (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like you were answered in two places. A (UK English) dictionary (Collins 1994) lists both 'semifinal' and 'quarterfinal' as single, unhyphenated, words and the official Wimbledon web site also lists them that way. Oxford manual of style lists it as semi-final. Quarter-Final (both parts capitalized) would rarely be used. The page you were editing is a british language page but with two British sources saying quarterfinal is fine you may be hard pressed to convince others. You have a good point in that it's spelled both ways on the page and that is wrong. I'll bring that point up myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems the more we look into this, the more muddy the waters become! You are right that Collins (a UK English dictionary) prefers 'quarterfinal' but both Oxford & Cambridge prefer 'quarter-final'. There is no doubt that all are correct but I wouldn't count the official Wimbledon website as an English source. I have found more English sources that prefer the hyphenated version. Where do I take this to in my attempt to get a unified, accepted version? FingersLily (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no one in authority to make that decision so where you already posted are the correct places. You need to convince others that your way is the correct way. So far it looks like they are happy with no hyphen but we'll have to see what they say about the inconsistency. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you very much :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thank you very much :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam men's singles champions - italics
Hi, I've reverted your old contribution to the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions, since it made certain confusion. Namely, you've said that the italics means that the tournament was open only to members of particular French tennis clubs. Yet, the first winners of Wimbledon and US Open are also in italics. So, what does that mean? I'd like that to be clarified since I'm not an expert on the issue. Thank you in advance and sorry to bother you.--Vitriden (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I edited the wording once again to try and make it clearer. Until 1925 only members of particular french clubs could enter the French Championships. There were a couple of non-french citizens who were members of these clubs so they were also allowed to compete. In 1925 it was open to all players and became an international event. Why the first winners of the other two were italisized I can't recall so I removed it. It may have been that the very first tournaments were not completely open or we are unsure of their status. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'm just confused over the italics with the first Wimbledon and US Open winners since, apparently, you were the one who made that change "per conversations" . Yet, the talk page is too long and I can't find the reason to do that. Although it probably isn't that important after all. Good luck.--Vitriden (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nudnida Luangnam
You've been edit warring on a page I've worked on, but I don't understand why. It's great that you want to counter vandalism, but I don't see what part of the edit you see as vandalism. From what I can tell, the only difference is that the unknown IP address user is simply adding Nudnida to wikiproject tennis. Am I missing something? Is Nudnida not qualified for this project? Is he doing it wrong? Was your account hacked? I would like to help end this edit war if I can. Sesamehoneytart (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not an edit war. This is a known blocked user user:KnowIG... he is not allowed to edit on wikipedia in any way (for good or bad). All his edits are to be reverted on sight and reported to the administration. In a few hours you will be able to note that this anon IP has been blocked but he'll pop up again with a similar IP. Sometimes he edits just one article and sometimes it's a whole bunch so we don't always have time to search to see if it's good or bad. I wouldn't even have known about Nudnida Luangnam but he wrecked some other pages and i noted in his edits that he also added stuff there. If you want to re-add the info he is inserting please do. Maybe it'll make him move on to somewhere else. Sorry for the confusion. I should have written a better summary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Roger Federer in 2009
Like the new title?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming tennis players articles
Hello. I saw that you recently did a lot of renaming on tennis players articles with diacritics. What is your rationale behind this? Thanks ( G a b i n h o >:) 06:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure I would say a lot. Was it 5 or 6 articles? I was simply moving them to the names the WTA and ATP Official websites use. I thought I put that in the move rational... my bad if I didn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your idea is the most stupid thing what i've seen on Wikipedia. Just stop this, please. PL Alvarez Talk, 14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC).
 * It's not my idea. It's the common name as per wikipedia, and I checked the WTA and ATP sites first for a reliable source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 ITF Men's Circuit You're a stubborn creature ;), but you won't win this rivalry. Not with me. So please, give up and do something else. Diacritics are now used on all tennis draws in Wikipedia (see: 2011 ATP World Tour, 2011 WTA Tour, 2011 ATP Challenger Tour) and there is NO REASON to remove them. Nobody is accepting your idea with removing diacritics (like Talk: Mate Pavic), because this idea is simply stupid and worthless. PL Alvarez Talk, 10:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm not looking to win anything... just following wikipdeia rules case by case and sourcing as I go. And if all you can say are things like stupid and worthless please take it somewhere else. It's not needed here on wikipedia and especially not on my talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics talk
Go and look at my new comment, and tell me what you think on my talk page.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I want you to take a look at Monica Seles, Ana Ivanovic, and Svetlana Kuznetsova articles, and tell me if you like me putting the native names in the infobox like many other project do. By the way, Russia Wikipedia even uses English native spellings in a like manner.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey it looks fine. My only concern is that it's already in the first line of the article...do we need it both places? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Infoboxes are suppose to be a summary of the key aspects of the article. So, the native name is most certainly a key aspect.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at Vladimir Putin to see its usage.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I see. The only difference is that in Putin's article the russian name has "small" in front of it which looks a little better. I added it to the other 3 articles you mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, I got most if not all of the articles done that I did of Serbian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Russian, Belarussian tennis players. If I missed one, please correct it for me.  Have a great week ahead editing and in life!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Looks like you have been busy. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Tennis in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Tennis for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Moties like cocoa - have some coaoa

 * YUM! Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Prod of some tennis articles
I'm back bugging you again. I'm the idiot from the Whitney Jones AfD mess. Same person is back creating articles. I've PRODed Taylor Townsend (tennis) (15yrs old), Wang Qiang (tennis) and Jessica Pegula. None have won a $25,000 or above tournament. They have played and lost in a qualifying round of a WTA tourney, but never made it to the main draw. The editor lists entry into the qualifying tourney as a wildcard spot. I just want to double check and make sure I did these correctly and not mess up again. Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at all 3 of them and I believe you are correct. That editor does like to create questionable pages and images. One page was a plain old lie making it seem like qualifying draw loses were main draw loses. The others are in the US Open qualifying rounds as we speak. They are not main draw, not notable, so I asked for and got quick removals. It may be that one of them makes it all the way through qualifying to the main draw. From their history I doubt it but someone might. If they do then that page should be brought back. Having it listed on wikipedia now though was putting the cart before the horse. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He's created Sofia Sabljarević, a junior player who has played in 4 ITF tourneys and never won. Could you add a speedy if it checks out.  He has done the 2010 Dubai ITF Open and 2010 Dubai ITF Open – Doubles pages, which are $75,000 ITF tournaments.  I'm not sure if $75,000 tourneys should have a page or not. Bgwhite (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done for the player. As far as the tourney... I don't know. I adjusted the notability page with a query on the tennis project talk page to make sure all agree. The gals ITF tournies go much higher in payouts than the mens so someone may want to set a $75,000 or $100,000 limit and make them notable too. I wouldn't but we'll wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank You. My only hope is that tennis doesn't get as bad as some others... Ice Hockey and American football I think are the worst.  If you played in the minor leagues of Hockey for a year, then you are presumed notable.  Just had a high school junior football player go by that was argued to be notable because he had some articles in his hometown paper.  Sigh.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note for future reference...two deleted players were brought back because in the next two days they actually Did make the US Open draw in doubles. Taylor Townsend and Jessica Pegula. They were not listed when I checked but perhaps they had been announced somewhere? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked around. It seems both of them were granted wildcard status into the main draw on the 29th. This is the only announcement I could find.  I found an article in the NY Times from the August 27th edition that said Townsend had entered her name for a wild-card, but had not yet received it.  Man, tennis is a confusing.  Bgwhite (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I went to the US Open website and searched both singles and doubles entries to no avail. Nothing I can do if a few days later they actually do get into the draw. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I could only find one reference that they even made it in and both reference I listed above were published after the speedy delete was put up.  I couldn't find anything on the US Open website either.  I changed the player's articles to make mention they received a wildcard into the main draw. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Serena Williams
Big Toe = Great Toe. Also, on the WTA web site (Results page) it was quoted as "Right great toe injury"... Thanks! Naki (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool, but the source where you got that info must be added too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

username
Love the username. Fmph (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you kindly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system
I see that you are still gaming the system by creating a redirect in a series of edits to block non-admins' page moves. This is the second time I'm notifying you that the community disapproves of this sort of behaviour. Next time I will raise this matter at AN/I. Prolog (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Before it was after I had moved a page and it was brought to my attention and I have not done it again nor will I. Now I am simply doing wiki protocol as with all newly created redirect pages, both diacritic and non-diacritic. I will continue to do wikipedia protocol so you had best report me now or change the rules. I'm beginning to think you are very biased on this topic as an administrator and that you want it both ways... check all the redirects towards diacritic pages... they all have a category, none can be moved. This is required practice on wikipedia as it is in reverse. You can't have rules here and then decide which ones on a given day you're going to follow. They should apply to all or none. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not acting as an administrator here. I very well realize I'm involved in this debate. You might want to take a look at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive711. Does the behaviour, dubbed "disruptive editing" by an uninvolved admin, look familiar? Prolog (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll note that that entire discussion was because of page moves not page creation. Later they decided to also limit his page creations. Every diacritic redirect page is done the the same way, look at them... all of them. Even an auto-bot does it. Editors do it. But if I do it you are upset because it goes against your pov. That is simply wrong and very biased. If you change the rules to stop both and , then we'll have something that is fair. I'll assume good faith here because you said "not acting as an admin." I will assume the risks of bringing this up to a debate because I have to tell you, right now I feel very singled out because of your warning without you raising all kinds of complaints on the obverse side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bots went through and tagged both diacritical and non-diacritical redirects. Their honest purpose was categorization. Editors who feel the current situation is unfair should start a discussion somewhere and not attempt to circumvent a core community feature. So far, I've only seen two users deliberately create redirects with multiple edits; the user discussed in the AN/I link, and you. If I see someone from the other side do what you did, they'll be getting a note as well. (FYI: You can link to a category by adding a colon after the first square brackets) Prolog (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a bot do the reverse in years. I'll check with the smackbot author because maybe it's broken. RjwilmsiBot goes through a couple times a month but it does not automatically add the category to pages that direct to diacriticals... only the other way around. It's function makes ALL redirects to DIACRITIC pages immovable. If you want to do something fair, Get that bot turned off, or get all diacritic bots to go through every week to keep things fair and balanced... at least we'll be fine for the future... though the past is flooded with pages created, "properly tagged" by the bot and made immovable, soon after creation. You could also ask that simply adding categories to pages does not make them immovable. That could work well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

May I ask a question? What is the policy on Diacritics as redirects? I see a ton of Spanish and Portuguese footballers with diacritics in their name cross my path. I know when it comes to filling in the DEFAULTSORT value, do not use diacritics because the sort engine doesn't handle them. I know of some certain languages, such as Vietnamese. Vietnamese names of persons must not use diacritics as this is the policy of Wikipedia, Chicago MOS, British Library, and Library of Congress. But can you create a redirect with the diacritics? Bgwhite (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean like Novak Đoković? It's done all the time. Check out "Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics" and you'll see countless examples. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do see it done all the time. And it does appear ok from WP:DIACRITICS. I see this is a heated discussion and I'm trying to figure what exactly is the policy.  I read the ANI discussion that Prolog brought up and it confused me (nothing new, waking up confuses me).  What Fyunck is doing appears different from what Dolovis was doing, but the ANI involves Dolovis and lets just say I've had my problems with Dolovis in the past too.  So I'm probably not to partial when it comes to Dolovis.
 * The problem being, I don't see where you should or should not add a redirect. Do either of you know where this can be found.  If there is nothing, then this entire argument is moot.   btw, I'm an opponent of most of the redirects added.  To me, most don't serve any purpose. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you seen WP:R? Generally, redirects are pretty heavily used as they are considered cheap. Prolog (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Prolog, you should consider ducking before the BOOMERANG hits you on the back of the head with your baseless threats of taking Fyunck(click) to AN/I. As you have just stated, redirects are cheap, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with somebody creating them. Any move likely to be controversial would have to go through WP:RM, and it would be an admin that would end up doing the move anyway. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of WP:R, but it says nothing on diacritics. I was just stating my personal opinion of redirects.  I'm just trying to figure out what the policy is on redirects when it comes to diacritics.  Where does it say what Fyunck is doing is right or wrong?  What is the correct way of doing it.  I see names with diacritics all the time and I do see the redirects.  As AN says, I see boomerangs in the air.  I'm trying to figure out what should I do when I see it... instead of mud being flung, where does it say what to do. Bgwhite (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It does contain a few examples in the purposes section ("Representations using ASCII characters..."). Not everything, thankfully, has a written rule and common sense can and should be used. Prolog (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Applying the essay of the month here is a boomerang itself. If you had actually read my comments, you would have noticed that I have no problem with these redirects being created (properly). In fact, they're absolutely necessary. My "threats" are far from "baseless"; at least four uninvolved admins opposed this sort of behaviour before and none supported. Prolog (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No they were talking about a person who did more than just create a new page. You are being biased again. If you truly want to be perceived as being non-hypocritical and fair you'll stop with the "misspelling" stuff in your yeahs and nays, stop directing editors to your own personal biased writings, and start up a campaign as an administrator to remove every bot created category from redirect pages. That might help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion indeed involved many types of issues, but the creation of redirects through multiple edits was clearly found to be inappropriate by the community. I have no interest in bot-related discussions or campaigning, nor do I feel compelled to boost my image. As for my essay, I have provided the links to back up my claims as an alternative to copy-pasting quotations and citations. Prolog (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well anyways it is ambiguous at best. The first time this was eluded to by Prolog it was reasonable. I moved a page and then put in the category tag which made it immovable. Doing that right after a move, which would likely be controversial, was wrong. It was pointed out that it was likely gaming the system, I thought about it, agreed, and said it won't happen again. All the while the bots and editors keep adding a category to other redirects which make them immovable... all within wiki policy of course. This time I create a brand new page, create a redirect and then add a category in the same manner as any bot would and I get chastised. That I won't take. If it needs to go to AN/I then there's not a lot I can do except plead my case against a hypocritical situation. There are always disagreements between editors on wikipedia and I have learned when to ask for help from other administrators and not get nasty or thin skinned; to just keep following rules and project guidelines, not get in edit wars, etc...

But this was a warning from not just an editor...but an administrator, and I believe I'm being treated unfairly because we have a 100% different point of view. I do not trust his motives when it comes to diacritics. As was said above, since any move would be controversial an administrator would need to get involved anyway so there should be no harm done. I personally think both those categories are stupid and some long ago holdover, but they are part of wikipedia and are used extensively and I plan to continue doing so within the rules unless a cabal of unbiased mediators says I'm right or wrong. If it's such a big deal it seems like wikipedia could simply make it that adding categories would not hinder a page from being moved. How hard could it be to do? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad tennis articles popping up.
There are some bad tennis articles popping up yesterday. Ariel Behar, Nikola Cacic and Daniel-Alejandro Lopez among others. I hear the creating editor is a whack job. Could you have a talk with the creating editor and straighten them out. Bgwhite (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL... someone has to create those stubs. At least if it's me they can be done in English. I'm sure hoping someone adds more but then again....what is there to add to these nobodies? Sadly by our own rules they are notable. :-( Fyunck(click) ([[User

talk:Fyunck(click)#top|talk]]) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

hint
hi, just wanted to tell you that I'm new on wikipedia, so I found it a bit hard to make tables, i have no intention to vandalize or something, it's just that i suffered alot in the past not finding the info about this issue, slam winners saving match points, and when i found it i loved to share it on wikipedia, maybe it was a bad idea to contribute but again i noway try to sabotage pages, i wanted to send to you by email but no email available on ur page, so maybe it's wrong to write it on discussion page, again I'm sorry. Benghazina (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right place. I'm sorry too for thinking it was vandalism. When you linked to a page that didn't exist...twice, it's what I assumed. I answered on your own page too and fixed up your now created page. Welcome to wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

hello again, my page is ready, i should link to the page and then write the page or I should write the page first and then link it to tennis statistics? if the second choice then tell me how I only know the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benghazina (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC) ok i just saw it edited, thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benghazina (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Djokovic–Nadal rivalry
Go and edit and expand away to your hearts content.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Victoria Larrière.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Victoria Larrière.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This file was given to me by Vitoria Larrière's mother and she said it was free to use. I'll see with her to clarify the status of this photo, and update the license information at the source. Zebulon84 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't do that. The person who took that photo will have to contact wikipedia and send in the proper paperwork with their signature saying they release it to public domain. Wikipedia will not take your word for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * May be I did not write it in the correct way : I'll ask the person that originally put this photo online to officially change the licence to CC-BY-SA.
 * Victoria Larrière's official site photo's are linked to Victoria Larrière Picasa page. I do not have any authorisation on that page. If the licence of the photo in that album is changed is that OK ?
 * The person that put it online gave me the link but I don't know if she wish to create an accont on Wikipedia just to upload one photo. I'm going to suggest it to her anyway.
 * Zebulon84 (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:The Gypsy Vagabond Man/2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season
Go look at it and tell me what you think of it now?The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season
Go and edit what needs an editing by your capable hands.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I just want to thank you for fixing the introduction, but I found only a couple of minor syntax errors that I ajusted easily. I would say that we should choose the words "is currently" because the season is not in the past just quite yet.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why we all add tidbits here and there... to correct each others errors :-) Between everyone adding a little bit, things will slowly get done. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Modifying notability for tennis players
On what criteria did you modified the notability criteria for women tennis player from 25K ITF titles to 50K?( G a b i n h o >:) 16:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC))
 * We were discussing matching up the womens tournies to the mens tournies to make them equivalent for notability since we were getting queries about it, and the ladies notability also followed. The ladies don't have a challenger series but they do have tournaments that pay below the challenger series and above the challenger series. I used that as a cutoff so we could at least compare apples to apples and keep things reasonable. If they start making the payout bigger we'll have to change it again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where can I see this discussion? Thanks. ( G a b i n h o >:) 05:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC))
 * It's being talked about now at tennis project talk and it was also mentioned on various tournament talk pages and in archive 8 of tennis project talk. No one knew what womens events were notable. The hardest thing to do is be equal but fair since the two tours don't have equal events. Most queries I was seeing didn't want the womens ITFs to count at all but that sure wouldn't be fair when compared to what we had for the men. I personally don't think the mens challengers are very notable but most major editors here do so that's what I follow. The trick is making sure the womens tour gets their dues also without going so overboard that everyone and every event is notable. Now what we need is someone to write in the guidelines a proper paragraph about player/tournament notability for the pre-open era so we don't get too much nor too little from historical players in tennis history. Want to take it on? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

hotel and general are better examples
you quoted cafe (café) as an example of a word loosing its accent, but it is not a very good example because those who like their accents will often divert the conversation trying to prove you wrong, better examples are hôtel and général both of which do not have split usage in English. -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was the word that came to mind without searching around, but I shall use your advice in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Apology
Hey, sorry about marking the "Grand Slam" thing as vandalism... I accidentally pressed the wrong button on Twinkle... Again, I'm very sorry!

DARKSHADOWMIST (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC) DARKSHADOWMIST
 * No problem...thanks. I've done the same thing myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Burma
As you have asked me a question, I will not express an on talk:Burma requested move. But I will point a out a couple of things, and I will ask that it be widely advertised. -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough. It may be that many have changed their minds in 2-3 years but just so it gets a fair shake. It was decided by a Cabal of wiki administrators last time since the editors were split down the middle. Thanks for taking a look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the list of editors who commented/!voted the last time around? I'm happy to help post notices on their talk pages. Or help complete the list if it is yet incomplete. --regentspark (comment) 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do. I used MessageDeliveryBot and it should deliver the list to all the names I gave it in the next 24 hours or so. If you want the list I can send it to you. I sent it to no ip addresses nor to any banned editors... and a couple turned out to be sockpuppets or had left wikipedia. A pain in the butt to go through all the voting through the years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! That is a long list. Kudos to you for generating it. Hopefully the bot will do its job sooner rather than later (I haven't got a notification message yet.) (update: has it notified anyone? I checked the first user in the list, Achromatic, and he/she hasn't been notified.) --regentspark (comment) 19:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also asked the bot to notify me when it went through. I've never used it before and I'm concerned about users with a "_" between their names. When (or if) it goes through if the names with spaces get lopped off I'll add them manually. I probably missed a couple somewhere down the road if they commented without voting, and some have obviously posted way more than others. A lot of folks were just ip addresses so I ignored those, and a handful have been suspended as sockpuppets and another handful were banned for some other reasons. Then there were the editors who changed their handles so I changed them to the new versions. So we'll see how it works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the bot is working. It hasn't done anything since 14 October and definitely hasn't posted your message to anyone as yet. See . --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to do it manually starting from a-z. I forget exactly how I worded it. something like.
 * Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
 * This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar.
 * This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past.
 * It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cor blimey. Before you get onto D you might consider skipping the users that have already contributed to the new poll. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You get into a rhythm and it's almost slower to go and look at this new poll to see if they already added their vote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, fair enough. I thought you might have had some kind of list you could just zip down and cross off the contributors to date. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

✅ A few of you whose names I readily knew had already voted this time were skipped. I started getting tunnel vision from all the pasting so I hope I didn't miss anyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * just wanted to thank you for your work notifying me everyone on the poll. I like taking part in these discussions, where I feel competent to but too often am simply not aware of their existence. And of course, the more users who take part, the better the decision that gets made (though a 37-37 tie is not the best way of demonstrating that i guess).  Anyway, it was much appreciated.  --InspectorTiger (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I guess 50/50 was a likely outcome and after 3 years I thought some may have changed their minds, but I was concerned when the initial voting was mostly new people. I thought if it was me and I didn't know about a new poll, that I would have been pissed I missed it. I felt it was simply my turn to step up and do the tedious job of notifying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Myanmar
Just a note to say thanks for notifying me. I voted in favour on the same grounds that I submitted previous posts. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I voted against but I just wanted to make sure no one was left out no matter which way the wind blows this time. It's been too contentious in the past to have someone say "crap" I wish I would have known about this new poll. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True. And I am in no way bitter towards anyone who votes differenty from me. There are enough decent editors voting your way, Nightstalion for one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I too want to thank you for notifying me about this, since I cannot see how I would have known about it otherwise. C 1 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Care to comment?
Talk:Marek Židlický —  Who R you?  Talk 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented but didn't avail myself of the poll as it would have seemed like canvassing to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; now that I've seen WP:Canvass I can understand why. But I guess that's how these changes keep getting made even though when a proposal to change policy for the use of diacritics is made it loses because more than a few secretly vote and the consensus is against it.  Cheers  —   Who R you?  Talk 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

bill tilden page
you might take a look at the Tilden page -- some cretin is busy chopping out enormous chunks of it through, i imagine, total ignorance of the subject. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the "ignorant cretin" is I. I don't pretend to know much about Tilden, but I do know that what I removed is most unfit for an objective encyclopedia article. As you seem to know your tennis pretty well, maybe you would be able to improve it? I'm not generally in favor of removing large sections of an article, but in this case, I think any serious editor would agree with my removals. If you can improve rather than remove, more power to you! Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with all the changes made by Joe. The article has long been tagged as violating Wikipedias policies. Joes removals were all of uncited claims, ridiculous fancruft, unwarranted speculation about sexuality, and generally all manner of things that Wikipedia does not accept.
 * I couldn't work out of Peirce was really this oblivious to Wikipedias policies (including the one about being civil) so I checked his recent contributions - he has just added this article, which is entirely unreferenced. An entirely unreferenced BLP at that. So it would appear that Peirce really has no business criticising anyone on this encyclopedia when he appears so ignorant of how it works.
 * I also noticed that the Kathryn Lance article had been ported from Citizendium, so I checked the history of their article and that site and I discovered that Citizendium actually encourages what it calls 'Editors' (what we might call experts) to write without using citations!
 * Why this is isn't immediately clear, but what is clear is that Peirce isn't recognized as one of Citizendiums experts! Why he thinks he is expert enough to write articles without references when even his own website doesn't consider him an expert I don't know, but I would suggest to him that even if Citizendium classed him as an expert he would still have to provide references for his contributions here.
 * Another thing clear from reading up on Citizendium is that Peirce has a history of rudeness. It is starting to look like the guy running around shouting "ignorant cretins!" is sitting in front of a mirror. Weakopedia (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything that has been removed from the Tilden article is easily found in Frank DeFord's biography, which is the first book cited in the bibliography. But, of course, a poor old imbecile like Peirce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayford_Peirce) obviously doesn't know how to compose an article, to research it, or to reference it.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to realize that this is Wikipedia and we use inline citations in place of people claiming they know stuff, or that they read it in a book once. That level of research may be acceptable to Citizendium but here we are concerned with the reader and how best to assist them. If you have access to the book then you had your opportunity to fix the article already and hey - this is Wikipedia, and even you can edit the material back in. If you provide some actual references for it this time. If you don't know by now that we have rules about BLPs then it is high time you found out. Weakopedia (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You might take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/The_Oldest_Confession, 27 footnotes, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oldest_Confession, 25 footnotes. The reason I gave up writing at Wikipedia after several years and hundreds of articles created is that I grew tired of having to footnote the assertion that "Bill Tilden was one of the greatest tennis players of all time". Like needing a citation for "the Earth revolves around the Sun."  WP started out as an encyl. for adults when I joined it; now it is an encyl. for third-graders. Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So you know that we have policies, but you grew tired of them, chose to ignore them and instead call anyone who followed them a cretin. Why are you here again? Weakopedia (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Oldest Confession is a masterpiece of what we call original research. Most of the references are to the book itself. At this point I am guessing that you really don't understand our policies at all. Weakopedia (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weakopedia, thank you for your wise comments. There is much I'd like to add here. However, I wonder if perhaps we should move this conversation to the Bill Tilden talk page, both out of respect for Fyunck's talk page, and to invite a wider participation of editors. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow... lots of writing going on here and I guess some editors do things a little differently than I do. Unless it's a living person my first choice is to ask for citations instead removing entire paragraphs. Most of the stuff eliminated is fairly well known however it was not sourced properly here. Had a request for a citation been added I would have noticed it and done my best to find the proper source. I'm not talking about rewriting to sound more encyclopedic, I'm only talking about complete removal of sections. Roger Federer has separate articles on every year he plays, Serena has documentations about every blowup and cuss word she uses. Bill Tilden, The greatest tennis player in the first half of the 20th century by multiple news polls, has two articles here. Per tennis guidelines Tilden may eventually have one article for each and every year he won a Major title plus separate articles for after he turned pro. Using specifics, I agree that items like "He reportedly had no sexual relationships with women at all and apparently very few sexual encounters with members of his own sex...etc" should not be here unless sourced. Period. But removing things like his finger amputation, the tennis books he authored, his matches with Budge, the short stories he wrote, his davis cup records. Those things could have been rewritten, but complete removal was overly aggressive. I'll try to dig up some sources to add items back into the article. So copy editing yes... (flowery words needed to go too), but some of what was removed was a bit harsh. I've noted that many good editors at least try to add a source or two while helping to edit an article. Did you even try? I just added one that I found in 30 seconds. It may not be required but it is certainly good wiki-etiquite to do so. I've found sources on articles I know nothing about and added them to help out rather than eliminating things completely. Just my musings on this talk page topic. I do agree this should be on the Tilden talk page for all to see and comment. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

College tennis
What do you think about all the college tennis pages that are in here? Category:College tennis teams in the United States Category:College tennis players in the United States I thought college tennis is not notable according to WP:TENNIS guidelines, or is an exception being made for the USA? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also some college tennis coaches:
 * Category:College tennis coaches in the United States
 * MakeSense64 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the guidelines say college tennis is never notable. Certainly many college football teams are notable. I guess if some college team won the championship 10 years in a row they would be notable but otherwise not so much. Now these are categories you listed not actual articles. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. Take UCLA... they have a school page, naturally, and have a listing here that shows some worthy athletes. Those names belong on that page imho. Now whether that means we add a category of ucla bruin tennis players, I wouldn't but it looks like many schools have. I really don't know. We do have categories of tennis players from California. Now I did take a guy at random from the ucla category of tennis players...Glenn Bassett, coach. When I look at his particular page he did win the Cincinnati masters in 1950, as a coach won 7 national championships, is the only person in NCAA history to win an NCAA tennis title as a player, assistant coach and head coach... is in the UCLA Athletic Hall of Fame, the ITA Collegiate Tennis Hall of Fame, and has written two books on tennis. Even if he didn't win the Cincinnati masters that is an impressive resume and I would probably say that this particular person was notable. Wouldn't you? It's sort of case by case on some of these things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Each case can meet GNG individually, of course. And if a person like Glenn Bassett won titles in the 1950s, then he is notable on that basis, not because he is a college tennis coach today. I know some college football teams are notable, but I think college tennis is not nearly as big and notable as college football is over there. I think I will AfD some selected articles from these categories and see how they go. If they result in keep then we can adapt the guidelines on the tennis project accordingly. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivalry
I am going to make an article with the title because it has become part of the current lexicon in tennis kind of like in golf you have Great Triumvirate and I am thinking about creating The Big Three in golf as well. See, this has been done before.HotHat (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The dominance shown by these men, is rather quite remarkable to note on a separate page, which just take a look for a second. How many times has a slam been won by a player other than the trivalry, since Federer's first at the 2003 Wimbledon Championships? Take a guess? I will tell you, so you don't have to think about it, which here is the list as follows: 2003 US Open Champion; Andy Roddick, 2004 French Open Champion; Gaston Gaudio, 2005 Australian Open Champion; Marat Safin, and 2009 US Open Champion; Juan Martin del Potro. See, their has never been a time of such an utter stranglehold of the slams has occured on the men's tennis circuit by just three men.HotHat (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it to be unworthy of an article. The term is a fad that will soon blow over and I don't find it commonplace at all. It it has mainly been dominated by just two men. But by all means bring it up at the tennis project page and see what others think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ProD
Thanks for supporting my ProD of the Dementieva-Williams rivalry article. You may want to use this template to add you vote: Template:Proposed deletion endorsed, on the Talk page your comment is not so likely to be noticed by the deleting admin. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The A7 speedy deletion criteria
Hi, thanks for your recent new page patrolling. I've removed the speedy deletion tags from the ITF sports articles because sporting events are not covered by the importance speedy deletion criteria. This criteria only applies to specific groups of articles: "real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Speedy deletion is about getting rid of articles quickly because they don't need any discussion as it can be safely assumed that deleted would be the outcome. I imagine that sporting tournaments aren't included because they could be considered to automatically claim importance and therefore A7 couldn't apply anyway. You should either propose these articles for deletion, or (preferably) take them to articles for deletion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, it's been done many many times before when the article obviously doesn't meet any kind of our tennis project criteria. This is the first time, among all the speedy deletion requests I've made on tennis articles, that it's been refused. This events are organizations that do not meet any of the minimum required stipulations for tennis tournaments as described at our guidelines. This is a slam dunk once it's discussed. $35,000 payout minimum... and these aren't even $25,000 payouts. They're $10,000. I'm actually very surprised by this answer of yours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is, speedy deletion isn't about notability, something that many people ignore (including some deleting admins). Articles where notability is a concern should only be deleted through WP:PROD and WP:AfD, because even with notability guidelines it is important to have some form of discussion or at least the ability for the person who created the page to address these concerns (something they can't easily do with speedy deletion). The A7 (importance) criteria is very narrow in scope, while leaving some ambiguity over what constitutes importance. It can only be used to delete articles about:
 * People (living or dead)
 * Individual animals (pets, performing animals, circus animals etc.)
 * Organisations (companies, clubs, charities, bands etc.)
 * Web content (podcasts, browser games, websites etc.)
 * If these articles were about the organisation that arranges these tournaments then yes, it might be eligible, however articles on the tournaments themselves are not.
 * If you still believe these articles should be deleted, then by all means use the other avenues for deletion, just not speedy. An AFD covering all these articles may be most appropriate (though I've never done such a thing myself). --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I had never done multiples before but seen them many many times in tennis project. What a pain to do it but it's done (I hope correctly). Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll study them a bit & !vote. You didn't do all of those manually did you? Whenever I do an AFD (admittedly fairly infrequently) I enable the twinkle gadget because it makes it so much faster. --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did do it manually. For non related I do use twinkle but it requires special stuff for multiple liked deletion requests. I didn't know twinkle had that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see (I'm not sure whether twinkle can handle multiple AFD requests). I'm impressed by how well you did it (just one AFD is such a complicated procedure manually). --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my edits about Djibouti tourneys I won't do it longer, because I have just realized that these tournaments aren't that important as I thought and I just did it, because an other editor created the page about the Kolmangal tournament and it wasn't deleted for 2 weeks so I thought that it would be ok to do this for other 10k where a proper name exists as well, but you tought me not to do this thing anymore and so I will from now on just concentrate on the 25k and upward tourneys, if this is ok for you. P.S.: I just wanted to finish the already started ITF Djibouti 2 tournament, because I thought even if it is deleted the little while it will exist it should be complete and not somehow be incomplete because of a missing finals result.Sorry for my bad behaviour towards your comments. Catgamer (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. However the only tournaments required to stay today are the $35,000 and up events. Only before 2007 are $25,000 tournaments notable. Tennis project is slowly going through and removing all the non-notable events. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Soundwaweserb_disruptive_editing.The discussion is about the topic Djokovic–Nadal rivalry. Thank you. —MakeSense64 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I guess I reached Godwin's law in record time. Fyunck(click) (talk)
 * Yes, another such record and you may reach the notability guidelines to have your own article on WP ;-)
 * Touching anything Djokovic seems to be extremely sensitive with some editors. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)