User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 7

=2015 archives=

You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out on to the court to play each other; to have heard the applause, to have heard dead silence from the crowd as a point was in progress. The years came and went as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... as did the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, Sampras and Federer. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King and Goolagong, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Navratilova, Graf and Williams. Service has changed from having to keep one foot on the ground or just getting the ball in play, to players who can fire a dart that only high speed cameras can behold. Of course I wasn't there in the 1920's when tennis truly went international and the ILTF wrote into their bylaws that no Major championship could claim to be a "world championship" or that the language of tennis would be "for ever in English." But the repercussions of those early days, and binding together of adversarial organizations, laid the groundwork for what we have today. The sport is special to me and it always will be.

When I started editing at the English Wikipedia 7 or 8 years ago things were much much different. Guidelines and policies were not as complete and it was certainly more "English alphabet" oriented; other language Wikipedias were being formed to cover their own spellings and foibles. Vandalism and personal attacks happened to be sure but not to the extent it does today. Item placement was based much more on common use, sourcing and verifiability, rather than a consensus of opinion and how we would like things to be. We reported what we saw and read rather than making our own truth that would get picked up by Google and become a self-fulfilling factoid. It was source, source, source... verify not truth. The wiki world has changed. Maybe it's newer younger editors and their own world viewpoints, maybe it's that the percentage of English-first speakers has gone down in numbers. I'm not sure. But something has made this a less pleasing place to edit.

Over the last year I've been attacked and lied about by one or two editors... nothing has happened through my pleas. It wears on one but by ignoring things most of the time, I've been able to muddle through. When it gets to be too much I call them on it, but nothing is ever done. I know others read what is written and I know that they ignore it. This includes many administrators. Again maybe this is the way things work here now... who you know seems to be very important. But again, while not as enthused as I once was, I still fight vandalism and add items to established pages, while occasionally creating new player bios. But now I see that no matter how well sourced an item is, Wikipedia is looking to allow censorship of established player names. Amazingly, English spellings found as commonplace in the press, books, organizations, etc... are not just being systematically moved into the far corners of an article (that had already been done over the last couple years), but now these spellings are potentially being banished from Wikipedia forever, as if they never existed or are never used. Literally expurgated from this Wikipedia. And this with many administrators blessings. I have to say it hurts to see it go the way of New York soft drinks. It's not like we have storage limitations. Encyclopedia Britannica will often make sure multiple spellings are present so as to give their readers full information. I can't even comprehend how censoring could happen, but it has... here of all places.

This will require a re-evaluation as to what I can really offer to this encyclopedia and what enjoyment it can offer me. Sadly the environment I see now does not appear to be going in a direction that is pleasing to my typing efforts, and fighting off character attacks is certainly wearing me down... at least in an enjoyment capacity. Where consensus used to mean trying to work with everyone to find common ground that all can live with (whether minority or majority), it now seems to be an all or nothing, my way or the highway type of decision. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Golden Slam
I was being WP:BOLD and made the section like the Super Slam, and since there was never a consensus about it and no sources backing up a restrict definiton about Golden Slam, I wasn't the one that should have opened that discussion. Well, I've answered back in the talk page. ABC paulista (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Being bold is great and fine. Encouraged at wikipedia. But when you change something, and it is reverted, you are then supposed to bring it to talk to change peoples minds... not revert again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, I reverted your change so you were the one supposed to bring it to talk. But well, let's just keep discussuing about the issue itself. ABC paulista (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Baloney. It was stable for years until you changed it. Revert yourself as is standard for wikipedia and we can discuss more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't revert myself, no matter how much you ask, unless you show irrefutable arguments about Golden Slam. ABC paulista (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Fyunck(click)! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Parenthetical dab on Mustang
Please reconsider your !vote ont he alt proposal at the Mustang dab discussion. You have no idea what a hornet's nest that is. We have 400 horse breed/type articles, all natural disambiguation. There are thousands of named horse articles, all using (horse). It would create terrible confusion. This was settled quite some time ago and a ton of work went into getting these titles stabilized. I beg you to look at List of horse breeds and see what you are proposing. WP:NATURAL clearly allows this, and we do the same for most other farm animals, goats, sheep, etc... Montanabw (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I've talked with family and friends who use this encyclopedia a lot. When they go to look up Mustang they would much rather it go to a dab page because of all the different terms (planes, cars, horses, songs, etc...). It's used in many places. But I did clarify that while I do like the dab page, Mustang (horse) is not the best choice and should be left up to the individual equine project. I should have been clearer on that from the get-go. Clarification is the best I could do there. As for Mustang horse... never really liked it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Before the dab discussion the last time, the article was at Mustang horse. We also have 400-some articles at List of horse breeds and ALL of them are natural disambiguation where a dab is needed.  We also have 3000+ individually-named horse "biographies" and all of those use (horse) (e.g. Eclipse (horse), Secretariat (horse) and so on... Category:Thoroughbred racehorses has 2828 at present, there are more in other categories. WPEQ decided years ago to move all the breed articles to natural disambiguation so as to avoid confusion, particularly where we have most pony breeds already called Foo pony and many horse breeds, such as the American Quarter Horse already have "horse" in their name.  It took us 4 or 5 years to clean these all up and there were a few strays even a year or so ago to fix.  It would be a real PITA to move the article to "Mustang (horse)" because it would necessitate yet another RM to get it back to "Mustang horse." I know this may look weird to you, but see Category:Goat breeds, Category:Cattle breeds and Category:Sheep breeds for other examples (A few of those still have parenthetical dab).  This is near-universal consensus among the livestock articles.   Montanabw (talk)  01:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Mustang (wild horse) or Mustang (feral horse) is far better than Mustang horse. When I (and I assume readers) see a full name on the top I will want to see a name that is actually used in the real world. When everything else is considered, for me, nothing matters more than our readers. I don't care about MOS or consensus or whatever, if I feel that it's worse for our millions of readers. The parentheticals are a way for readers to discern an item when it also has multiple meanings. Mustang is such a case. At tennis project we use (tennis) for everything whether it's players, tournaments, equipment, etc. If two players have an identical name we add more to the parentheses to further differentiate. Or perhaps add a middle name. But we wouldn't call him Roger Federer tennis player. It might be true but it's not his name nor would readers expect it. If I come to this encyclopedia I would expect Mustang to be at Mustang and upon reaching a dab page (because there are so many mustang definitions) it would lead me to the correct article. I would then expect to see Mustang (horse) or Mustang (???? horse), depending on what the equine project thought was best for our readers. I would never expect to see Mustang horse as the title. Quarter horse is it's sourced name... we don't call it a Quarter. The same thing when wikpedia decided to allow the censoring of tennis players name spellings. I didn't care what MOS or consensus decided, I will always feel it's wrong for wikipedia to banish/censor all mention of alternate spellings, especially when 90% of the sources spell it the censored way. I feel it is worse information for our readers, as is Mustang horse. It might be better for your project, but I think it's poor information for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:NATURAL and further discussion at the article. " Example: The word "English" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternative but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, mechanical fan and hand fan are preferable to fan (mechanical) and fan (implement). Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we choose elevator as the name of the lifting device."  Montanabw (talk)  02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, we commonly use the name hand fan we can also use it here to differentiate it. Mustang horse is not such a case. I could see it being used for Thoroughbred horse racing as opposed to Quarter horse racing, as describing a type of racing. So as long as it's a common term we could use Equine Mustang, but it's not common, nor is Mustang horse. We could use Wild Mustang in it's place. That's for your project to decide but you will not get me to think that Mustang horse is what is best for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I've never heard "mechanical fan" used in any context I know of other than wikipedia. Mustang horse is not a "made up" name, any more than "English people."  I can respect that it feels weird to you, and we can agree to disagree on that one, but parenthetical disambiguation is even weirder and I still remember how odd THAT was to me as a new user, even though it was 8 years ago... All I really ask is that you just let the project's style have some respect.  We put so many hours into getting these articles from a mishmash into something consistent with naming.  Frankly, this project is a lot of work; there are so many articles we have to watchlist (when I say I have 4000 on my watchlist, 90% of them are equine-related). So these drive-by disputes are really draining.   Montanabw (talk)  07:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm giving the "Project" far more respect than anyone else. You say we can't use (horse) so I'll stand by you on that. Would I use (horse)... yes, (horse) seems fine and natural to me at wikipedia. But the equine project says no so I can work with that. Wikipedia says no to "Mustang horse" so you need to work with that. I see no compromise on any of my suggestions and you haven't come up with anything else. Until you do posting here is turning into a waste of time. The watchlist thing doesn't do it for me... I must have 1000's of tennis articles on my own watchlist. If I didn't want them there or the time it takes to fix things, I'd remove them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's turning into a waste of time, but seriously, "wikipedia" does not say no to Mustang horse (and there are hundreds of animal breed articles that say yes). And yes, I am absolutely opposed to parenthetical disambiguation of horse breed/type articles and the debate is only between parenthetical disambiguation and natural disambiguation, debating different types of parenthetical disambiguation is just moving around the furniture.   Honestly, if we just killed the dab discussion and left Mustang as primary, we wouldn't even have that issue.   Montanabw (talk)  19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I see it is you have a plan A to keep it at Mustang. That's cool as it could happen. You have no plan B because it is extremely unlikely to go to Mustang horse if plan A fails. Therefore it'll probably wind up at mustang (horse) as more and more non-equine editors (who don't care one iota about the equine project) weigh in. I'll go back to mostly tennis articles and you'll have Mustang (horse) because of not offering something palatable to the community when the opportunity arose. Not a big deal to me in the long run. I've offered my opinion and multiple choices, but I'm only one editor. And I'm slowly moving on from that topic, so good luck to you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(watching) Did you see my bird example? Asking if we would move Nightingale in case a singer made it to Primary topic using that name, to Nightingale bird, Nightingale (bird), Nightingale (wild bird) etc.??? I vote for leaving the bird alone and dab the singer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wiki. (sigh) Fyunck(click), I want to thank you for your support of capitalization at the Mustang article, but unless we get a lot more people over there, I'm just giving up.  I also appreciate your willingness to keep the Mustang article from becoming a dab, but I fear that too is doomed to fail.  I am going to dig in about "Mustang horse" though, as that was the previous name for the article before it was made primary, and for good reasons. If the community wants to do away with natural disambiguation (English people, etc...) then that is their perogative.  Until then, I hope that we can agree to disagree in good faith.  Montanabw (talk)  04:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless someone starts to get personal or they become habitual liars, I always move on with agreeing to disagree. Wiki is too small a place to think we won't meet again on another topic. I agree and then disagree with fellow editors all the time. That's life. See you 'round. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons for tournament locations
Hey, Fyunck. I have just removed the flag icons from the tournament locations in the Lisa Raymond article:. As you know, I have been a strong advocate for the appropriate and limited use of national flag icons for the sporting nationality of athletes in international competition, and I have repeatedly defended these appropriate and limited uses in MOS discussions. That being said, overuse and inappropriate use of the icons, such as these uses for geographic locations, makes it harder to defend the appropriate uses for sporting nationality. I would be grateful if you, as one of the long-time members of WP:Tennis, would raise this issue on the WP:Tennis talk page and get the project to take steps to curtail this use of the icons for tournament locations. Thank you, once again, for all you do for tennis and sports articles generally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that there are only a limited number of really active tennis project members. Wolbo's and my edits have lots of flag removals also. There are thousands of the improper flags, especially from older articles, but it is low priority to remove them. I usually do it as I see them, but with the caveat that often I need to work on 20 vandalized articles and I know a particular bad-flag article will take me 10 minutes to fix... so it waits till another day. Thanks, I'll post a reminder at the project today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood and thanks for the response, Fyunck. I wanted to make sure there wasn't some sort of WP:Tennis local understanding that this was appropriate, and that is apparently not the case.  Clean-up of legacy articles takes time and willing editors.  I just purged geographic location flags from the swimming world record articles (about two dozen) and that took about two weeks to work my way through them with manual edits.  It's kinda funny that there is always an anti-flag editor to argue with you about an Olympic athlete's infobox, but they're never available to help with the clean-up of articles where we all agree.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Only too true. In case you come across any, remember the tennis project does it differently with Davis Cup/Fed Cup/Hopman Cup flags...flagging the national team and not the individual players, as per tennis guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang dab
Withdrew my proposal to close, didn't realize the vote was going toward keeping it as primary, and parenthetical dab is the worst-case scenario here after we got 400 horse breed articles to natural dab. Montanabw (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi Fyunck I have created the article Overall tennis records - Womens's Singles however an editor Usertalk:Bgwhite has altered stuff which has now left the article with lots of table's missing or just blank in whole sections his edit summary was about mixing and matching with AWB but if he wasn't happy about it OK alter the article but keep it's appearance looking right I have tried to put it back but can't do it can you take look much appreciated.--Navops47 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have done it and reversed them all back.--Navops47 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good. I saw a couple errors and correct them. I'll look a bit more tomorrow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply (with explanation about Moody and Connolly) to my edit on Court's page. If you have an issue with the facts I put in the Graf article, please source a reference disputing them. Thank you.Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, this should get interesting . . ..
Just saw this:. Color me interested to see what the response will be. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As opposed to forming something new, I used the closers exact words to be as fair as possible. I did it because of a conversation going on at the Village Pump where there was talk of changing the Mos/Icon section. I reminded than of this RfC and an editor complained that rules buried in RfC's really help the veteran prolific editor at he expense of the inexperienced editor, who has no idea that these archived things exist. He's right of course, but I explained that that's the way wikipedia often works. I hate giving that kind of answer. It surely could be worded better and perhaps placed a paragraph or two up or down, but the RfC is crystal clear that it belongs there. We'll see what the cat licks up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for firing the first shot. I'm game.  Suffice to say that I have MOS:ICON watch-listed.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Combined clay results vs Rafael Nadal
I noticed that you nuked the Federer/Djokovic results vs Nadal on clay in the Djokovic–Federer rivalry article. I was wondering if you can provide an explanation as to why? It's clearly an important part of the rivalry which compares how each man fares against Nadal. It's no different than the combined performance timelines or any other such comparisons made between the two. A rivalry is not always about player A defeating player B, but it also takes into account each men's success or failure against a clear common obstacle. Zup326 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that your sentence "compares how each man fares against Nadal" says it all. This is an article on Djokovic vs Federer... their rivalry, not their rivalries with others. If your addition belongs anywhere (which I'm not sure about) it would be at the Big Four article where they are each compared against others in the Big Four. For all I know they already talk about it there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If I run 50 yards in 5 seconds and you run 50 yards in 5 seconds, that is part of our rivalry. If I beat Nadal 5 times and you beat Nadal 5 times, that is part of our rivalry. We can both run 50 yards in 5 seconds and we have both beaten Nadal 5 times. If you beat Nadal a 6th time or run 50 yards in 4 seconds, then you are better than me at beating Nadal and running. We could be talking about eating 6 hot dogs or climbing 6 mountains. Nadal is the yard, hot dog, or mountain in this case. I understand the Big Four consideration and I considered putting it in the Big Four article initially, but I would argue against putting it in the Big Four article because it has nothing to do with Murray at all, and that article is already quite full of tables and charts. The information in question is strictly related to how Federer and Djokovic directly compare with each other against a common obstacle which happens to be Nadal on clay. Zup326 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, even with your first sentence. Their rivalry is how they do against each other. Now it could be possible many will agree with you so why don't you propose this on the talk page of the rivalry and see what others think? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits on AO pages
You reverted a couple of my edits with the following comment:

"The seeds are listedin the individual articles... no need to list them again."

Here are the articles I'm referring to:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Australian_Open&oldid=646871440#Qualifier_entries
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Australian_Open&oldid=646871127#Qualifier_entries

Note that I wasn't adding the seeds, but the qualifiers. This follows the standard of all the newer (2009 and later) Australian Open pages, for example:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Australian_Open#Main_draw_qualifier_entries
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Australian_Open#Main_draw_qualifier_entries
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_Australian_Open#Qualifiers_entries

Rubyaxles (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake on the seeds, sorry. But are the qualifiers needed there anyways? If they are on the main qualifier articles why are we listing the same list on the general articles? Very strange. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good question. The seeds are listed on both the event and the general article, but I guess the qualifiers are less important. I'll leave the pages as they are for now. - Rubyaxles (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why the seeds are there either. Maybe I'll bring it up at Tennis Project to see what others think. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Looks like there are some tennis players in there:. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hingis was on my watchlist (along with a couple thousand others) but Hewitt was not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Input on proposal ATP World Tour records article
As a regular editor to the ATP World Tour records article your input concerning a proposal to change the content scope of the article would be appreciated at ATP World Tour records / talk page. Thx!--Wolbo (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Simonne Mathieu
Hint: watch this film, especially towards the end (after 2' 20"). Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty cool. But when you look up information on most of the old tennis records... like at Wimbledon, researches will find it often spelled Simone. Important for them to know that it was spelled that way in a whole lot of sources including some of the most important books ever written on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Update article
Why you reverted my revision? He win Kližan last night 6 0, 5 7, 6 1! I update, and why you doing?--Soundwaweserb (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe in that edit you also reverted his nationality (again). I'm not going to look through your entire edit to find the problems. You have to do that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just shut the fuck up. You vandalize article in that way, and the second time watch what you're doing!--Soundwaweserb (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please watch the language. If you make an edit that has errors it's not our responsibility to keep weeding them out of your edits. We revert it with a summary to let you know how you can fix it. I even added some sources for you. Overall I love how you keep on top of the Djokovic article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Template Venus Williams
Dear Fyunck(click),

I had a question. I saw you deleted the seasons on Venus Williams template. Why did you do that? I do think it is useful in the that template and if you look to template of other big tennis players you also see that the seasons are in the templates. I hope to hear of you soon, Greetz Followertje (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is against wikipedia consensus and tennis project guidelines. Only certain players are allowed season articles. Players who have won a Grand Slam tournament that year, or if they have previously won a grand slam tournament they can have a season article id they are in the top 5 and have played at least 25 matches. Venus does not qualify for those articles and they will be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reaction. I didn't know that the pages got deleted, so now I can totally understand why you did it. I also do understand the reason why you did delete the season pages of Venus Williams and I totally agree with that. Good job and thanks again for you reaction! Followertje (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship
Hi Fyunck(click), perhaps you have seen that I have requested a peer review of the 1877 Wimbledon Championship article? The article has GA status since mid 2013 and I have since significantly updated it and added content and citations. I am trying to get the article promoted into a FA and have it published on the homepage (TFA) during the final weekend of this year's tournament. As I'm sure you know that would make it the very first FA article of our project. I have asked a few non-tennis editors to peer review the article to provide a fresh perspective that perhaps is lost to us tennis-heads. Nevertheless you are of course welcome to also add your comments if you have time and interest. The more the merrier. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to Template:Medal
Hey, Fyunck. At your request, we have posted mock-ups of the before and after examples of the template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at the Whitney Reed article?
Particularly the fifth paragraph? HOW can this stuff have been allowed to remain here? Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of WP:REPEATLINKs
Why do you keep reverting edits (by different editors) and say "it's under discussion". Where? You don't give a link. If you can't give a link that trumps the link to the MOS, then don't revert. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All the presidents (except one) link both predecessor and successor. These are very important links and are mentioned in repeatlinks under "if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes". If someone wants to change that they can bring it up on the individual talk pages or make an RfC for changing. The exception has been FDR and it's under discussion on his talk page to conform his to all the others. We are supposed to use common sense with MoS so if you want to remove a link, make it the less helpful VP links... not the presidents before and after. It's too important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What the MOS says is "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." It is helpful to repeat a link in these other areas, but not repeat it within the infobox. That serves no purpose and makes absolutely no sense at all to me. And when another (veteran) editor makes an edit and gives a link to an MOS, and then you revert it, saying "as per all other president articles. Conformity" (there's really no such thing -- each article follows consensus by the editors of that particular article) or "it's under discussion" (and you don't give a link, so I look on the article's talk page and see nothing there) is disruptive and disrespectful. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There certainly is conformity. I have seen it brought up countless times in discussions. The diacritic wars were filled with it. And it absolutely serves a purpose in easily navigating from one article to another, especially for younger readers. You are correct that I should have done better with the summary... sorry. I'll be more specific in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me that you take more stock in what's said in discussions than in an MOS. I can't understand how anyone can't figure out that the same name is linked just a couple of items above. It would be one thing if they were far apart but 2 places?? And what do you mean by "younger readers"? Do you mean children? That's what Simple Wikipedia is for. But even the MOS there says, "Only link a word the first time it is used in the article, but do not link the same word more than once in an article." --Musdan77 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "stock in what's said in discussions" you mean consensus, then yes... consensus trumps MoS easily. Always does at Wikipedia. It is an important enough category in the infobox to make sure it is linked... and others seem to agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you think an MOS comes about? ...through consensus. A discussion is mostly opinion. And the most substantial comments are those that are based on MOS. But, you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you say that all president articles should conform with each other, but on the other hand you say that consensus should be found through discussion. But unless there is a project page for U.S. presidents, this really can't be done. And there's always going to be editors who follow MOS guidelines. So, it's a never-ending cycle. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * MoS "usually" comes about by consensus, not always. I've seen stuff slip in many times with no discussion at all. MoS allows for these sort of things, it's not ironclad and it tells us to use common sense when applying. I didn't ask for every link to be added over and over again, but I felt for our readers sake that the succeeded by and preceded by in the US President's infobox are too important to be left unlinked. Unlink the vp if you like as it's not as important. But those two items should be linked. And there IS a wikiproject page for U.S. presidents. Look, if the RfC fails, it fails... FDR get to keep his anomoly. If it passes we simply put a note in the infobox not to unlink per consensus. There shouldn't be an endless cycle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Player career statistics articles
A separate career statistics page for a 17-year old player? I'm appreciative of any effort to expand our tennis knowledge on wiki but perhaps this is taking it a step too far? --Wolbo (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I'm not sure how to stop it. I guess the main way is that there is only supposed to be a "career statistcs article" IF it won't fit on the main page. Audrey's main page is quite sparse. I'll try to move it back to the main page with a redirect and see if it sticks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline is somewhat ambiguous but I'm not sure if making guidelines more specific and restrictive is always the right approach. On the one hand it provides more clarity, which is a benefit, but having broader, more permissive guidelines allows more room for new developments and initiatives. There is always the option of tightening them if things get out of hand. In this case it's probably best to see how it develops and keep an eye out for similar career statistics articles.--Wolbo (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hate it being too restrictive. But there were consensus talks about this some time ago. If at all possible it's best to have everything on one page. Better for readers and better for ease of updating. Updates happen more often if everything is in one place. But if a player article gets too large (because of accomplishments or popularity) the first thing we break off is a career stats page. This particular article had a tiny main page so it is an easy call. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sheldon Cooper presents: Fun with Flag(icons)
We have both been involved in several discussions on the use of flagicons and have done our tedious chores of cleaning up many a flag-invested article. Sometimes you come across an article that just makes you chuckle, an example that falls firmly into that category is 2008 ATP Challenger Series. There should be a warning tag not to navigate the page without wearing sunglasses. It's almost a shame to clean it up.--Wolbo (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Love that tv show. LOL, you're right, it's pretty bad. I wonder if I put on red/blue 3D glasses if the flags would float above the screen? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. Now that flag icons are semi-legal for international athlete infoboxes, that 2008 ATP article is almost enough to make me switch sides and start campaigning for their universal ban everywhere.  Seriously?  How could anyone think such usage was ever appropriate?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. There are always some who will stretch things to the limit. I sometimes find articles with the most horrendous color schemes possible... purples, bright yellows and oranges... my retinas take a beating. But we usually fix them bit by bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fyunck, I really think the Olympics, Formula One, golf, gymnastics, swimming and tennis WikiProjects ought to adopt their own flag icon guidelines that are not inconsistent with your MOS modification, but can speak in greater detail for those projects. WP:FOOTY does its own thing, and I expect they will continue to do their own thing with team rosters, etc.  I think the athletics/track and field project and others would eventually join the larger group.  We need to clarify basic rules of thumb that flags for the geographic locations of sports events are not acceptable, and that properly designed playoff brackets do not need to use multiple flags for the same athletes or team -- any more than every instance of the athlete or team's name needs to be linked.  I've been accused of being a flag "nut," but, ironically, I spend far more time deleting them from inappropriate uses than I do adding them.
 * FYI, here's how WP:SWIMMING is now using them: Mary Wayte. One flag per swimmer infobox, and only used for national team members who have competed in international events.  We're stripping them from bottom-of-the-page succession boxes for world records, etc., and we're stripping them from all event locations.  It's an approach that would work for most athletes in the so-called "Olympic" sports.  Golf and tennis would probably run in parallel, but somewhat different usage from the Olympic sports.  All of the concerned sports projects should sanction a single flag for sporting nationality/national team in the athlete's infobox.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is this could be a solution in search of a problem. Tennis probably has a thousand articles with a flag problem that were created long before we really defined the parameters and cracked down. It just takes years to find them all. Most of our newer editors have been pretty good at not overdoing it. A few don't know any better but I think explaining it to them will be successful. This particular article was made in 2011... 4 years ago. I think it's like shopping carts around my neighborhood. As soon as I see one I take it blocks away to a particular easy to find spot and call the store to pick it up. Otherwise they start appearing left and right because others think it's the place to leave them... that no one cares. Something like that probably happened with this article too. It was likely built from another old article with the same problem. They have the same events in the same locations so why not use the original as a template to create others. We just need to find all the articles and fix them so that no one uses them as a template for future pages. Maybe Wolbo feels differently. Right now Tennis Project uses one flag per personal infobox, and never for locations anywhere on the page. If we see flags for locations we remove them. For individual players in charts and lists they are vital. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be good to formalize the authorization of flagicon usage in infoboxes for representative nationality on MOS level. The last discussions showed a consensus so it makes sense to add it to MOS:ICON. For the tennis project it does not have a big impact as we already conform to this usage. I see no real alternative to taking a practical approach and fixing the remaining non-compliant articles as we find them or whenever we do a flagicon cleanup tour of duty. The problem is that it takes so long to get everything cleaned up this way. This not only applies to flagicons but also to other pending updates such as the ndash conversion, the agreed tiebreak format and the tournament color schemes. There has certainly been a lot of encouraging progress on all those update actions but none are yet completed. Just this week I asked on the help page if we can list all the tennis articles that still contain the defunct url 'atptennis.com'. Turns out there are still almost 3,000 of these links (that generate a 404 error) and this is a url that was changed by the ATP six (!) years ago.--Wolbo (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wolbo, on the substance of where, when and how to use flag icons, I think I'm on board with WP:TENNIS about 90%, and I can live with the differences. Clearly, however, MOS:FLAG needs to be clarified and contradictory language conformed.  In the aftermath of the lop-sided Formula One flag icon RfC, Fyunck's very BOLD changes to MOS:FLAG have opened a window, and I congratulate him on that.  Frankly, I never thought the anti-flag folks would accept Fyunck's changes so easily, or back off as they have, based on the very ill-defined RfC.  In my estimation, three problems remain, however: (1) contradictory language laced throughout MOS, and elsewhere, that several anti-flag editors have inserted as part of their post-2009 campaign against flags; (2) more clearly defining permitted uses of flag icons; (3) defining non-permitted uses (and discouraging over-use) of flag icons in sports articles.  Part of the over-arching problem with defining permitted uses is that WP:FOOTY uses flags in very different ways from most of the other sports projects; the association football guys insist on using flags for team rosters for non-national teams, e.g., an English team in the English Premier League which has non-English players.  I don't want to get cross-wise with the FOOTY guys, and any new MOS language that appears to contradict their current usage will draw their opposition.  This is why I suggested that we try to draft a set of usage guidelines for participating sports projects.  To the extent we don't contradict Fyunck's version of MOS:FLAG, we can certainly define their use within our respective projects, and to the extent there is Wikipedia-wide agreement, we can better define certain non-permitted practices (e.g., flags for tournament locations) as part of MOS.  I would suggest we start a sandbox wish list of permitted and non-permitted uses for further discussion.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am placing a courtesy copy of the deletion notice on your page, since you nominated for speedy deletion. I declined speedy deletion as inappropriate, but you are welcome to comment and vote at the AfD, thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why since it's been deleted before for the same reasons. But I'll play along this go around to get it finally deleted for good as was done to all the other tennis players. We had a big to do about including way too many of these trivial seasonal articles. Many wanted them gone completely, but a compromise was reached to include Grand Slam tournament winners only, and then subsequent seasons of theirs IF they maintain a number 3 ranking. Not deleting this would be a step backwards. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Futures Circuit
Hello,

It is maybe better to continue our discussion here... it begins to be a little long. Your sources are very interesting (even if I had to take a free trial to access :)). Because I'm not bilingual, can you confirm the sense of this sentence : "Because there was not enough room for all the aspiring women pros in the 32-player Virginia Slims Tour, a mini-circuit for the next best 32 women players was begun in 1974."

"aspiring women pros" : does it mean that women were aspiring to become pros ? Or that professional women were aspiring to access to the Virginia Slims Tour ? Actually if they were already pro and that it was for the best players, doesn't it mean that it was a very important circuit, so that it deserves articles on wikipedia ?

And do you know what were WTA tournaments categories ?

Finally, I think an article on en.wikipedia on the tennis tournaments categories would be appropriate, with current of course, but also previous systems. (you can tell me if I bother you with my questions) A.Gust14 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL...very little bothers me on wikipedia. I love to try and help out fellow editors. I think your translation is close enough. I think the word "pros" is a bad choice. Today, if you want to play at Wimbledon you can be a pro or an amateur... it is the players choice. It's a professional tour today, but anyone can play. The same back then. Anyone who takes the money is a pro. The men's circuit today is the ATP Tour, the ATP Challenger Tour and the ITF circuit. A male could be 30 years old and be playing in which ever one his skill level takes him. Today the women have the WTA tour, the brand new WTA 125K series, and the ITF circuit. We have articles on every one of these. At the English wikipedia we have individual articles on every tournament on the ATP Tour and ATP Challenger Tour, but never on the men's ITF tournaments since they are not really notable. The men's ITF events only pay up to $30,000 dollars for the whole event. For the women we have articles on every WTA Tour tournament, every WTA 125k series, and every ITF event that is over $30,000 so that it conforms to the men's events. We have articles that talk about every tour and we even have lists of every ITF tournament. Maybe the French Wikipedia isn't as extensive but we haven't missed much.


 * We have articles on the 1980 circuit right here but we only have listings of ITF circuits back to the year 2000. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is still a lot of work to do on fr.wikipedia, but our criteria are not the same, they are more restrictive. We are also less contributors and it is easier to manage in this way. What is sure is that en.wiki is very complete.
 * But don't you really think that an article "Categories of tennis tournaments" would be good? It is right there are articles per season as you told me, per circuit (with details of existing tournaments), but none article which sum up the history of categorisation. Today, apart from Grand Slams, for WTA, it is Premier Mandatory, Premier 5, Premier, International, WTA 125. Before, there was Tier I, II, III, IV, (V). Then before 1988... The same model for ATP... See fr:Catégorisation des tournois de tennis if you don't understand what I mean exactly. A.Gust14 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess we could use it. The thing is we have articles on each of those things. Some of it is covered at the Women's Tennis Association article. Some of it is covered at the WTA Premier tournaments; some is covered at Virginia Slims Circuit; some other details at History of tennis or articles like WTA Tier II tournaments. We have no comprehensive summary article that talks of all the tours in chronological order (and when they changed) as far as I know. It might make for a good article. The French wikipedia is more restrictive? In what way...who can edit it? more oversight? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the French wikipedia which is more restrictive, but particularly the criteria for tennis articles (that are the results of a community decision). For instance, a player is acceptable only if it respects one of these criteria : a top 50 or an ATP final in simples ; a top 25 or a ATP title in doubles ; in Grand slam : an eighth final in simples, a quarterfinal in doubles or a final in mixed doubles ; in the Olympic Games : quarterfinal in simples, semifinal in doubles or medal in mixed doubles... (other specifications but I prefer to stay brief).
 * I guess also that such an article would be good... but I already said it. Moreover, it could help us (on fr.wiki) to complete our article, and be more precise ;). Could you inform me if the decision to create such an article is undertaken ?
 * (Can you confirm me that "eighth final" is something we can say in english ?)
 * Thanks for all your complete and interesting answers. A.Gust14 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not heard the term "eighth final" before but I understand you. We would say fourth round for Grand Slam tournaments. 1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, 4th round, quarterfinals, semifinals and finals. As far as a decision in creating the article, none is needed here. An editor simply decides we need it and creates it. Of course if it is deemed too trivial by the community it can be removed, so the work of that editor would be useless. That wouldn't be the case in this situation unless the article already exists and I just can't find it. I may mention it at the Tennis Project and someone may make one in a week or two. Or I may take a stab at it myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you very much for your help and explanations. I wait this article impatiently :p. A.Gust14 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female copulatory vocalizations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female copulatory vocalizations. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How did you get on this mailing list, Fyunck? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no idea there was even an article on this topic. Maybe they just wanted someone with a lot of experience. ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of Flag Icons
I refer you to WP:WORDPRECEDENCE, the first line of which states, most pertinently to the use of flag icons in articles as it is in the Nadal article: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." A tennis player does not represent his or her home country, government or nationality in any way whatsoever in the way in which it is stated in this policy. It also does not reference use of flag icons in a table in the way it is used in the same articles, UNLESS the play is as a member of a Davis Cup or on a national Olympic team. I'm afraid you are wrong to reverse my removal. Lizabetha (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be incorrect. Long established RfC, and recent confirmations, show us the players may have flags when their sports use them on a usual basis. This has long been consensus. "They are useful in articles about international sporting events, to show the representative nationality of players" It is even written in MoS "infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport." Tennis is a sport that uses flags at almost every competition as do the sources reporting on it. Players MUST register with a nationality or they may not play in an event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Insofar as tennis players are concerned, the only pertinent comments you've made above which would convince me are 1) a written source confirming that every competition - including Grand Slam events - uses a national flag including sources reporting on it, without it being a matter of publicity or choice; and most importantly 2) that players MUST register with a nationality or they may not play at an event, including Grand Slam events. Lizabetha (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And at least we have mouseovers or words that tells us what the flag means. I'm reading the French Open draws today and they have the flags with nothing else...Novak Djokovic Draw. And Wimbledon, and the Australian Open, and the ATP, and the ITF. Plop French Open into google search and what pops up right at the top.... today's draw with all the flags next to the names. You can even pull up a tiny ATP 250 tournament like the Chennai Open and see them plastered everywhere. These were easy to find and it's why MoS:Icons is written they way it is, and consensus is the way it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Damir
Hi, could you please, stop doing mess in an article I developed and I regulary update. I've been doing everything according to guidelines, plus I made some additions. I can't see any sentence which says that junior performance timeline CANNOT be included in player biography. TheLightBlue (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things... 1) No one owns an article and everyone can freely edit it or change it. That's just the way wikipedia is. 20 here is the guideline you missed: "Results from the Grand Slams, WTA Premier Mandatory Events, WTA Premier 5 Events, WTA Tour Championships, Tournament of Champions, Summer Olympics and Fed Cup are acceptable for inclusion in a WTA player's performance timeline for singles and doubles. Results from the WTA Premier Events, WTA International Events, ITF Women's Circuit, or junior championships should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Regarding first issue - of course, I'm not going to say it's "my" article or something like that, just thing is nobody cared about it until Damir played Federer in RG and now suddenly edits are coming... Timeline - yes, you're right, actually I haven't seen that before. Thank you for your words of appreciation. TheLightBlue (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

List of French Open mixed doubles champions
re your undo

But it does: click Activity, click View All, find 1974 and then find Roland Garros. Look at the section Mixed Doubles, the last entry there is FR (Final Round). It specifies opponent DARMON, R (FRA). Et voilà!

In the player's activity, the ITF always shows the name and the nationality of (possibly) partner and opponent(s) as valid during the tournament. This is very useful ! Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things. First, the ITF site is notoriously wrong on that subject.... I mean a lot. Look at Navratilova in 76 Wimbledon. She played for the USA in everything starting late in 1975. The ITF has that dead wrong! Second, I think you are correct in this case since Darmon played for the French Fed Cup team in 1968. Sorry about that one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Bob Hewitt. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Roland Garros & US Open 1972
Hi Fyunck like you know in Roland Garros 1972 there were a draw of 256 players and I guess we don't have templates for a draw like this and if we put 16 sections would be too much, in RG 1968 someone put a preliminary round but in that time there were only 7 matches in the R256 and looks great but this time we have 32 matches in that round. I want to know if there is a way to make it or maybe we can put a preliminary draw with the first two round and then the full draw that we have before. It is almost the same in the US Open 1972, I want to help with this. Bry17may (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the ATP considers the extra round at the 1972 French and US Open as qualifying rounds, and not part of the official event. Borg (his first Major) lost to Emerson in the first round and it doesn't show at the ATP, only the ITF site. The ITF seems to have them. Perhaps it should be added to the bottom as a simple qualifying round? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Newspapers in 1981 even mention the 72 US Open first round for Borg as a qualifying round, not part of the actual event. Likely same as the French of 72. So no need for the extra brackets. But a qualifying listing would be nice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Serena Williams-On Court Activities:Comeback Queen
Hi Fyunck, I just added a section on Serena Williams bio titled Comeback Queen under the On court Activities. Would you mind helping be proof it? I'm new and still trying to get my bearings so your help would be much appreciated, especially from someone with a love of tennis like myself. Thank you. Thad caldwell (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Serena Williams
I see you're very knowledgeable about tennis and have contributed a lot of valuable edits. Can you please keep an eye on edits to Serena Williams being made by Thad caldwell? He was advised previously that it is not a fan page and that content must be encylopedic. I'm not sure he understands that not every random fact or piece of information about Williams is important enough to be included in an encylopedia article. He has also used some unreliable sources, such as amatuer blog posts, and was warned for edit-warring over his repeated insistence that Williams is "the greatest athlete of all time". He was asked several times to get consensus on the talk page for some of the content he wanted to add, but proceeded with changes after little or no discussion, or even when others objected. In any case, I hope you can monitor the article. Please also note that he edited a few days ago as 97.82.223.215 at the same time he was using Thad Caldwell, and he's possibly also editing currently as Tristar009, a new account started in the past 24 hours. Thanks for you help. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:6C8E:EDA2:BE46:E2C (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! If you go to 2605:A000:FFC0:44:6C8E:EDA2:BE46:E2C's talk page, you'll see that I tried to reach out multiple times to him/her in an attempt to start a conversation on the article's talk page and requested the same via edit summaries. I have tried to start a few different conversations on the article's talk page as a way to improve the article and become a beneficial contributor. You'll also note that I informed him/her that 97.82.223.215 is my IP address and that it showed up because I was not signed in at the time and was having issues with my signature (proof is on my talk page). As I've stated before, I'm a tennis enthusiast and new to editing. It's not my intent to turn any page to a fan page and I'm open to suggestions as long as they're given with respect and decorum. Yes, I engaged in an "edit war" because I did not know the best way to handle the issue, but I'm learning everyday. I've reached out to other editors, including you Fyunck, for help on editing and improving the article in question because I'd like to help out with the ongoing WikiProject Tennis. We may not agree on every detail but I'm sure we can at least agree on how to treat each other as editors. Please feel free to reach out to me via my talk page. I'm very easy to talk to and eager to learn/help. Thanks.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Laver & grass OE titles
Hi. I notice you recently corrected Laver's stats page so that he now has 10 "Open" titles in 1968 because 3 occurred before Bournemouth. So that would mean he'd no longer be on the single season records list of the OE records page. I was going to make that change now but thought I'd check with you first. Also, there are still "cite needed" tags on the total grass titles of Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe. I was thinking of adding a ref for each with a link to their personal wikipedia stats page listing them. That would mean dropping Laver to 8 titles, Rosewall to 9, and Newcombe to 6. (Though Laver and Rosewall do have a couple listed with unknown surfaces.) I personally have no idea where those uncited 11, 10, and 8 grass titles currently listed came from. Thoughts? -Testpored (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where they came either, I'm trying to dig stuff up but no luck so far on Laver. I did find a few things and sourced them. I didn't check Rosewall and Newcombe yet. Every source I found tells me the Open Era began on April 27 of 1968... not the beginning of 1968. If that's the beginning of the Open Era then anything prior must be before the Open Era. Laver's stats should acknowledge that, and if he gets pushed down in a few cases, he gets pushed down. I still look at him as potentially the GOAT, but that means zip. We tell it like it is here at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed (on facts and Laver GOAT). I'll go ahead and make that change for 1968, but I'll leave the grass as-is for now. -Testpored (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you gotta give people a chance to see if they can dig up what others may have found before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The open era began at Bournemouth, that is undisputed. However, this doesn't mean all tournaments after Bournemouth were open to both amateurs and professionals. They weren't, in fact in 1968 only 10 tournaments were open so if we want to be historically accurate we should only include open tournaments in the open era records (or at least include an explanatory footnote). Of the 10 open-era titles in 1968 listed for Rod Laver only two were open tournaments (Wimbledon, Pacific Southwest).--Wolbo (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on the context. Remember, the French Open wasn't truly open till the late 70's... Connors wasn't allowed to play... Borg either. Wimbledon certainly wasn't open in '72 when it banned Newcombe. So there will always be some problems. I look at it, and I think sources show authorities do also, that the Open Era began in April of 1968. Not everything was open, true, but the Era began in April of '68. Also, I'm not sure of your interpretation of what was open and what was not. Many events back then were invitational... all the way through the 70's. The '68 US Pro Championships took the prior years' amateurs and pros. Laver (old pro) defeated Newcombe (old ameteur)... that didn't happen before the open era. In 67 it was pros only. At Madison Square garden in May, Emerson was finally allowed to play with the old pros. Same with the French Pro. Just because the tournament title had the word "pro" in it doesn't mean they only had the old pro players. There were old pros, ameteurs, new pros such as the "handsome eight", etc...very strange times. Not open as we have today but more open than ever before. Heck, in similar vein you could say today's year end championship isn't open... it's invitational. They invite the best players based on a point system where before often the best players were invited to play tournaments, but based on more subjective performance and draw power. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The challenge is to provide readers with a clear, understandable but also accurate account of these complex, opaque and interesting early years of the open era, including the statistics that relate to this period. We do not need to change the open era records as we now list them (as long as they are post April 22), but we should provide proper context and explain that open era records do not necessarily mean open tournaments. We should be careful not to conflate the official and practical aspects of 'openness'. The statement that only 10 tournaments (Bournemouth, French Open, Kent, Queens, Wimbledon, Dublin, Gstaad, Hamburg, US Open, Los Angeles) were open in 1968 is not my interpretation, it was an official ILTF decision. All other tournaments that year were, like before, either amateur-only or professional. The French Pro, US Pro and Madison Square tournaments were pro events (both Newcombe and Emerson had turned professional by that time). --Wolbo (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem letting readers know that events were not always open in the open era. As long as we are consistant and use the same logic with 1972 Wimbledon and French Opens, and todays ATP finals. And here's some of that grey area again. Sure, Emerson and Newcombe turned pro as of April 22 1968, but that was because it wasn't hindering them anymore. BillBowry was a pro then too but he played Davis Cup in December which he couldn't do before... so Davis Cup was also open. No matter whet kind of event it was, if it was in the open era, it was an Open Era win or loss. Not necessarily an open tournament win or loss though. It probably wasn't until 1990, when the ATP took over the men's tour that everything was open as we know it today. Kids today have no concept of how weird it was to play in those days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if my point is coming across and it seems you are conflating things that should be seen separately. There is an important distinction between tournaments which were officially 'open' (according to the ILTF) but which, due to all kinds of conflicts and power struggles, did not have all the players present (e.g. 1970 AO, 1970–1974 FO, 1973 W) and tournaments where professionals and amateurs could not compete together because these events were officially not open. The end result may be similar but these are different kind of animals. Bill Bowrey turned pro in 1970 and had to quit the Davis Cup because of it so it certainly wasn't open in those days. --Wolbo (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. oops on Davis Cup. What I'm saying is it's always something.... first banning pros, then banning contract pros, then banning players from competing tours.... If a tournament banned anyone, for any reason, it was really not an "open" event. And that happened a long time after the Open Era began in April of '68. Yes their were less open events in '68 than in '69, but it's not like I would put an asterisk next to a table of wins because that event was not open or as open as it could be. On the tournament page itself, certainly I would say when it became truly open. By the way... I just glanced at our Davis Cup article and it makes no mention when it actually became an open event. That seems kind of an important missing item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Noticed that as well. I believe the Davis Cup became open to professionals in 1973 but haven't yet found a reliable source to confirm that.--Wolbo (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This article seems to indicate that Davis Cup restrictions on WCT contract professionals were still in place at the end of 1973 but also that individual national organizations were able to lift these restrictions. Guess we shouldn't be surprised that, like almost everything else from this period, this too turns out to be a bit more complicated than appears at first glance.--Wolbo (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've come to agree with Fyunck in the process of hashing this out last week on the OE records talkpage. Fact is, the early OE was quite a competitive business climate with several promotions plus ILTF jockeying for power, often to the restriction of who could play what and thus led to the pros unionizing and taking more power for themselves collectively. These were all necessary developments to eventually arrive at the present ATP Tour which is as streamlined as ever. Thus I believe latitude has to be given to create some notion of fairness of records comparison across the entire era. Thankfully that's now the current state of the OE records page. -Testpored (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are also these articles that tell of Davis Cup here and here. Also Newcombe mentions that he wasn't under long-term contract in 1974 and could have played Davis Cup, but wanted to play the WCT finals instead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Allison Smith (actress) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=672554122 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F672554122%7CAllison Smith (actress)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Hilde Sperling - Danish tennis player
Please stop reverting my changes regarding Hilde Sperling.

Hilde Sperling represented Denmark, when she won the French Championships, as they were named then. She married Sven Sperling 28th of December 1933, and became danish citizen by that date. After that date she ALWAYS represented Denmark.

Here are Le Figaro 3rd of june 1935 - psge 7: "La joueues danoise Mme Sperling" http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k298079k/f7.image.langFR

Nationality is not given in Le Figaro in 1936.

Here are Le Figaro mondag 31st of May 1937 - frontpage clearly states Mme Sperling, Dan. - Dan. for Danemark - Denmark. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k409503z.langFR

I know it is not valid here in Wikipedia, but I am a journalist, and I have written about her. I have been into the national archives in Denmark and found articles there as well. The authorities in Denmark has confirmed to me, that she became a danish citizen in 1933. At the time it was something, that happened automaticly, when a woman married a danish man. The day after the wedding danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende wrote, that she now would ne representing Denmark. I also spoke to her training partner from the 1930'es - a 92 year old man. She was a dane representing Denmark.

So I change here nationality to dnaish anywhere I find here results after 28th of December 1933.

Best regards

Fightdane (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, she had dual citizenship. But per the French Open itself, she was German. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, she was not. From the day she got married, she always represented Denmark. That is confirmed by the danish tennis federation. See the link on the page about her. I just posted to links from the original coverage from french media. Helen Jacobs writes in her book "Gallery of Champions" about her own match against Hilde Sperling at the French championships in 1935 (page 48, line 8): "A long first set was the only claim I could make to extending a match in which the now Danish player took full advantage of a game stupidly played on my part".

The danish tennis federation, the french press and Helen Jacobs - her opponent in the semifinal in 1935 - all agree: she was representing Denmark.

What are your sources? Fightdane (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I listed them on the talk page: The French Open official draw, the New Zealand Press, etc... there are many. Perhaps both flags should be used, but to remove the longstanding German flag when I gave the sources on the talk page is wrong and not the wikipedia way. If you change something and it gets reverted, then you bring it to talk to convince others... you revert it again. But, even though you didn't do that I thought that maybe, since there is a question on her playing nationality, we could use both flags (even though the French Open uses German). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see that. I put some information in there as well. I have contacted the danish tennis federation - see the talk page. Fightdane (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Marc Pepin
I'm not sure about this guy. He's won ITF titles in the 50+ division. Alot of regional (New Brunswick) titles. Titles such as, "Won 5 silver medals at European championship" which I don't have a clue what championship they mean. Nothing is sourced. I've removed some POV material already. Hopefully you if he is notable or not. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well remember, some people are notable even if they don't fit our criteria. The press just piles so many laurels on them that we have to include them. I'll look at this guy a little closer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did some searching and I see why the confusion on your part... mine too. Never played jrs or pro level... just senior tennis where everything is in new Brunswick. It's like the number one player in Piedmont North Dakota. I don't really like this article. He is in the new Brunswick Hall of Fame though. It looked like most of the sources are from two New Brunswick papers and his own disc jockey page. One thing for sure... all those charts have to go as they are extreme trivia, 99% of the awards are also extreme trivia with no sourcing at all. Everything that has to do with ranking must say senior level so as not to confuse readers. And that's if this article stays (which I'm not sure about.) I think we need 's advice on this too. One thing... everyone who's listed at the New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame article has their own article here at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed all the trivial parts and the unsupported stuff, but it was put back this morning. The editor has only worked on this particular person at wikpedia, so it's probably a family member or friend. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this stuff the more it looks farcical to me. The Gordon Cup is a USTA senior event put on by seniors at a Cleveland racket club. Or it switches to Toronto as it did in 1995. His profile at the senior ITF website says his highest rank was 28th as a single and 7th in doubles. Seniors tennis is not notable at all and the lists of awards and tournaments as ridiculous. He seems never to have competed on the ITF or ATP tours. The Friendship Cup is another USTA New England senior event. The thing is all those fantastic numbers cited in the article make him look like the greatest tennis player in history, but they are all local senior events, not anything respected by the ITF or ATP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop wasting my job and start using "show preview" button
It took my hour to update page List of tennis umpires and you deleted it and completely wasted my job. And also start using show preview button because you unnecessarily added many edits into list. 151kbar151
 * That would be because you changed the longstanding criteria without bringing it to everyone's attention to judge. You can't do that. It is for GOLD Badge chair umpires only, and they must be sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

UAAP Season 69
Here. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Tennis players
I'm sorry about that - I'm not sure how they got added to the list. I'm doing some checking now to see, and will be running AWB to remove them ASAP.

For whatever reason, it seems to be almost exclusively tennis players that are affected. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've seen the same thing before with a different category and another editor, so it happens sometimes. It looks like most of them at some time in their lives, lived or trained in the US. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten them all, and I think I've figured out what the problem was - if you find any I've missed, please let me know. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - a lot of them are categorized as "people from X town, X state", and that's how they sneak into the category tree. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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


 * FYI...I mentioned your name in an ANI thread. Not a complaint (the issue is with another editor), but as your name was mentioned I wanted you to be aware.  Nothing to do with you specifically.-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Dennis Blömke page move?
I did not understand your question. The article had its title changed erroneously, including deleted from Wikipedia. I just fix the error, because that person exists. If the item is out of date, I will update from now on. Egtj (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It came up that you "moved page User:Gabinho/Sandbox/Tennis stuff/Dennis Blömke to Dennis Blömke," This person is not notable at all that I can tell, and should be deleted from wikipedia. Has he won any Challenger or ATP Tour level event? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

He has won tournaments ITF Futures, just see the page in the International Tennis Federation [http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx? playerid = 100063175]. Because you care so much about it? Has other tennis players with Wikipedia article that did not have such a relevant career, but they are there. I would like you to understand that. If this is subjected to elimination should not be by rapid elimination. It's my opinion. Sorry if I was a bit rude, but no one questioned me about articles or modifications should not have been made. Egtj (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have guidelines, and as far as I know there are no players listed at wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines. You can read player notability qualifications right here at our guidelines. ITF Future events do not count for men. The Minor league Challenger events do count if he wins one. I care about it because everyone at Tennis Project cares about maintaining a minimum standard, and I happened to be the one to catch this incorrect addition. Plus you added this new article with incorrect stats. I fixed them, but it will likely be removed shortly anyway. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Do what you think right. Sorry if I did something wrong in Wikipedia, because it was never my intention. Always tried to contribute as best as possible; but if the exclusion is required, it is done so. I wish you a good job. Egtj (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to come across as rude, which was why I asked on your talk page. We always need new editors and would love to have you contribute. Read over the tennis guidelines and if you have any questions about things don't be afraid to ask. New editors will make many mistakes, and we have to do our best to be helpful while you learn the ropes. My talk page is always open for questions and I'll try to answer with my own minimal knowledge. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we enter into an agreement. I only ask that the page is not protected if it is eliminated, as if the article is not relevant today, may be relevant in the future (it is very difficult to ask for unlock). I will not make further changes to the article in question. Thanks for your consideration. Egtj (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Record against other players on career statistics pages
I have another question for you, unrelated to Polona Hercog. I had recently updated the Record against other players section on Simona Halep's career stats page. In doing so, I discounted matchups that were not WTA or Grand Slam main draw. I understand the confusion, since the WTA website counts qualification and Fed Cup matches in their H2H totals. My reasoning for not counting them was that we don't count them in performance timelines. I included my reasoning in the. Today, someone changed the totals back to reflect the WTA website, but did not give a rationale. Before I do anything else, I was wondering if there is a standard here. I haven't found one. I also have been keeping Azarenka's career stats page up to date lately, so I would like to make sure that one uses the same standard. Thanks. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You know I don't think there is any standard that we reached by consensus. I can only say that I tend to use what the WTA website has as it's easier to source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Denali. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
 * Read. Two editors disagree with you and you have now reverted the article 4x.... an absolute line you cannot cross at wikipedia. There was no unanimous consensus, so you fibbed about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not fib, my interpretation is apparently not meeting yours. I suggest it be taken to an administrator if you have any further discussion about it since you refuse to take it to the Talk page. The last decision for this was on August 31 for Officially, and that is what the page stated at that point. I only reverted in stopping the the page defamation that was occurring by you, instead of you taking and discussing it further before changes could be made. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. You are engaging in an edit war with myself and another editor. I saw nothing unanimous, so you were wrong on that point, and I took it to talk, so you were wrong there also. Since you seem not to care about 3RR I'll let an administrator handle it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So far no Administrator has contacted me, however, if you go back to the talk page, I believe you will see we both made mistakes based on our interpretations. I apologize for the the mishandling of our disagreement, but believe that the last additions made on the talk page infers we are in agreement with what it should be called, which is "Also known as", but that was also disagreed on previously by a couple other editors in that same discussion.  The last edit I have, was that which was placed as of 8/31 with the last discussions on the topic, and no further discussion on the name was brought back until today.  Due to this, I was going by the decisions or more appropriately final comments made on 8/31, which meant it should have not been changed again until further discussion as the last comment made there was in support of what I currently have on there, and when I reverted the first time, it was only to put it back to that medium, to when I requested it be taken to the Talk page again.  Since the discussion was ongoing any changes after the last 2 comments being in agreement needed to be brought there before being changed again.  The problem we now run into however, is if you count all the editors there stating which way it should be, we are not at pretty much a stand off as it is a tie for the most part.  You thoughts on this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itanaman (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it infers it at all. Simply the last comments made had been in agreement, but the earlier comments were not. It was not a formal RfC either. My biggest problem is that you want the lead sentence and lead paragraph to be very tight and a summary of what is talked about in other sections. Saying it was "officially known as Mt McKinley from 1917 to 2015" implies it wasn't called that beforehand and that Denali was the accepted term beforehand. Well, that is wrong. That is why simpler is better in the lead. Maybe "formerly officially known as Mt Mckinley" or "also known as Mt McKinley" still it is still easily the most common name for the mountain. As for an administrator contacting you, a case was opened at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. If you don't self revert an administrator will likely revert it and block you for 24 hours. I'd really do something about it if I were you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

On Inferring, I stated infer because you state you agree with the name "Also known as" on the talk page, as do I, that was the only thing I meant by stating I infer we (as in you, me, and the user who stated right beforehand) agree on it being called now. On the "Officially called that", does not imply at all that it was not called that before, but just the opposite. Example, no one states 'Officially named Texas' as it has always been Texas since it was named that. In the case of Denali however, it had a couple of Unofficial name by U.S. standards including Mount McKinley until 1917 when it became officially known as Mount McKinley. I then agree with you and another user however, that Also known as is a better name for there, and allow the discussion on the Official name as you state to be further down. What I disagree with is the term Formerly, as it seems a few others do as well including yourself in the last portion of seeing someone else's point on the matter. Also, before reverting my own edit, I want to revert it to what we all agree on, or at least the latter of the members talking about it right now with your agreement to 'Also Known as Mount Mckinley'. I am not objecting to reverting to that. That would ensure that no one sees it as you reverting my comment after I revert it to change it something else, and would give general consensus for the evening at least. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I said I see his point. I don't see anything wrong with the term formerly except that it is still actually called Mt McKinley. It is just no longer official. Maybe the best in the lead is (also known as Mt McKinley) since it is still known by that name. So if all it says is (also known as Mt McKinley) that would satisfy me as a self revert. But you should do an actual self revert. And remember, any more reverts by you on Denali count towards the 3RR, even if it's reverting an entirely different topic or section. That's just the way 3RR works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to revert it, but the administrator left my last edit as the last edit, and locked the page till 9/7 except for the administrators themselves. Judging from the discussion going on at the Talk page, or should arguments, that really is probably the best move at this point. Wait till all parties have had time to think it out more clearly. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars
Please do not remove the respective season colours from the season articles for Dancing with the Stars. They are completely valid and contrasting enough to be WCAG 2 AAA Compliant, meaning that there's no reason for their removal. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 05:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I had asked for a reason they were so bright from another editor. He said they were required colors. I asked for the source for that, and none was given. Some of these hurt my eyes... but not all of them. I can certainly bring it up at a formal RfC that would be open to all wikipedia editors, not just tv show editors. But I thought changing the worst of the offenders would be enough. Obviously not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As per the colour guidelines, season colours are picked to match the marketing and promotional material, then adjusted so that they comply with the AAA guidelines for every website. Completely removing them for your personal reasons is not a valid explanation. And do be sure to check out WP:COLOR and Template talk:Infobox television season. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  05:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, you didn't change anything, don't claim you did - you removed them completely. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to remember... originally I changed one to make it more pastel and easier on my eyes. An editor said I couldn't do that so instead I reverted the ones the were harsh on my eyes to the standard infobox color, figuring that would be best. Many of those colors need to be at least softened more to a pastel. I really don't care if they are removed or softened but otherwise the brightness/high contrast keeps me away from the articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, to sum it up, you're changing them because you personally don't like the colours? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you could say that. If certain bright colors hurt my eyes when I read them on this encyclopedia, I tend not to like them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not own any articles, nobody does, it is not up to us to remove content merely because we do not like it. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When did anyone say they owned them? You don't own the articles either. I reverted to the standard colors on the particular season articles that gave my eyes problems. That seemed reasonable. You obviously don't care so there's not much to say. All the best and I hope your eyesight stays perfect throughout your life. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Assuming? Actually, my eyesight is awful, but that's not the point. You're making edits to articles based only on what you want - that's ownership behaviour. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 06:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not what I want, what I need to be able to view them well. But no matter. I'll leave the articles alone and try to avoid them. It's not that important and I can find most of the info elsewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the regarding. You are not required to participate, but you are invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that from a new editor. I left my thoughts there. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 5:36 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Thanks
Thanks to any/all who noticed the stuff going on with my talk page and helped out. GeeWiz... I come home from dinner and watching the Federer-Isner tennis match and I guess I left the gate opened. :-) Cheers to everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rod Laver backhand.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Rod Laver backhand.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Boy this one is truly laughable... beware of a boomerang on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dorothea Lambert Chambers
Could you please refrain from following behind me and nitpicking the editing I'm doing. You are trying to apply the guideline for overlinking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, 1.2.2 What generally should not be linked - but it states quite clearly "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions...". So again, I'm asking nicely that you please stop. I realize that you're upset from the previous situation, but as the Admins have requested I went back to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and began a new discussion on what seemed to be the main sticking point. Please come there and discuss rather than complaining on other pages. Thank you. Tennisvine (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It pops up on my watch page and I fix things. I'm not upset with you, you are a newbie and expected to make all these mistakes. Management is a different story. They are supposed to make sure we all follow protocol lest anarchy set in... and anarchy is what we have now. I don't respond well at all to those who throw away the way wikipedia usually handles things. And there was no need to start anything new, the other conversation is still ongoing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, but please don't fix things that aren't broken (see guideline above). I started anew so we could focus on the main sticking point which seems to be the changed names guideline. Thank you. Tennisvine (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Those items I fixed were incorrect. They get fixed all the time by many people, not just me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see guideline above. Tennisvine (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. I's on my side, not yours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

''I've already asked you once and pointed you to the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, 1.2.2 What generally should not be linked. If you are not familiar with it please read it. You've already been warned recently for edit warring and if you continue I will report you again. '' Tennisvine (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great so more anarchy from you. We do not overlink unless there is a good reason. We don't have a good reason here. I've already told you this. It seems to be your way or the highway and I'm not appreciating the bullying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks were accidental
The mobile interface is badly designed with no confirmation step! Pam D  08:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At wikipedia I have to be grateful to any thanks I get, whether accidental or not, so I refuse to accept your your mistake. :-) Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Polina Vinogradova
Hello Fyunck, your speedy tag from that article was removed as well (sent a warning notice to this user). Just notifying you, in case you want to nominate it for AfD instead - I know too little about tennis notability to judge those articles myself. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability standard for ITA players
Can you explain how the specific notability guideline for tennis players is supposed to be applied to lower level ITF pros? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can give it a shot. In the men's game we have the Main ATP tour... these are the events that get televised and pretty much all the events that anyone knows about. The slams, 1000s, 500s, 250s, year end championships. Then they also have the minor league ATP Challenger tour with prize money from $40,000–$220,000. Most fans never hear about these events and a player needs to win one of these to be notable per our standards. I've always felt that was really generous but that's what we have. Then the lowest of all is the Men's ITF tour (also called "futures")... these events are not notable nor are the players that play in them. They are tiny little events, 100s of them, and they all pay less than the $40,000 lower limit of the challenger tour; something like $20,000. Now this is how the men do it. The women have about he same number of tournaments as the mens ATP tour, challenger tour and itf tour, but they handle it differently.


 * The women never had a challenger tour. They have a WTA main tour like the mens ATP tour but below that they have just the ITF tour ranging from payouts of $10,000 to $125,000. This is where we made a consensus decision for notability for the ladies. If we threw out all the itf tour events, like we do for the men, it would be very unfair for their notability since the womens upper level itf tour was just like the men's challenger tour. But if we included every single ladies itf event it would be also be out of balance with the men since the women would now be notable for even the tiniest little event that no one has ever heard of. So for notability we split the difference and simply said that if a womens ITF event pays out the same as the lowest men's challenger event we will consider it notable. So as of today that is $40,000. Anything below that amount is not notable on the womens tour. I think the women's lowest rungs right now are $15,000 and $25,000, then they jump to $50,000. So $50,000 is notable for the women.


 * Blip number one is that prior to 2008 (I think) the men's challenger tour had a base of $25,000, so in accordance, prior to 2008 the women's $25,000 events were also notable. Also the women as of last year do now have a challenger tour equivalent, but it only encompasses $125,000 and above payouts. Since it didn't go lower we kept the same format of notability. I hope that helps a bit. It's in our guidelines but we don't go into as much detail as to why we did it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fyunck, I assume that any player who does not satisfy the criteria of the specific notability guideline may alternatively fulfill the general notability guidelines per GNG, correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. GNG always rules. It's rare but sometimes a player gets a ton of mainstream newsprint (not just local papers) in small places like Puerto Rico or Bali. We have to take that into consideration. Or sometimes a player is barely notable for things other than tennis but they play in the lower ITF events too. However we generally won't tag the talk page with a "wikiproject tennis" banner (or we'll remove the banner) unless it meets the bare minimum. Just like minor league baseball players are not notable per wikipedia, but sometimes a player gets unusual notice in the press. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Got it.  I wanted to make sure I understood the women's ITF criteria before commenting on the pending AfD.  Thanks for the education in a nutshell.    Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Some could argue the challenger events are the equivalent of baseball minor league and shouldn't be notable either. That's a reasonable case. Consensus here decided to be extra inclusive and only leave out the minor league of the minor league. It keeps arguments to a bare minimum. I was probably on the remove everyone below the main tour side of things (even the challengers)... I can't recall. Of course just playing in any event on the main ATP or WTA tour makes you notable. For men's challengers and ladies $40,000 and above ITF events, you actually have to win the tournament in singles or doubles to be considered notable. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, especially when everyone understands that a relatively strict specific notability guideline is back-stopped by GNG. IMO, several of the present NSPORTS specific notability guideline are over inclusive, and a substantial percentage of the athletes included under the particular SNG cannot satisfy GNG if subjected to a proper AfD analysis.  In order to be eligible for an SNG, more than 90 or 95% of the subjects included under the criteria of the SNG should also pass GNG; that's a good SNG, as it becomes short-hand analysis for whether they are very likely yo be notable for Wikipedia purposes under a full GNG analysis.  Several of the sports projects have expanded their loosened criteria to amateurs and/or junior competitors and we have a flood of non-notable stubs as a result.  Sorry, but winning the junior badminton tournament at the Southeast Asian Games should not confer a presumption of notability.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Frederico Gil
Hi Fyunck(click)!

I just saw the edit you made on Frederico Gil. I consulted WikiProject Tennis pages to know where it is written that I cannot add that junior table but I couldn't find anything. Possibly it was a discussion on the talk page?

I saw that table on other articles, such as Juan Martín del Potro and Mikhail Youzhny, and I though it was visually a more helpful and clean way of presenting those results than, for instance, the way they are presented on Milos Raonic's. I know that on performance tables we only present Grand Slam, Masters 1000 and National participations, and I absolutely agree with it. However, I believe this junior table is supporting a completely different section. If it is a matter of size, 1kb is insignificant in an article with 50 or 100kb.

I will not revert your edit, and if I'm truly wrong I will also delete the table I created on João Sousa's article. I just would like to have the opportunity to discuss this matter with you.

Best regards, SOAD KoRn (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can lead you to the link. It's right smack dab in the middle of our guidelines under Player Performance Timelines. Our guidelines state that:


 * Results from the Grand Slams, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour Finals, Summer Olympics and Davis Cup are acceptable for inclusion in an ATP player's performance timeline for singles and doubles. Results from the ATP World Tour 500 series, ATP World Tour 250 series, ATP Challenger Tour, ITF Futures tournaments, or junior championships should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article.


 * I hope that helps in why I removed it. A jr performance timeline should not be in any of those articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't know how but I definitely missed the "and/or separated" part! Thank you very much for the link. I will remove every junior table I find. Best regards, SOAD KoRn (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think it's easy to miss. Also remember there can certainly be a synopsis of their jr events. I usually look to make sure something is written about the jrs before i remove the chart. If there is nothing except a chart I try to add one or two sentences before i remove the chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
333-blue 07:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

what is your problem
why are you acting like a WP:VANDAL? I provided additional recent sources for a topic already dealt with in the article. Subject could be expanded further with these sources. So what is your problem with those? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You started a topic that is essentially a soapbox topic. Wikipedia is not a blog where people complain about how Indians feel about Columbus. Talk pages are used to constructively talk about ways to make the article better. That is not what you posted. If there was a topic already started that had asked about these Indian complaints then you should have simply posted in that topic... not started a new one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * it is not only native american's perception, but also contemporary perception of other people.. i provided references. btw, article is protected so i  cannot add to it. all i can do is offer more sources.. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Do not post that again unless you back it with how and where it should be inserted into the article and why it would make the article better. Otherwise it's just complaining about Columbus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Fyunck(click) as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Malin Åkerman and User talk:Nymf
Please be more careful next time. Nymf might have done something wrong, but even a bad faith assumption that you would move-war means that Nymf wanted to prevent harm, not cause it, so the use of the word vandalism wasn't appropiate.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen the term used for gaming the system, which he purposely did. I figured he purposely did it even before he admitted it as it was very obvious. But I asked him. I even asked him to straighten it out so I wouldn't have to report anything because I hate reporting things. He refused. Doing it to prevent harm is forbidden. I remember many moons ago being warned myself for adding the tag "R from misspelling" after a move because it made a page move back impossible without bothering an administrator. However I see your point and next time I will use "disruptive editing" as that probably more closely represents what happened. Bottom line is he can't do that.... ever. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Fyunck
And may all your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Same to you DL. I actually still have some stocking-stuffer shopping to finish up. Have a great Christmas. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fyunck(click)!


Happy New Year! Fyunck(click), Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 00:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.