User talk:Vandyboy712

Welcome!
Hello, Vandyboy712, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the Djokovic chest-thumping
No need to keep adding fancruft adverbs to Djokovic articles, which are pretty much the only articles you edit. Lots of tennis players have watercooler fans who think certain players are the greatest. As the years go by there are less press reports as new generations of players supplant the old. The word "many" covers things well, though "one of the greatest" would actually be better for an encyclopedia. Much less subjective. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey man, I hear what you are saying, but other athletes on wikipedia have the same language. Brady and Phelps have on their pages "widely regarded." Why is it a problem if Djokovic has that label but okay if they do? At this point he holds every single major record in the sport and it's really not a discussion. I get where you are coming from but I get where I am coming from too. Vandyboy712 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, so did Roy Emerson... for decades. His tallies blew the rest away, but he was never considered close to the greatest. There is always more to it than that. Numbers don't tell the whole story. Any other time in history, Federer is number 1 in 2017, it was a no brainer visually, but that's not what happened. And there are plenty of records Djokovic doesn't have. It should say "He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all-time"... simple and to the point. No water cooler fluff to boost magazine sales. No looking at the futuristic rackets and balls he played with compared to Borg and Laver. No looking at the huge change in court surfaces. What he has going for himself is longevity. It's truly amazing the high level he still competes with and I've never seen anything like it. But every few years new polls are taken and older players get pushed aside in favor of newer because they are fresh on peoples minds. No chance in their peak years do I take Djokovic over Federer on grass or carpet. No chance do I take Djokovic over Nadal on clay. And I'd take Djokovic over both on hardcourts. And I never had Federer as the greatest during his reign either. For me that would be Laver with two Grand Slams (three if you include his incredible 1967 Pro Grand Slam+). But again, that's water cooler stuff not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Laver should say the same thing as Djokovic with "He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all-time." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We could argue all day about this debate sure, but I am not interested in that. I will relent especially if you are constantly monitoring the article, but at this point, it's silly to name anyone other than Djokovic as the GOAT in terms of number and achievement in the sport. Vandyboy712 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)