User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fyunck(click). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Majors

I am really surprised you are replacing Grand Slam with major on the number 1 tennis player page. ALL other articles about these events on wikipedia simply call them grand slams (including the page "majors" links to), as did the wording in the article before I began adding details between 2000 and 2017. You may wish to think about your change and maybe change it back. I know tennis purists prefer major but I think that is not a battle worth fighting over on all wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Informed analysis: Actually that's is not true. While the terms are interchangeable, it can cause confusion to readers, so what is normally done is to call them majors or Grand Slam tournaments. Grand Slam or Grand Slams has multiple meanings. If someone says to me he a won a Grand Slam that tells me he did what Rod Laver did... win all 4 majors in the same year. Major is much shorter than Grand Slam tournament, and we really don't use the term slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I write in a senior position for a level of government and have a Master's degree. Anyone who knows anything about writing knows it is completely inappropriate to refer to an item differently in 2 consecutive sentences. In the Graf article, it clearly states Graf won 22 Grand Slam singles titles. Why then in the very next sentence would it switch the reference to Majors. The link that majors links to is called "Grand Slam singles titles". To average readers, which you cite in the List of Number One Male Players article discussion, it would be confusing to change the word back and forth several times in the article. The most commonly accepted term is Grand Slam, not major (major is golf). All the main articles on tennis refer to Grand Slams and many to Grand Slam, finals (a term which which you oppose). Winning all 4 in one year is called "The Grand Slam". I please ask you to stop being so obsessed on this item. Otherwise, I will be forced to follow-up with Wikipedia staff to revoke your editing status as I have done with 2 other people in the past. We are both here in the interests of upgrading the tennis articles, making the info more useful and accurate, AND consistent, especially within an article, so please stop revoking useful changes. I would greatly appreciate your co-operation on this. (informed analysis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the 1977 number 1 ranking back to Borg, as I agree that a clear majority rated him No. 1. However, since Tennis Magazine, the 3rd recognized source at the time, rated Nadal number 1 in 2013, I really think we should leave Nadal as the sole No 1 for that year. His point lead in ATP rankings was significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Informed analysis: The terms "Major" and "Grand Slam tournament" are interchangeable and sprinkled throughout all tennis articles. We purposely use both terms since Major has been used much much longer. The term "Grand Slam" is not interchangeable at all and we try to avoid it so as not to confuse readers. Winning all 4 majors in one year is "a Grand Slam" and "the Grand Slam." You will not get my support for the removal of the term Major in tennis articles, as this has been discussed before at the Tennis Project. If that is your aim then we will certainly be at an impasse. "If" on the other hand it is only two consecutive sentences where you want to maintain "Grand Slam tournament", then I'm ok with that.. just as I'm ok with only using the term Major in two consecutive sentences. The Nadal issue is your opinion... not the opinion and compromise of the consensus of tennis editors when we discussed this in 2014. As for the editing privilege threat... that's not exactly the most friendly way to discuss things, nor am I impressed with the 2 person total. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

French Open Men's Singles Champions

Hi should the events taking place from 1941–1945 be left on the list of the Men's Singles Champions section ?. Have you any thoughts on this ?. Regards 92.251.207.171 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a compromise we made way back when. Some sources use them and most do not, and we have added asterisks and shading to differentiate the difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

o they are to be left in ? 178.167.168.102 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I talking to the same person? It's a different IP address. Right now it is greyed out, has an asterisk and footnote, that says "Champion won the Tournoi de France, which is not recognised as an official competition by the FFT." It's been that way a long time so it should stay. If you want to bring it up at the Tennis Project talk page to change consensus you can certainly do so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Maggiefluffy info

Just keeping the info handy. User:Maggiefluffy has been blocked along with many sockpuppets...User:Angelflies, User:Itonya, and perhaps others to be seen. Edits include World number 1 ranked male tennis players, World number 1 ranked female tennis players, other tennis and skating articles. Keep an eye out for more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Оразбаев Касымбек info

Just keeping the info handy. User:Оразбаев Касымбек has been blocked along with many sockpuppets...User:Alisher Novarro 82, User:Emil Lavaro, etc. Created hoax tennis articles such as Diana Nogombayeva and Diana Zhantemirova. Keep an eye out for more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks administration

Thanks administration and fellow editors for keeping an eye out for any strange doings on my talk page. I appreciate it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Players career statistics pages Grand Slam finals infobar ?

Hi how are you ?. I noticed something missing from players career statistics pages an info bar like the ones which are available in other individual sports Snooker, Darts and even Golf uses them for the Majors. Lets take rafa nadal for example you can see he has played 23 grand slam finals, won 16 lost 7. Unlike in the other sports mentioned that use an info/legend bar to break down exactly how he has done in each major for example its at the top of the results and it would say Australian Open (1-3), French open (10-0), Wimbledon (2-3), Us open (3-1). You know exactly what the results are in each final without having to count them up individually which is a chore. It's all in a grid of four lines and very neat. If you want examples of the sports ive outlined please let me know. Regards 92.251.131.142 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@92.251.131.142: I have no idea others thoughts on this. My own would be that we don't really need it. 99% of players haven't played in Major finals so they aren't affected at all. Of the ones who have played in major finals, 99% of them have played in less than 5 total so it would be ridiculous to break them down into totals for each of the four majors. Obviously there are a few players, such as Nadal, that have been in many finals, that it could help a little. But he has a sortable tournament header the mostly helps. We do have one of those tables at his ATP career finals table but we don't break it down for individual tournaments. For the very few players that have massive lists of major finals we could simply add that to the prose of the section. So Nadal's section would read... "Nadal has won at least one major for ten consecutive years, an all-time record. His 16 grand slam singles titles ranks him 2nd all-time. He has reached 23 grand slam singles finals, 2nd all time. He has won the most French Opens (10). He was the youngest player in the Open Era to win all majors (24 years old). Nadal is one of only three players to reach 4+ finals at each of the grand slams, along with Federer and Djokovic. His record in the four majors are, Australian Open (1-3), French Open (10-0), Wimbledon (2-3), US Open (3-1)." That should work fine for all players with 10+ major finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Vilas

I really don't think Vilas should be co-number one with Borg in 1977. The additional research I have done shows he played a lot of low-tier events (1 star) in his summer and fall streaks and he definitely had less journalists pick him No. 1 than Borg. Signed, Informed Analysis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those items that crops up a lot in other tennis forums. If Tennis Magazine gets prominent display in other boxes you have helped write, then 1977 at least deserves a hearing on the talk page. I think most editors agree with you but sourcing dictates. I object to forcing it through without a major discussion, but I'm certainly not going to be the only person doing reverts. I'm already having an issue with an editor who is trying to force through the removal of the word "professional" from all tennis player articles. No one else helps there either. It gets old trying to maintain longstanding consensus on tennis articles when I have to be the only bad cop on the block. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

These continued discussions on which players should or should not be ranked as No. 1 only highlight the major shortcomings of the World number 1 ranked male tennis players article. It is an interesting article but in its current state resembles a fan discussion on a tennis forum and fails to meet the standard of a proper encyclopedic article. We would do well to focus on the article flaws (original research, poor or absent sourcing, use of non-reliable sources, addition of non-relevant information, etc.) instead of discussing individual rankings.--Wolbo (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think part of it is also... what is a reliable source for the rankings? That is debatable too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything is debatable but that should really only be an issue for the few years between the end of the Daily Telegraph rankings by Myers, Olliff and Tingay (1967) and the beginning of the official ATP and WTA rankings (1973 / 1975) plus ITF world champions. To that we would need to add a reliable ranking for the professional players in the pre-open era. Failure to adhere to this commonly accepted ranking system (see also Bud Collins) leads to the current mess which is accentuated by adding a nonsensical, retroactive ranking for the 1877–1912 period.--Wolbo (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

1977 - 1974 - 1975 - 1989

Let's see if we can agree on certain things. 1- The original article showed Vilas and Borg matched in 1977, such as the Spanish and French version of the same article in wikipedia today. 2- The article prior to my edition in reference to the year 1977 is not complete. Obvious the rankings of publications and personalities such as Agence France Presse, Eugene L. Scott, Livre D'or du Tennis, Tennis de France or Christian Quidet, all favorable to Vilas, instead says that "a minority" chose Vilas. 3- John Barrett and Bud Collins on more than one occasion declared that Vilas deserved to be No. 1 of 1977 4- Vilas was the tennis player who won more tournaments, games and points in the year. 5- Yes, Vilas participated in many 1-star tournaments, however he was also the tennis player who won more 5-4 stars tournaments (Roland Garros, Us Open, Washington, Tehran, South Africa, Louiville, Columbus). 6 - As historical revisionist investigations, we do not find a single ranking or note that names Borg as the best of 1977, all named Vilas. Examples TB Ranking by thetennisbase.com: https://thetennisbase.com/blog/vilas-one-on-the-court-two-in-the-desks/ histoiredutennis.com: "The year of Vilas": http://www.histoiredutennis.com/annees-70-3/Vilas-1977.html Prestige Ranking by Plos Magazine: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249 Scientific research of the Financial Times. For 1977, Vilas 5.73 against 5.72 to Borg and 5.48 to Connors: https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/ 7- The Grand Prix Ciruit is not taken as definitive form, but it should be taken into account as a parameter, since in 1977 it was the biggest circuit by far (82 or 83 tournaments against 20 WTC). Just as in 1964 the US Pro Tour is named (19 tournaments), it is fair to name the Grand Prix in specific seasons like 1974, 1975, 1977 (Vilas), 1983 (Wilander) or 1989 (Lendl). 8- Vilas should be considered Co-2 with Newcombe in 1974 since, in addition to winning the Grand Prix and the Masters, he was chosen in that position by notable rankings such as World Tennis and Bud collins that year. 9- Vilas must be considered C0-2 in 1975 (along with Borg, Connors and Orantes) because it was No. 2 of the ATP ranking and No. 1 of the Grand Prix. 10- In 1989, the subjectives of the ITF and Tennis Magazine rankings are named, and the ATP Ranking and, again, the Grand Prix are ignored. Lendl won 10 titles against 5 of Becker, who won 2 Grand Slam. Both are considered No. 1 that year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtin76 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

1977 - 1974 - 1975 - 1989 - 1972 - 1978Mtin76 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I bother you that I have edited the publication. I did it because I was allowed, and in all cases I added sources that were eliminated. I do not dispute that Borg is the best player of that era, but to this day it is clear that Vilas did the best season. Is infair choose the N° 1 is for h2h clashes, or for not having played this or that tournament for choosing WTT.

Strictly speaking, Vilas won more tournaments, more games, more ATP points and had better ATP average than Borg.

In addition of Michell Sutter, World Tennis, France Presse, Livre D'or du Tennis 1977 (Collin-Ficot-Dominguez) or Eugene L. Scott, i leave you some "minority" of other sources that consider Vilas the best of 1977, compared to presigious journalists who voted having only seen 4 or 5 Vilas tournaments in that year, since Vilas won 21 tournaments all around the world (16 for the ATP, includeed 2 Grand Slam, 1 Grand Slam final, and many 4 stars tournaments at the time like Washington, Teheran, Louisville, Columbus and South Africa).

• The Tennis Hall of Fame official website:

"He concluded the 1977 season 21-2 in major competition and peaked at No.2 in the world rankings behind Connors, though it was widely considered to have been the real World No.1"

https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/guillermo-vilas/

• Thetennisbase.com - TB Ranking (this site contains the most complete historical database of tennis, even more than the ATP itself)

"With any system of points, even introducing restrictions on number of valid ranking tournaments, the Argentinean would have been number one in the world. Of course, TB ranking gives him the global leadership, with wide lead over Connors, who, in turn, narrowly beats Bjorn Borg. "

https://thetennisbase.com/blog/vilas-one-on-the-court-two-in-the-desks/

• Histoiredutennis.com (site used as a review source more than once for this Wikipedia article)

chapter 62 "The Vilas Year": "For Vilas, it is finally the consecration: three grand slam finals including two victories, 16 tournaments won in the year and an impressive series of 57 consecutive victories on clay in 9 different tournaments ... 1977 is for the argentinian its great year and at the end of the season, many specialists will not hesitate to rank it No. 1 worldwide. A deserved position, but which owes much to the semi-retirement of Borg, retained by the Intercity and virtually Absent of the whole season on clay. "

(in french) http://www.histoiredutennis.com/annees-70-3/Vilas-1977.html

• Scientific research of the "Plos One" Magazine.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249.t002

• "Financial Times" scientific research.

For the year 1977, counting the entire season, Vilas scored 5.73 agains 5.72 for Borg and 5.43 to Connors.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/

• Finally, The "World Tennis" and "France Presse" rankings were broadcasted in newspapers around the world; An example, Brazil, with a title of note that resembles what I want to leave expensive: THERE WAS NO CLEAR N ° 1.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2pQmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xBEEAAAAIBAJ&hl=en&pg=1140%2C3053428

To make clear my position on 1977: It is neither fair nor objective to place Borg alone as No. 1, because there was no real consensus even to this day, beyond that some renowned journalists have chosen it (with archaic evaluation methods, which are far from those used today to choose a No. 1). Borg was the best tennis player, Vilas was the best season performer. Objectively they must be both recognized, with Connors (No. 1 of the Ranking) just one step behind.

ABOUT 1974: I'm not biased this season either. Newcombe is placed as No. 2 but it's said that only Bud Collins chooses Vilas as No. 2, and is omitted that also the prestigious World Tennis places him in this position. So we have two important sources endorsing my edition:

"... Also active in that ranking was Guillermo Vilas, who first appeared in 1974, in SECOND PLACE behind Jimmy Connors. Then he was 6th in 1975 (Arthur Ashe, No. 1); 4th in 1976 (Connors) and cataloged as the No. 1 in 1977 " By Eduardo Puppo, renowned Argentine journalist, about the World Tennis rankings.

In Spanish: http://tenniscom.com/1tenisretro/tenisretrohistoria5.htm

ABOUT 1975: Vilas was No. 2 in the ATP average ranking, and had more total ATP points (893) in the year than the mentioned No. 2 ranked in the article: Borg (728), Connors (769) and Orantes (887). It was only surpassed by Ashe (905). Neither am I being tendentious, especially considering that they put 3 players as No. 2 ...

I’m not biased, I have done many editions and creations of articles in wikipedia in both English and Spanish, I am a registered journalist, historian and I try to be as objective as possible.

After all, the article as it stands, seems to be biased against Vilas, one of the three strongers tennis players of the period 1974-78, that only appears in the year 1977, and in second place ...

ABOUT 1972: I added the source of "World Tennis" cover choosing Stan Smith as N ° 1, which has also been eliminated.

ABOUT 1978: I added the source of "World Tennis" cover choosing Borg as N ° 1, which has also been eliminated.

ABOUT 1989: Lendl was the N ° 1 of the ATP Ranking and the tennis player who won the most titles (10) in the season, double that Becker, who was chosen by ITF in an evaluation that only takes into account the big tournaments and the Davis Cup, as stated in its regulations.

I'm not saying that Vilas should be above Borg in 1977, nor that Lendl should be above Becker in 1989. But it is not really objective to put only one as No. 1 in those particular years. because there was not a clear N ° 1. Simply that.

Take your time. I have no trouble. I'm sure we can reach an agreement about my editions and sources that were not included in the publication.

Greetings.

This is way too much for me to sit and read through thoroughly. I will say that it is not even remotely "clear" that Vilas had the best season. It all depends on what one thinks are the parameters of a "best season." That historians will never agree on. The Tennis Base has a wealth of information, but the author and I have disagreed on topics, specifically his arbitrary ranking of tournaments. And unlike before, he now charges heavily for the site, and a lot of betting agencies will pay those big bucks. When so much is added at once to an article it's difficult to singles out which edits should stay and which need extensive overview by other editors. The ITF does NOT only take into account the 4 majors and Davis Cup, but they weigh them heavily. If you skip one it is a huge detriment, as it was to Federer last season. I think the ITF would have likely chosen Federer its champion except he skipped the French Open. They also look at head-to-head where Borg beat Vilas each time. And you know as well as I do that the ranking points sucked back in those days, which was why the ATP pretty much corrected their points blunder in 1989 by awarding the trophy to Becker. One other thing is that the importance of Wimbledon cannot be understated. Wimbledon was almost mythical in it's importance and and unwritten tennis championship. Writers and fans alike probably looked at Wimbledon as worth more than the 3 other titles combined. I remember that time period well. But this is better written on the article talk page or Tennis Project talk page then here where very few will see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck - don't any of the editors on the tennis project (the ones who immediately rejected my changes last week about Federer and Nadal having the "most" all time of this title or second most of another title) follow the changes on the World Number One Ranked Tennis Players? Do you ever contact them to get them involved in discussions like this?Informed analysis (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You have to remember, there are thousands of tennis articles and editors tend to edit the types of topics that interest them most. I don't contact any of them except at the Tennis Project talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck - did you read on the article talk page my responses to him and how he just does not seem to listen to what was said? I clearly said I would need to see 4 more commentators documented rankings showing Vilas No. 1 and he just totally missed that and dismisses the fact that the page has always been based on rankings made at the end of the tennis year. What type of action will you take if he insists on making changes. Informed analysis (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There are no actions "I" can take other than to revert him and warn him and report him. Only administration can actually do anything to him. The basic rule of wikipedia is to be bold and make a change. If however, that change is reverted, then do no re-add the new material. Instead bring it to talk to try and convince other editors that your change is better. That's how it's supposed to work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Informed analysis: This is true, but it doesn't mean he is 100% wrong. Remember we are supposed to voice NO opinion in our articles. All we do is state the facts as sourced in print and other media. Fact... There are more sources at the time and today that support Borg as No. 1. Fact... there are many sources then and today that support Vilas as No. 1. Fact...Every piece of print media guide you can pick up that lists No. 1 players, then and today, will say Connors was No. 1. That's what we know and the question is how do we present those facts. Today it's easy.. we have the ATP and ITF champions and when they agree we list one player and when they disagree we list both players. Back then we didn't have that distinction. I believe Borg has the strongest case for No. 1, but my opinion means nothing in an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You're smarter than I am -- I always believed that my opinion meant something, particularly in the Gonzales-Rosewall arguments about being #1. I *hope* I've finally learned, maybe ten years later, that my opinion is *mostly* meaningless. At least it's a start. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding using rankings done in recent years, all of the journalists/authorities cited in virtually the entire article (aside from the early days of tennis) are from just after the end of the particular tennis year. There are no statistical studies listed anywhere else in the article. The original authors intended that rankings from back in the particular year be used - I said that to Mtn on the article talk page and you never said otherwise last week. I do not understand that you are now saying modern day rankings can be used retroactively. As I said last week (and as you agreed about the importance of Wimbledon, and the lower importance of events which had few top ranked players (i.e. Australian every year, French some years) analysis done today does not consider those types of factors that the authorities considered back then. As well, what gets done about cases (Collins and Barrett) where they changed their opinion in recent years from what their original rankings were in 1978? Informed analysis (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Informed analysis: In recent years you would be correct, but that paragraph encompasses the entire article, and at least 80 years of rankings also use sourcing from later books and authorities. Bud Collins, Robert Geist, Karoly Mazak... those were not done at the time but rather years later. That would make that sentence you changed untrue. So yes, we "prefer" to look for sources from the time period, but lacking at least two or three sources we use recent sourced data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As my last comment said, in the early years of tennis, yes, later books and authorities should and need to be considered. However, from the late 60s onward, there were plenty of experts giving rankings at the end of each tennis year. This article needs to have a firm policy as to when later articles can be considered. Some of the sources given by mtn could have huge impacts on many years of this list. The Financial Times (PLO) study he attached proposes Borg be ranked higher than Connors in 74, Nadal over Federer in 2007 and Djokovic over Federer in 2009. It is ludircrous to allow such statistic studies that may have assumptions that we cannot even see and which may totally conflict with the general tennis world perceptions to be added to the article. If we allow it for 1977, then we could not say no for it being added to other years. We need a firm policy. I have added text to the main article trying to establish this type of policy. I hope you will not revert it or may just modify it a bit to be what you believe is accurate. Informed analysis (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No article can have a policy that can't easily be overridden by a group of editors. That's just the way it is if others disagree with you. That said, no one gives a hoot what the Financial Times says in 2018 as far as tennis rankings go. For the most part through the late 70s, 80s and 90s and 20's, the only things that matter are ATP rankings, ATP Player of the Year, ITF ranking, Tennis Magazine (France). The rest pale in comparison. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In looking over what you wrote, while some may disagree with your stipulation, it is no longer incorrect since it only applies to years closer to the present. For the record, not being as young as I used to be, I would never lump in the 1950s and 60s as the early years of tennis. It would be more 1877–1924 Tennis early years. 1925–1968 Classic or Golden Age of tennis. 1968–present Open Era. That's about it as far as players. You could also do it by technology. 1877–1947 Solid Wood rackets w/gut. 1947–1979 laminated wood rackets w/gut. 1979-1987 graphite rackets w/nylon. 1987-present wide body aerodynamic graphite, even more specialized nylon strings. heck one could probably break it down by court composition/speed too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I would move the Golden Age back to 1920, when Bill Tilden won both Wimbledon and Forest Hills and became the dominant force in tennis for most of the decade. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Tennis Magazine (U.S.) - about your objecting to Rosewall being listed as co-number 2 in 72, the only thing is that it actually appears that the only source listing Newcombe No. 2 in 1974 was Tennis Magazine (U.S) (aside from he maligned point system) so if you object to its being used for Rosewall in 72 it would appear we have to list only Vilas as No. 2 in 1974, he of not making the QFs of any slam that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.130.130 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in when I gave the previous comment. I should also note that the panel for Tennis US in the 19080s was listed at the Tennis Warehouse (?) Page where I got the list and it was very impressive. Informed analysis (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Informed analysis: To be honest, that particular year (74) was a mess for No. 2 and the sources confirm it. Yeah the point system sucked... it's far from perfect today, but it sucked back then. Newcombe is there really only because he was second in points that were used more for seeding than anything else. Rosewall deserved 2nd as much as anyone else. If it was me, because we have like 5 players all vying for No. 2 per sourcing, I would leave 74 blank with "No consensus among the sources". Either that or list them all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to 1972, I've done my full look at the data in prep for doing my write-up, and it seems to me Nastase is clearly ahead of Rosewall, if only because it is hard to place Rosewall ahead of Laver or Newcombe in the WCT half of things, and none of them (aside from Ash) did well at the US Open to show they were as good as the Grand Prix bunch, and Rosewall didn't do well at the LA. I just won't add the Tennis Magazine (US) to the sources. I'm going to think long and hard about 1974, with a slight leaning to leaving it the way it is now.Informed analysis (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Zerilous (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Fyunck(click)

"Cement" court vs. "Hard" court in the Gonzales-Rosewall article

Hi, I think you've worked on the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry article over the years. I've made a couple of edits to it from time to time about the RR in '58 at the L.A. Tennis Club. I attended a couple of days of that tournament -- and I also played, both as a teenager and a young man, in several tournaments there, including The Pacific Southwest, where I once had Bob Lutz as my doubles partner. In those days, almost ALL of the courts in Southern California were simply concrete. Sometimes they were painted or stained black, sometimes not. The courts at the L.A. Tennis Club were concrete. Am I wrong to think that the concrete courts of those days are NOT the same as most "hard" courts of today? Years ago I built my *own* tennis court. It had an asphalt surface. Which was then covered by three or four coats of some heavy, colored product from 55-gallon barrels that we applied with squeegies. Chevron supplied me with the coating. *This*, I believe, is what is today called a "hard" court. In the Gonzales-Rosewall article, I have several times changed "hard" to "cement", but a newcomer to WP keeps changing it back. I've brought this up with him on his Talk page but he hasn't replied. In your opinion, is this worth pursuing? If YOU tell me that "hard" is either good enough, or even correct, then I will let the matter drop. If you think that *I* am correct about this, should we try to open a discussion about this on the Talk page of the Gonzales-Rosewall article and come to some final consensus about it? Thanks for your time! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The general definition of hard court, even on wikipedia is any rigid material such as asphalt or concrete and we don't differentiate from that, except maybe in the prose. We have hard, clay, grass, carpet, and for old days, wood. While the concrete in those days may have been a different mixture %, I would think it would still go under "hard court" for standard differences. What they coat the top of the concrete with simply changes the speed of the court. Australia used to be more of a rubber, but it was still a hard court. All the local schools in California pretty much only have brushed concrete, but those are still a variety of hard court. Those are my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Good enough, and very succinct thoughts they are! I will stop trying to get "cement" into the mix, so to speak. Thanks for your time! Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

titles and wins-losses in 1977

Hello Fyunck. checking the tennisbase database, which is much wider than that of the same ATP, I found:

Vilas won a total of 22 tournaments (16 for ATP, record for ATP titles in one year) in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966520610745716738
Vilas has a record of 151-14 win / loss in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966524608542380032
Borg won a total of 13 tournaments (11 for ATP) in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966526613855834112

Therefore, the 22 titles of Vilas in 1977 reach the record of Laver in 1967 that you had mentioned previously in the edit article. Regards Mtin76 (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mtin76: Six of those 22 wins were in exhibition tournaments, some with only 2 players! Now the Tennis Base is very suspect with its tournament ratings as far as class, so i can't be sure of all the exhibition events, but as a source those 6 would not count. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

About the tournaments, i can acept to quite the one tournament to 2 players (Aux en Providence International against Ilie Nastase. the other 21 tournaments, if Tennisbase is not enough, i even found two important sources that name them the same as the 13 vicories of Borg (two of them also in exhos) and the 8 for Connors:

"Let's look at the numbers. Though Connors won eight of the 21 tournaments he entered, his match record for the year was only 70-11, not as good as Borg's (13 victories in 20 tournaments, 78-8 in matches) and Vilas', who played just about every waking minute in compiling his 139-14 match record and 21 wins in 34 tournaments." (Sports Illustrated, January 16, 1978)

https://www.si.com/vault/1978/01/16/822302/and-it-was-still-three-for-one-although-jimmy-connors-won-the-colgate-grand-prix-he-failed-to-settle-the-vexing-question-of-whos-no-1--he-borg-or-vilas#

"To give the No. 1 to Vilas, "World Tennis" is based on the 21 tournaments won by the Argentine " (El Mundo Deportivo of Barcelona Spain, January 16, 1978)

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960762766582800385

Mtin76 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Those 17 victories were not a record so it's not going into the article as some sort of record. You have it listed now as co-No. 1s and that should be good enough. I'm getting tired of discussing this thing so please stop putting this subject on my talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Bloat on tennis player main articles

[Your message on my talk page:] The career stats page was created for those intricate charts. That is why we have them. You mentioned some players where editors have added those charts, but they are in the minority. I could list you hundreds of pages without them. origianlly all that was supposed to remian on the main article page was a condensed performance timeline on the Grand Slam Tournaments. That's it. A few articles added the entire Grand Slam chart... but most do not have even that. Adding the year-end event is bloated stats on the main page and it should really remain on the stats page. If the full Grand Slam is even added it should be like our best Wikipedia Featured article in Milos Raonic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from my comments on the Federer and Nadal talk pages, pages with those charts are not in the minority. Respectfully, you cannot cite hundreds of pages in any relevant way, because only 46 total men's tennis players who have participated in YECs have both a main page and a stats page on Wikipedia. A majority (24) of the main pages for these 46 players have YEC finals tables and/or performance timelines. I don't expect to convince you as to why including a small portion of the information on the stats pages -- information concerning the very most prominent events and achievements in men's tennis -- is a net benefit to the reader and why excluding it is needlessly rigid, but you should at least be aware that the actual practice on Wikipedia does not support your claim that your preference is longstanding consensus. João Do Rio (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@João Do Rio: Men and women both hove those events you know. Everything is supposed to be on the stats page, with most of the prose on the main articles. But we found it important to include the 4 main events also on the main page in a performance timeline. But that's about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your user name

I love it! -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I love it, too. But is it a typo, or intentional? The Motie word is transliterated "Fyunch(click)" with "ch", not "ck". --Thnidu (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Originally, back in 2006, it was a typo on my part. But now it's so old and I've used it for so long, I don't have the heart to correct it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello!

I wasn't convinced of your reasoning for reverting my edit of Belinda Bencic. I suspect we won't agree on this minor difference in style, but I'm not sure this is a reason to have reverted the whole edit, without discussion, and within five minutes! (Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary)

The article could certainly be improved - would you like to do this?

Tffff (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tffff: You have to look at it from my point. Most of your changes looked fine to me, however there were a whole bunch of errors in using the word "the." If there had been one or two errors I would have simply corrected those errors, but there were many more than that. It should be up to you to fix all those errors you created, not me. If you want to revert me and at the same time get rid of all those additional "the"s, I don't think there were any other issues. Also, at wikipedia the burden of discussion is on the person who made the new changes if they get reverted.. not on the person who reverted the new changes. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as improving the article, I can certainly help. The charts are not up to Tennis Project Guidelines, and there is scoring in prose that should not be there. I can work on that tonight sometime. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

2018 Del Potro tennis season

Hello, where are those directives that say that one player gets an article when he wins a GS or reach the top 5? You couldn't let me now first instead of deleting the page? Nevertheless, thanks, i'll take it to the future. Cabj94 (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

TPO heads up

This may have been a mistake, but best practice is not to modify other people's comments for formatting purposes except where it makes the talk page easier to read or to otherwise fix something that disrupts the page. Very much not a big deal here IMO (i.e. I don't actually care that you did so), but when people really get into discussions like these that sort of thing can easily be taken as needling or otherwise problematic, and it's ultimately just sort of unnecessary to begin with. No response required -- just a heads up. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I was supposed to be doing that to the main page not the talk page. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Chris Evert Grand Slam History

You are welcome to disagree with the proposed deletion of this article and encouraged to voice your opinion on the matter, but the correct procedure is to add your reasons for keeping the page to the deletion text box and not to simply remove the box from the page. Please state your reasoning for keeping the article on the page. Thank you 93.35.84.103 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@93.35.84.103: No, anyone can remove a prod... anyone. If you want a full deletion, you'll have to go through that procedure instead of a prod. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. So anyone can request a deletion. Anyone. Not brave enough to make your case Miss Evert? Oops, I mean Fyunck(click). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.84.103 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@93.35.84.103: I'm trying to be civil here and explain what you can and can't do, so your insinuation is also disruptive. What you added to the page can be removed by anyone for any reason... it is really used for articles that are not likely to be challenged. If you want a full deletion hearing then you use a different tag. You should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to figure out which one you'd like to use. But do not propose it again. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for tidying up the article on the Ivory Coast. Yours, Vorbee (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

WTA Preformance Tables

I have noticed on a couple pages Elise Mertens, Anett Kontaveit, Ivana Jorovic and Simona Halep career statistics that a new table documenting every single tournament that the player has played every year is being created. I personally don’t see the point in these tables as they are going to get very big and messy. I also don’t see the need to document every first round loss of every tournament. I thought the grand slam and tier 1 Preformance table was sufficient. Just looking for your opinion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneM18 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Those were ridiculously trivial. I deleted them with that summary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at Talk:Charleston Open.
Message added 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Loginnigol 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

Tell me how an article, which has over 100 references is unneutral, but the former version which had 30 (and most either texts of Marx, Lenin or constitutions) is neutral? TELL ME. --TIAYN (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're not able to defend why you add a neutral banner there I will have to remove it. --TIAYN (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It had sources before, yet now it is written to mean something differently. You revert it and I will report it. Two politicians can have sources for all their facts and yet say completely opposite things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but do you listen? Nearly all the sources were Marxist texts, Leninist texts or state constitutions. How are they more reliable than third party sources written by scholars? Have you ever thought the previous version was VERY bad? --TIAYN (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And I showed you at the Talk:Socialist state, it has not been written to mean anything differently. Why do you refuse to accept this, even when I've proven it to you? --TIAYN (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have expresses concerns about the entire re-write. Since it changes so many aspects of socialist state, it needs consensus to be added. You have proven nothing. I have never thought it was "very bad." I thought it needed work, I thought better sources could be found. I'm not even saying that half of what you changed could stay. But with this many changes the pov of the article is also changed. That to me is unacceptable except by consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It has changed 0 aspects of what the previous article said. 0. The lead says the same bloody thing.

You're edit constitutes close to something as vandalism. The current version is only referenced by independent, third party scholars. It does not breach neutrality in anykind unless you're stating that American scholars are breaching WP neutrality guidelines --TIAYN (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect, it does not say the same bloody thing. Let's just look at one sentence.

Original - A socialist state, socialist republic or socialist country (sometimes workers' state or workers' republic) is a sovereign state constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism.
Your POV - By definition a socialist state is led by a communist party, operating under the principles of Marxism–Leninism, that has instituted a socialist economic system in a given country.

Led by a communist party? My professor at UCLA tells me differently. So we have a pov problem. You also go on to state that "This article will try to summarise the practical features of the socialist states as they were—the political, economic and judicial systems." That is bad writing for an encyclopedia. There are dozens of things like this... to many to let go by. Make no mistake, this article's tone has changed drastically. maybe most will agree with the changes, and I have no problem with that. But this type of pov change requires more eyes before you do it. I asked for you to make it a draft we all could see and comment on "before" you change everything. That seems to be ignored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So give me an example of a socialist state not led by a communist party? Are we going to talk about theory or are you going to claim that Sweden, the country I was born in (I live in Norway) is a socialist state (when it truly is capitalist)?

"Socialist state" is a definable term. "Establishing socialism" is another term. They are not synonymous. Socialist state is a clearly defined term. "Establishing socialism" is not.

As for the lead, if you had said it was badly written I would have rewritten it along time ago... But it took you how long? 1 hour? Why 1 hour?

The fact is that, scholarly, socialist state in the sense of the communist governments Eastern Europe and China have far more hits than the alternative philosophising of the libertarian socialists... Why is this? Because the Soviets succeeded in building a socialist state and expanding it other countries, before itself collapsed. --TIAYN (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

When wikipedia protocol is followed of discussion before massive changes, as opposed to a my way or the highway cart before the horse approach, I'm much more receptive to talking things out. Put future discussion of this topic on the article talk page, not here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

2017 Stan Wawrinka tennis season

Does the above article meet notability? Was created by the same user who's creating the Nadal page. It seems like it does but I don't have a great grasp on Tennis and thought you might. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Looks like we have some mischief by a brand new editor and his IP sockpuppet. What tennis project does for season articles is follow our guidelines at Article types and recommended practices. It says "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title, onward from the year of their first title and provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam tournament title." Right now Djokovic isn't close to the top 5 (he's ranked 18). If he can make it to top 5 we create the article. That's why it's a redirect now... there is a "reasonable" chance he could get there. We had to wait last year for Federer and Nadal to reach top 5 before we created articles. I think Wawrinka was top 5 at some point in 2017. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had missed that it was 2017 and not 2018 season at first. He does appear to have been top 5 during 2017. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

infobox flags

Your message on my user talk page as follows:

Please do not add flag icons to infoboxes, especially to tennis articles. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for letting me know.

However you seem to have also reverted my edits on the "See Also" sections! A bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I will re-edit the "See Also" sections only now. Please do not revert that.

Thank you!

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kvwiki1234: Sorry about that. If it was an edit you did at the same time, that's bound to happen. If it was a separate edit I'll try and be more careful. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Yes it was a separate edit and pretty sure a separate day too. I edit tennis articles a lot for formatting, presentation, etc. I feel the "See Also" section on "List of (insert slam) Champions" articles need to be consistent, linking to lists for other formats of the same slam (Men to Women to Doubles, etc) and links to the same format of the other 3 slams. (Like this, for example).

Sorry about the flags in the infoboxes, I thought it would improve the presentation of the articles, but I now know why not to use them. Thanks for your help! Cheers. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid)

Hi! You've re-added a mass of unsourced content at Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid) after I removed – and so challenged – it. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:BURDEN; do you plan to add reliable sources, or remove it? You've also re-added a blog source which I had removed for that very reason; what makes you think it it is reliable by our standards? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The content copied from here will need proper attribution, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Two things. 1), it was a source from The Strand Magazine. The Strand is not a blog. 2) it doesn't matter whether I added it or not. It just went through a deletion request with the result being do not delete! It was closed by an administrator. When that happens you do not delete it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't involved with this article at all until I saw they were going to merge into an article without notifying the article it was going to be merged to. That was wrong and I let the closing administrator know it was wrong. They may keep it, they may merge it into something else... heck I don't know. But it must be done properly or not at all, that was my beef. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be at cross-purposes. This source is unmistakably a blog – the word "blogspot" in the url is a sort of giveaway. And the AfD result does not determine in any way what happens to the content, only the topic; unreferenced content may be removed at any time. Anyone who restores such content after it has been challenged is responsible for providing sources – and in this case also of course for providing attribution for the plagiarism from wikia.com. Do you plan to do that, or shall I remove the unsourced content again? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack

You've recently restored a personal attack, which I had removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cryptids&curid=4422095&diff=844608042&oldid=844607878). Please see WP:No personal attacks, particularly "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor". I've politely asked you to refrain from personal attacks before. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And I have asked you so many times to be civil and stay on topic my fingers are bleeding from typing the keys. The whole topic you posted was uncivil and incorrect. At the very least if you post a bad topic you need to stay on topic and be correct about things. I simply added sources and you reverted them and started a topic with no meaning. In the past I might have ignored your uncivil posts, but no more. I will not let you smear my character or run roughshod over me anymore. That ship has sailed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you want me to start listing all your "Comment on content, not on the contributor" you've done lately? Now there's a kettle pot black statement from you. It's one of my big complaints about your postings all the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is about references you've added to the article, not you as a person. We're here to discuss the article. Again, stick to the content. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:RS complaints on sources added for a description of an animal?????? Those sources did just that. Then you wanted a crptid ref which I hadn't originally added since it was on the description, not the worthiness of the entry. So I added that too. The topic title you gave is a baited topic title and you know it. It could have been "Sources on animal description - do they need to include cryptid?" Something like that. But you instead went overboard. Keep things on an even keel, assume good faith, treat all fantastical beasts articles the same, and we can work together. But if you keep making this about me we will continue to run into problems. Those sources were just fine as long as the entry is fine. I didn't base it on whether the entry was fine. I just did my part when I noticed someone want some description sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't know how I came across this page... Anyways, I have to agree with you on this one Fyunck. BloodofFox has a habit of Name Calling with people that he doesn't agree with. He did it to me as well, which is not okay at all. If he continues just file a report/complaint on him and just ignore him (I should be doing a little bit of that myself).--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I did file a report a bit ago but admin seems to feel he's just fine. I had tried to nip things in the bud before they got out of hand so I wouldn't have to defend myself all the time. Since they felt he was fine in his comments I now defend myself at all times. No more free hand at going off topic and smearing me without retaliation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Postal india

The data I, wrote was recently happened. So what was needed to remove it. Many people are not aware of it. Kunal Powdel (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kunal Powdel: That's fine that it's recent event, but you must include the source you got it from and link it after the addition. With no source, no reader knows if it's true or not. You can read about how to do it at WP:REF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Serena Williams

You need to be more careful about WP:3RR. Another admin would've blocked the IP and you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand, but this guy seemed to be borderline vandalizing the page during the high profile Wimbledon tournament... when everyone is looking at the Williams article. I actually was in the process of reporting it but it didn't go through because you had just added protection. Another editor was also reverting his escapades. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"borderline vandalizing" - please don't go there. The IP has what looks to be a valid point for consideration, albeit presented poorly. This is not borderline vandalizing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Not the content as much as the summary of "Removed blatant misogyny per talk page: with 23 Open Era majors in singles, Williams is unequivocally the greatest tennis player in history." That same summary over and over on a high profile page this fortnight. It wasn't per talk page discussion, it was I'm doing this and that's that. I also mentioned that point has been considered and rejected before per sourcing and other discussion. I probably should have used the term "disruptive editing" rather than vandalism. Point taken and understood. Otherwise, I accept your warning and will be more careful in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Novak Djokovic tennis season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam women's singles champions

Why did you revert my changes? Some of the women have a country flag and a 3-letter abbreviation next to their name, so I removed the superfluous abbreviations. eg. Maud Watson, Ellen Hansell. Ash73 (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ash73: Using "flagicon" only shows the flag... no country info. Per past conversations, the first use of a flag icon in an article should show our readers the actual country info, if not the full name then at least the country code. So in the article the first use of a particular country shows the abbreviation as well. After the first use we can then use "flagicon" the rest of the way. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree this is per previous discussions and relevant guidelines but it really is a silly 'solution' to a virtually non-existent problem. It causes confusion as demonstrated by the frequent removal of the country abbreviations. The concept that a reader, who is confused by the appearance of a flagicon (e.g. Kvitova in 2011), will then somehow decide to scrawl through this long list in a frantic search for the first iteration of said flag, just to find out which country it belongs to, makes very little sense. Hopefully one day there will be enough editors in a rebellious mood to challenge this.--Wolbo (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wolbo: I have no problem with a change. I was chastised by an administrator or two for not having the initial code on first usage, but that was now a long time ago. Perhaps it is a rule that administration no longer cares about? What would you suggest is the best course of action on how to proceed? To just do it with a detailed reason in the summary as to why we are changing it? One thing though... it is absolutely against MOS to use flagicon without at least one first use of country or country code... this is per the Wikipedia Manual of Style Guideline because of sight-impaired readers and certain devices. So while it may stick to remove it, no chance of upgrading to high quality articles with the deviation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried something bold that I had mentioned a few years back, and I installed a flag key list instead handling it inside the chart. It may not technically be in sync with MOS, but I think it should do just fine. The men's article could be changed the same way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Scientific estimation (or prediction) based on an impossibility

By the way, talking of WikiPedia not being a crystal ball ... When on Saturday night, 2018 July 28th, 21:20 hours, Simona Halep had 7571 WTA points and the next one, Caroline Wozniacki, had 6660 points, identical with what both have now (7571 - 6660 = 991) and neither one was participating, at that moment, in any competition, what would be the logical conclusion for Monday, 2018 July 30th, 00:01 hours? Mine, of course. In the next 24 + 3 = 27 hours, from that moment on (of my edit), no other change would be possibly occurring. This is called scientific estimation and has nothing to do with your crystal ball method. Use less the hammer and more the scientific methods. Everybody would benefit, including you, of course. Heptametru (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Heptametru: But in using that scientific method you also have to take into account other "facts" that have happened in tennis. Players have retired or gotten injured and have told the WTA and ATP to immediately remove them from the list. This happened with world No. 1 Justine Henin. Poof, suddenly gone from all tennis tallying. Had we used a crystal ball we would have been wrong. Plus a reader may want proof (a source) on her ranking points and we can't link them to your scientific method unless you have published it. The best is to do what we do now, wait till it's official per the WTA rankings. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wembley championships flagicons for Pancho Segura

Hello Fyunck hope your well long time no chat. I noticed you changed the flagicons for Pancho Segura here I get very confused, most of the time I have listed him in tennis tournaments I have created that he has either won or he has in I have always used the United States flag, only for them to be changed to Ecuador can you clarify when should we use the Ecuador flag for him if at all (time periods)? All the best.--Navops47 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure either. I changed those flag icons because someone else had just changed them to Ecuador. He was a citizen of both countries but moved and stayed in the USA since the 30s. He played as an early amateur under the US flag but I'm not sure what flag he played under while a pro. In 1970 he played under the Ecuador flag. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Fedfan1984 posting (moved to proper location at bottom of talk page)

@Fyunck(click):

A few days ago you posted this on my Talk page after reverting my edits to Federer's, Nadal's, and Djokovic's career statistics articles:

"Some of the charts you are changing have been approved by Tennis Project Guidelines, and the formatting should not be changed without discussion and consensus. You can find most of the approved charts and items at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)"

A few thoughts:

1. I feel strongly that the Masters 1000 section should come BEFORE the year-end championships section in performance timeline charts. As the ATP Finals comes at the end of the year, this change allows the reader to get a better sense of the chronological progression of a given player's year. (By that logic you might also say the Majors and Masters 1000 should be sprinkled together in the same chart, but the Majors have such importance that they merit their own section at the top.) I'm guessing the reason for the current convention of placing the ATP Finals above the Masters 1000's is the higher # of potential ranking points associated with the tour finals, but I consider them to be on roughly the same level of importance and therefore I believe chronology should dictate order of presentation.

2. Even apart from item #1, the order of Grand Slams–Masters 1000–tour finals–national representation is not consistent across players' pages. For instance, you'll notice that on Federer's and Murray's pages the order currently is Grand Slams–tour finals–Masters 1000–national representation, whereas on Nadal's and Djokovic's pages the order is Grand Slams–tour finals–national representation–Masters 1000. Clearly this order should be consistent across different players' pages. (I'm not sure I have the time or the appetite to make conforming changes across literally every player's career statistics page, but for the most important modern players I'd be happy to do the work.)

3. Thank you for keeping my edit of moving the Madrid row above the Rome row on Federer's page – the previous ordering was confusing and inconsistent.

4. As for the other edits I made yesterday and you reverted, they were minor edits related to formatting, titles, and general consistency of presentation across Federer's, Nadal's, and Djokovic's career statistics pages. They were not absolutely critical but I do believe they slightly improved the consistency and aesthetics of presentation across these three great players' pages – I'd appreciate it if you'd give them a second look!

I'm guessing you may tell me I need to post these comments on some sort of forum page for discussion and generating consensus. If that's the case, I'd appreciate your showing me where I can do that as I'm obviously brand-new to editing Wikipedia articles. Thank you again very much!

Fedfan1984 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fedfan1984: To be honest, I'm not sure exactly why the ATP Finals are placed where they are but that is the consensus guideline chart we go by, and to alter it would require a new consensus. You can bring that up at the tennis project talk page if you feel strongly about changing things. Right now its order is the Grand Slam tournaments, the ATP Year-end Finals, Olympics/DavisCup, Masters 1000 events. No other events. I just make sure we follow our guidelines unless our guidelines change. To be honest I like this guideline for importance as I feel the Masters 1000s are the lowest level event listed, and if for some reason someone thinks otherwise it also works for them in that the Grand Slam tournaments and Masters 1000 events bookend (sandwich) the other events, so you notice them more.

You are correct that it's not consistent, but that's because editors change things against guidelines without others noticing, or perhaps they are old vestiges of past charts long made obsolete. The order I stated above is what is required unless changed by consensus. As I said you can always bring it up at the Tennis Project talk page.

As for the other edits, I don't actually recall what they were. You have to understand that if you make a singles edit and in that edit you do good things and bad, it will all get reverted if there are a lot of changes. A single spelling change we will take the time to leave everything else and correct the one error. A massive formatting change that will take a long time to correct, we revert and hope you will make the corrections and add back the good stuff. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that and will look again at your edit.

The place to ask about changing things is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Click on "new section" for you edit, and give it a good heading like "Changing the guideline order of our performance charts." This should place the topic at the bottom of the talk page and you'll see what the response is. Not everything on every article is covered by guidelines, but the stuff that is is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like one of the items you did to Nadal's chart was to make it Indian Wells Masters (which is correct). I re-added that back in from my revert. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): First of all, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. Shorty after I messaged you last night I was able to navigate my way to the page explaining how to add a new section on a talk page – and as you can see I added a new section on the Tennis Project Guidelines talk page presenting my proposed change. I agree with you that I might place slightly higher importance on the ATP Finals than any one Masters 1000 event – but I still maintain that those events are of the same order of magnitude of importance such that presenting them in chronological order by year (i.e., with the ATP Finals row directly beneath the Masters 1000 section) provides the clearest picture of a particular player's performance by year. So we'll see what folks have to say. Thanks again! Fedfan1984 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Bloodfox

If you think bloodfox is canvasing take it to ANI, but please stop discussing it on article talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was only going to mention it once, but he had followups. I was done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

archiving at simona halep

You seemed to have archived the talk page solely based on time rather than structure/context, which is not a good idea. In particular you split the breast into 2 parts which is not appropriate. Although the last 2 postings occurred much later than the earlier (now archived) ones, they were nevertheless in reply to the older ones, hence they should not be archived separately.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: I had thought about archiving till the end of 2017 but instead I went till the last dead thread. When we set up auto-archiving it goes by time. Those replies to old messages should never have happened. If someone was on the ball they would have been deleted or moved instantly. I noticed it late. You aren't supposed to reply to long outdated messages, you should be starting a new topic. I put them under new headings since it's the same topic, but replying to 8 1/2 year old posts is not kosher. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What I did was add the original thread link to the top of the current discussion so any who want to follow can do so. I also merged the archived threads, but under a new subheading for the lines added 5 years later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well people can reply and pick up on rather old message. Replies are asynchonous and can be rather delayed and like with article improvements they can in rather large time frames. In the particular case even the recent changes/removals seem to have been due to the same reason as 3 years earlier (the use of the Daily Mail as source. --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: I understand, but I was told many years ago by administration that replying to threads a couple years old was bad. And this was 8 1/2 years old. What should have happened was that this should have been archived years ago so no one would reply to an old thread, and then someone would have started a new thread. The next person who replied would have directed them to the archives. It puts a quandary where to archive. Do we put a 2010 conversation in a 2018 archive? or do we put it in a 2010 archive with replies as late as 2018? It makes it tough to find. When a talk page gets weekly posts I tend to see yearly archives. This particular one hasn't had as many so it was a judgement call on my part on how best to do it so people would start new threads instead of answering posts that are over 8 years old. I did listen to your concerns and added a link to the archived conversation, and in the archives I combined the 5 year gap conversations with a sub-heading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mari Osaka

Looks like they've now gravitated towards her sister's page, Mari Osaka. One of them even created an account specifically to comment on my talk page, repeating the same thing said on the article talk page. Vivexdino (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's after big events that new editors, or the same editor multiple times, come out of the woodwork. And with a new champion it makes it worse. I'm guessing it'll blow over soon and if not administrators will start to jump in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka

Hi, I can't contribute to Ms. Osaka's article since it is protected, but I noticed you've been active. There is some incomplete info in the basic introsuction. She is a professional Haitiano-Japanese tennis player who represents Japan. As such she is not only the first Japanese player (the country sue officially represents in competitive tennis) to win the US open, she is also the first Haitian player. While Japan is obviously he country she represents on paper, she makes a point in interviews to emphasize that she also represents Haiti. I think it is important to find a way to mention this in the opening paragraphs of her article, instead of simply "representing Japan" and "Japanese" which are incomplete descriptions.

-James JCaran (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ahh i see youre also locked out. JCaran (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not locked out but that info is not in the lead for a reason. Different editors want different things written there so the generic is the way to go for the time being. It is in the personal section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

She's not Haitian. She does not have that nationality, nor did she ever have it. She didn't ever compete under the Haitian flag. She's merely of Haitian descent, which is a completely other thing, and that is adequately detailed in the article. There is more to an article than just its lead.T v x1 18:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

However, sourcing is everything at wikipedia, and there are plenty of reputable sources that say she is a Haitian-Japanese tennis player. Other sources also say she is a Japanese-American tennis player and a Haitian-American-Japanese tennis player and simply a Japanese tennis player. Just as in another bio, Garbine Muguruza, sources usually say she is a Spanish tennis player. But some sources call her a Spanish-Venezuelan tennis player. Are you saying that the ONLY time you would ever put in a hyphen is if a player is born in one country and plays for another country, regardless of sources? Because if so I think there are a lot of articles that would need changing. Martina Navratilova is handled differently as is highly rated article Milos Raonic. All I'm saying is that it can be more complicated than just where you were born and who your parents are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What about Pancho Segura, the little guy with the devastating two-handed forehand, the greatest shot in the history of tennis? He was born in Ecuador, came to the States as a teenager to go to college in Florida, became a top amateur during the War years, then turned pro before he could ever represent *any* country on a David Cup squad. Eventually he became an American citizen and lived all of his long, long life in the U.S. The info box on him has the flags for both countries. But he, of course, was a citizen of both of them. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

So there are plenty of examples of different leads. Segura could easily say Ecuadoran-American tennis player in the lead. But remember, Osaka wasn't born in Haiti, has never lived in Haiti, nor does she play for Haiti. She plays for Japan and has always played for Japan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a step-granddaughter who was born in San Francisco to Tahitian parents who are French citizens and has spent MOST of her life living in Australia. She has U.S., French, and Australian citizenship and passports. Aside for occasional vacations in the States, she has spent nothing but the first month after her birth in the U.S. If *she* were a tennis player representing Australian, would we call her "American" anywhere in the lede? I certainly doubt it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, but you could darn well bet there'd be Tahitians here lobbying for Tahitian-Australian tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

And I have a brother-in-law (and as a sister in-law as well actually) who was born in Belgium to a Belgian mother and an Indian father. His father had already obtained Belgian citizenship at the time of his first son's birth. The father is thus Belgian-Indian. He's fluent in both Hindu and Dutch (as well as English but that's not important). My brother-in-law is Belgian , even though he has an Indian name, and has always been. He speaks Dutch but cannot speak Hindu. He's not Indian, but merely of Indian descent. If he'd play a sport professionally he would represent Belgium and Belgium alone even though he's proud of his Indian heritage. Likewise, his and my sister's children are blond-haired caucasian Belgians, only speak Dutch and are merely of Indian descent. I would not use hyphens if a player is born in one country and plays for another country. Since when is place of birth such an important factor with regards to nationality. I have a close friend who was born in Thailand, but is as Belgian as one can be. He was born there because his Belgian parents were staying there temporarily. Regardless he has no connection to Thailand and has no claim whatsoever to its nationality. I would use hyphens for players who actually have multiple legal nationalities. Muguruza is such an example. There is no need to detail descent in the lead sentence and it's incredibly misleading to hyphen, thus putting at par, with a legal nationality. Both Michael Chang and Vania King were born in the US to Taiwanese parents. Even though they have no familiar link with the US, they were raised there, carried that countries legal nationality (as detailed in the nationality field on their passports) and have represented the US national teams in international competitions (e.g. Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Olympics) and hence they are simply introduced as American. Likewise Kristina Mladenovic has only ever held French nationality and that's the country she represents and that's how we introduce her and not as Yugoslavian-French despite her not having any French ancestors. We never had the habit of mixing up nationalities and decent in lead sentences and we should not start doing so.T v x1 21:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Two things. 1) It does not say nationality anywhere in the lead so readers don't know whether it's ethnicity or citizenship. 2)You mention Muguruza is fine because of multiple legal nationalities. Osaka also has multiple legal nationalities... Japan and the United States. So per your edit on Muguruza, Osaka should be Japanese-American, or your edit on Muguruza should be reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"Probably not, but you could darn well bet there'd be Tahitians here lobbying for Tahitian-Australian tennis player." I thought the same thing -- but only *after* I had posted my above comment! Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with introducing here as Japanese-American since she legally holds those two nationalities.T v x1 16:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka

The category is 'Japanese tennis players', so it's right to describe her as such; we describe ourselves as American or British, not 'people with X nationality' or 'people who represent X internationally'. Giant Snowman 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong, I'm saying that your summary of "this wording is standard" is incorrect. It is not really standard when wikipedia articles are all over the map on that issue. As for myself, I describe myself as American though I'm half Polish/Austrian (depending on European border disputes) from my mom's side. But all my Japanese friends call themselves Japanese-Americans even if their parents were born in the USA. I guess it's all perspective of the people involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Wikihounding?

It appears that you might be wikihounding me right now. That is, I keep posting about Naomi Osaka at different pages, and you of all people keep commenting. I'm not sure if you watch those pages, but it doesn't look good to me and certainly makes me feel a tad harassed. Please read that policy and refrain from commenting on pages I am frequenting. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 22:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have thousands of pages on my watch list. If I see a mistake on your part i will continue to point it out. If you keep things on the straight and narrow then we have no problems. Be careful with potential canvassing. When I notice you posting on editors pages about an RfC you can bet I'll take notice about it. If it's not neutrally worded then I will comment and ask you to rephrase. If it isn't rephrased I will point it out at the RfC that we had a editor calling attention to it in a non-neutral manner. I may not particularly care where the RfC eventually settles, but I will make darn sure there is no hanky-panky on the topic. We've just gone through that with social media trying to influence things, we don't need anymore. I'm hoping we understand one another. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing/editing others comments is not acceptable per WP:TALK

What are you doing? Did you not see my message earlier today warning you not to edit others' comments per WP:TALK? Not only that but you completely deleted it. You've been on Wikipedia for a while and, personally, I think this is a basic policy that you should have known about long ago. Not only that, but it circumvents the normal procedure for responding to edit requests. I'm taking a high road here and assuming it is in good faith that you merely forgot about WP:TALK as I mistakenly posted it to your User page earlier today. Please don't do this again... - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: Did you not read the administrators mandate in the discussion, or are you glossing over the massive amount of material? All those Rfc's can be deleted as disruptive. I deleted it as per that mandate. Knock the chip off your shoulder pronto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Another thing too. You can certainly delete talk posts when they are soapboxing or using it as a blog or being disruptive. There are perfectly good reasons for doing it. It's not black and white as you seem to suggest. If you start posting the same repetitive thing after every comment, that can be construed as disruptive. You seem to have come into this topic with a lot of anger, threatening another editor with an ani for him correcting a simple heading spelling mistake. You need to step back and take a breath. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

I presume you meant to direct this post at Shiznaw rather than Fish and karate? --Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire: Actually it was done as I intended. That troublesome editor had struck-thru the post of an administrator and I wanted that administrator to know about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I've pinged Fish and karate here, so at least he'll know you weren't attacking him. By the way, this is fair enough, though rather petty IMO. Scolaire (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire: Why would he think I was attacking him? I simply pinged him to let him know his administrative post was tampered with. On to other things, I actually would have preferred a double entry to be struckthru, but per your statement we can't. The thing is when you have a sockpuppet doing his sock things in an article for a week or a month, and an administrator finds out and blocks him, those prior posts are usually struckthru. And editors that find other socks of the same user that were active at the same time I generally see struckthru as those of a sockpuppet. That should be done here as well, but if we are going by your strict interpretation then the weight is on your shoulders. I'm not the only one who has strukthru those posts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I keep hearing these word "usually" and "generally", but I've been a registered user for longer than you have, and I have never seen somebody's posts struck out retrospectively after they were found to be sockpuppets. I have seen some pretty obnoxious people who were found to be sockpuppets, but their obnoxious posts are still there, without strikethrough, for all to see. Can you show me examples of other people's posts that you have gone back and struck through after they were shown to be socks? A pointer to an edit by you, striking posts by users that weren't on the opposite side of a disagreement with you, would be especially persuasive. Scolaire (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Kazakh tennis players

I don't know if you remember the sock that used to create those non-notable Kazakh female tennis players. I think a new sock has created Albina Dyusenova, Aziza Kupbayeva, and Diana Zhantemirova. I don't know how to go about that sock process so maybe you want to take a look. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: Vaguely. About those players though. "IF" they truly played Fed Cup, they would usually be notable per tennis project. The thing is I checked the Fed Cup page and they are not mentioned as being part of the team. I have no idea what those sources are that are given in the article. Looks like they also created another... Zhibek Kulambayeva, but she is on the Fed Cup team. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you know the sock involved, then you can WP:G5 the articles, otherwise just WP:PROD them, making clear that the claims to notability are false. Iffy★Chat -- 08:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I found the last threads at Project Tennis. Here and also Here. The banned user User:JulianLeeberher09 appears to be back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good find, I'll add the G5 tag to the pages and complete an SPI report, looks obvious to me. Iffy★Chat -- 08:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaneSambora99

I created a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Оразбаев Касымбек (again), and it was summarily deleted, without the content being transferred anywhere else or the topic even being addressed by anyone, as far as I can tell; I didn't even find out until I checked my own deleted contributions. It's a great example of what I'd call being rejected. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yeah well, I guess it's better than being slapped upside the head with a two-by-four and them saying no. Maybe the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JulianLeeberher09 will go better. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote in the deleted SPI:

Extended content

MariaJaneSambora99 just recreated Diana Zhantemirova, which under the title Draft:Diana Zhantemirova has been deleted several times as a G5 creation of Оразбаев Касымбек. I found this one because it was tagged for speedy: it looks to me as if Оразбаев Касымбек saved the content months ago, and now upon recreating the page, s/he forgot not to include everything that had been saved before. Even in the unlikely event of a user creating an actually new article like this on her first edit, with infobox and navbox and lots of categories, the new user definitely wouldn't be including a speedy deletion template atop the article. The last CU was declined as stale, but as it occurred just two months ago, I suspect that CU would be able to tell us whether MariaJaneSambora is the same person as Adriani Linn Johnson.

Feel free to add it to /JulianLeeberher09 if you think it would help, or feel free to skip if you'd prefer. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess it couldn't hurt. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that all of you (@Nyttend:, @Iffy:, and @Adamtt9:), were correct in your sockpuppet spidey-senses. The editor was indeed our old friend back to haunt us and they have been blocked. I re-instituted the speedy deletes to the created articles now that it has been confirmed. Thanks for all your efforts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka

Hello. My name is Ricecenter (talk). Regarding Talk:Naomi Osaka currently in progress, Many have finished, but we still have a little left. That is the reason why she started playing tennis and management. I waited for a while, but because it is stuck, Since you were involved in this discussion, I will ask for your comment. Please give me opinion which one is better to edit or better to delete. --Ricecenter (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fyunck(click). Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Major

Hi Fyunck, I saw that you left a {{fact}} tag near the entry for Klaus Heuser. Well, we don't normally do that on disambiguation pages, but before I remove it, out of a mix of curiosity and frustration about that attitude towards an experienced fellow editor I wanted to ask you for your motivation. I mean, it's good to double-check facts so that no false information is reported in this encyclopedia. On the other hand, I was working on the article, so I obviously know a bit about the person (whereas you do not seem to be familiar with him - no offense). What makes you distrust me? It can't be that I added false information before, because I never did that (except for typos). Trying to think of reasons why you didn't found the many sources (including books) calling him "Major" I can find, perhaps it's because of the search pattern: "Major" is a nickname given to him - other musicians, fans and many newspapers commonly refer to him just as "der Major" (with English pronunciation) - and over the years he has started to use it himself because people know him under this name, but it is not his stage name (like "Prince" or something). This is why you will find "Major" being used solo as well as in combination with his real name. Either way, what I wanted to say is that we should better spend our precious time fighting actual false information instead of wasting them on each other. Enjoy the music. Best --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Matthiaspaul: It's not a question of distrust. We go by sources here at wikipedia. I did a cursory look through dozens of google articles and could find no sources that call him simply "Major." Remember, just a first name is not good enough as there are thousands of people that have a first name as "Major." It would need to be like the singer "Prince" where he is usually known by only that one name. If every time we see Major it's "Klaus Major Heuser" or "Major Heuser", that is not what the disambiguation article is for. His facebook page is "Klaus Major Heuser Band", not simply Major or The Major. Now perhaps I missed the many articles that simply call him "Major" and I'm certainly willing to look at the sources that use it. I admit I could have missed it. But I put that "fact" tag on the page because I could really find anything concrete. It was either that or remove the entry until proof could be found. I though using "fact" was better as it gives someone a chance to show it belongs there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Years ago I was friends with a Hollywood second-unit director named Major Roup. Doubt if his full name was Major Major Major Roup as in Catch 22, however.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

For your convenience, here are a few ad-hoc examples of different uses of "Major" solo and in combination with his real name:

https://www.swr.de/swr1/rp/musik/hits-und-storys-werner-koehler-musikgeschichte/-/id=446770/did=16744032/nid=446770/18b8zpm/index.html

https://www.express.de/koeln/koeln-archiv/koelns-gitarren-legende-major-heuser-ueberrascht-mit-voellig-neuem-sound-31103256

http://www.bap-fan.de/aktuell.html

https://www.laut.de/Bap

In general, however, no proof needs to be provided on disambiguation pages (see WP:DABREF). The normal inclusion criterium is that the term needs to be disambiguated, and is related and mentioned on the target article (per WP:DABRELATED). There may be people who know him only as "Major".

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe no proof is needed. It may not be needed on the actual disambiguation page but that is contingent on it being on display at the actual wikipedia article, which this was not. Or it can be easily sourced as such on a quick google search, which it was not. I could certainly have removed it completely because of no proof, and waited till you provided it on the talk page, but I thought a courtesy "fact" insertion would be better. From what I can see on those examples, they are inserting his nickname instead of Klaus. So he goes by "Major Heuser" rather than by "Klaus Heuser." I don't think that makes him synonymous with the term "Major" so that he belongs on a disambiguation page. I'll ask a couple administrators since maybe I'm wrong on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In those examples, when they refer to him as "[der] Major" they are not using it as a forename - it is used as a stand-alone name like Prince - although Prince is perhaps not the best example, because this clearly was a stage name, whereas Major is not (at least not one originally chosen by himself). It's more like with Bird for Charlie Parker, except for that the form Major Heuser exists as well, whereas Bird Parker does not AFAIK (only Charlie Bird Parker).

Anyway, I think WP:DISAMB is quite clear on the purpose of and the procedures to follow on disambiguation pages.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with this so I'm opening up a topic at the Major disambiguation talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Administrator note"

Hi, Fyunck. Reading the merge discussion at Talk:Cryptozoology, I noticed that you styled your complaint against Bloodofox's pings as "Administrator note".[1] (Bolded, yet, though the bold seems to have been removed later.) What's that about? You're not an administrator as far as I can see. It was back in August, granted, but dressing in borrowed admin robes when you give your opinion remains a very strange idea. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Goodness, that was awhile ago so I had to go back and look to remember. That was a note "for" an administrator to quickly check into because of potential canvassing. It was never put there as an administrator nor did I intend anyone to thing otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It wasn't very clear — and how would an admin see it, unless they were already following the discussion, and saw it anyway? — but I understand your thinking. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yeah, I probably should have worded it differently. I believe my thinking at the time was that if it was closed by an administrator, they should notice that canvassing had taken place and to give it its due weight if those people show up to comment. But if one person (you) thought it meant something else, then perhaps others thought the same thing, so I'll be more careful in the future in how I word those type of notes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC).

Sorry late reply about De Miñaur

Hi Fyunck. Sorry late reply, I forgot it. I replied to you in the De Miñaur talk page. Best, James343e (talk) 2:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cryptids

[[2]], the result was keep the redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: That was a completely different topic. One person wanted to move it to cryptozoology so he started a move discussion. Consensus was to keep the redirect to List of cryptids (self included). However first there was an RfC to delete Cryptid and the consensus was not to delete but instead to merge the contents to List of cryptids and then redirect. That merge has now been nullified, the contents of Cryptid now expunged just as if it had been deleted. That is wrong to me but obviously not to others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

How has the merge been nullified?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't exist anymore. When I merge Roger Federer's Davis Cup chart into an article that contains his career charts, I make a note of that on Roger Federer's talk page. That way readers will know that they can find that info elsewhere and the effort of those that worked on the article will continue. If they go there and it's gone then the merge basically never happened and it was more like a deletion. That is what has happened here. Editors wanted the info merged, not deleted. I think I agreed with the merge but had I known it would later be deleted I would have said to keep, not delete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Mark my words he will continue to try and delete as much as possible at List of cryptids, at every opportunity. Add it to your watchlist because if you blink, something will be gone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Days of the Year

All new entries in Days of the Year articles must have a reference incorporated to support the fact that the event/birth/death happened on that specific date, but you didn't include a reference. Deb (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not trying to pick holes, but I don't see the reference to the year in any of the sources you've added (and I think that third link is broken). Deb (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No prob. One of those was certainly just the month day, as an extra source. Either of the first two work for that. I must have err'd in either of those two because i was sure that 1951 was in one of them. The other source works perfectly for me [3]. It's right at the top. I'll use different ones right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: I hope the new ones work better for you. I could also have used this article from the Roanoke Times but it only had the year (1951) but no January 19. If you think that is better let me know and I'll fix it whatever way you think is best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know why that link wouldn't work for me but I think it should be okay on its own. I'm not being difficult but sometimes people do cite incorrect sources and there was a big row about it not long ago [4]. Deb (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Fyunck(click), Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD\|Talk 19:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see any page restrictions listed at the article or its talk page. Is there something specific attached to the article "List of cryptids" I should be made aware of? Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, there are no page-specific restrictions. However, uninvolved administrators are free to take actions that would ordinarily require community consensus. For example, an admin could put the page under 1RR or topic ban an editor at will. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If an article is under this umbrella, wouldn't you think this message should be right at the top of the article talk page so everyone could see it bright as day? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Page protected

I've semiprotected this page for a few days, since you have so "many" IP "friends". Please let me know if you prefer it to be unprotected. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC).

Tis the season, Thanks a bunch. I do seem to have acquired a good buddy. Merry Christmas. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Bishonen, by the way, these IPs are socks of Bjoergenbestever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see the history of World number 1 ranked female tennis players to get an idea. Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was getting obvious. Same MO as earlier in the year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinochle

Hi Fyunck. Thanks for your edit on the above article. My edits were in response to the discussion here, which explains that Pinochle is related to Bezique and both probably descend from a common ancestor, Besi, itself a predecessor of Bezique. So Pinochle descends from Besi (probably) through Binokel (definitely) and not through Bezique according to card historian, Parlett. But if you have sources that suggest otherwise, please cite them. If you have no source information, please revert your edits and engage in the discussion at Talk:Pinochle where I've now raised the issue. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I do have sources for it and I'll add the source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Richard Williams (tennis coach)

Mitigating further vandalism by you, what information do you dispute out of this article? I added plenty of sources, honestly. (If it's just about the head count, I'm still trying to find a definite number.) Rovingrobert (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen any edits by you so I have no idea what your talking about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

That's my (established) alternate account, but I had to log in to contact you. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Is that you using an anon IP? You know that's improper here at wikipedia unless it's an accident. I see sources that have Richard having 3 sons and 3 daughters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I was notified earlier that since I have posted a notice on my normal IP account linking it to Rovingrobert, it's completely fine. As for the sourcing, show me the links and I'll be happy to change my mind.

Also, it's terribly lazy of you to revert a whole series of edits rather than just changing the number. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's also not right to post all kinds of changes to number of children as an IP without an edit summary of any kind. It was difficult to tell any good edits from bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I got a bit ahead of myself with changing those numbers. So do you have a source for the 3 sons and 3 daughters? Rovingrobert (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I think one was already up there, but I changed the wording since I have now seen both a total of 8 and 9 half siblings. There is this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Edmondson's biography (the preview on Google Books) says that Williams had 5 children from his first marriage, but doesn't give an exact number of sons or daughters. Have you seen a figure of 8 or 9 paternal half-siblings? Rovingrobert (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I also see this with 3 daughters and 3 sons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I see a few (such as this) that say 2 daughters as well. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this article is causing part of the problem. There may be many more half-siblings including a new unknown brother. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent find, that explains a lot of the uncertainty. Even the father's father is said to have had an unspecified number of children by other relationships in the autobiography. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

So however it gets worded it needs to be deliberately vague on number of siblings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For sure. That article you found makes it at least seven accounted for, so we can just tweak the wording. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

There’s a documentary called Venus and Serena which addresses this somewhat. You can find it on YouTube. Serena talks about her half-siblings, including Rielez and Renika (unsure of the spelling). Rovingrobert (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fyunck(click). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→