Jump to content

User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

3RR warning

You have violated the 3RR rule on two articles: Facundo Argüello (tennis) and Jörgen Windahl. This is to formally inform you that further violations of the rule may lead to a 3RR report.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What a load of crap! Don't post here if all you can do is make things up. That's not a warning and is funny coming from someone who was blocked for 3RR two months ago. I've tried being nice and I've tried to engage in compromise but you have done nothing to find any common ground or remedy and instead complain or make attacks against me. Some editors have engaged and tried but not you it seems. Either knock it off and try to be part of a solution or go away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've asked HandsomeFella to explain this, I've looked back over recent edits to both articles, cannot find that Fyunck is in breach of 3RR--5 albert square (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking into this. He is more than welcome to engage in conversation or in arguing a point here. Just to be clear I have no problem with that since how else does one find a compromise between positions. But not this kind of stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I was simply saying that arguing is part of wikipedia. Just because we argue or disagree, my talk page is always open. But this stuff/harassment was over the top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
For future look backs here is a link to the harassment answer two weeks late.
A group of them have done that often, but I wouldn't call it canvassing unless there is an Rfc, an RM, an ANI, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes Cup

Hey F, it's not really necessary to retitle that tournament. Lots of tournaments are named by sponsors. No need to be an activist purist and start inventing non-existent names or former names, especially in this case - where we have a steady, long established event with the same name for a couple of years. Your attitude may have a valid point if an event changes it's name every one or two years (like the year end championship events for example) but otherwise if a tournament is steady and has the same official name continuously for a couple of years then let it stand. Likewise in this case it should be and remain "Mercedes Cup". That is what it has been for over half a dozen years. Loginnigol (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well if I recall, guidelines are not to have any sponsored titles if possible. We are not to make up names so we have to have sources, which there were. There are actually plenty of titles that have been on wiki for a number of years that should be changed. My policy has been to use the long time historical titles per consensus at tennis project. In this case I happened upon this article and noted it still had a sponsored name, so I quickly looked and found this link and this link and this other link that called it the Stuttgart Open. Since the names are interchangeable I simply followed our rules and changed it. Anyways that was my reason for doing the change but if you want to bring it up at the project please do so. My concern would be consistency between all our tennis article here at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI where intimidation of you by SMC is mentioned

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again.  LittleBen (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

Just wanted to say, hello. GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Right back at ya my fellow wiki-ite! Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alvarez

Look again. There it is. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's ideal since wiki specifically states that all viable forms of the name should be in the first paragraph or a specific "names" section. However, since she is known by 4 or 5 different names, which can get unwieldy in the intro, I won't challenge this one instance of keeping it in a footnote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
About your latest addition: I wouldn't oppose adding the "ITF version" of her name although the ITF operated from Paris when she played tennis and thus didn't use English as its official language, but whatever. But the claim about his book is just simply false (possibly by the error of Amazon) as the original print of the cover shows her author name as Señorita de Alvarez. So if you don't mind I'll remove that from the Notes. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
That claim is not false at all. Here is the picture of the first edition. I would not have put up a false statement. first edition. I just didn't have a good link to put up since ebay links disappear quickly. I would not remove it from links. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Mine was also a first edition (more reliable tennisbookshop link on rare dust-jackets). And I didn't accuse you but said that Amazon misled you. But really whatever...Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
To tell the truth I'm not even a bit convinced that she published that book as Lili de Alvarez. Even the OCLC, which I think is more reliable than commercial websites has this book in four different pieces, two accented and two non-accented, so it cannot be claimed that she published the book exclusively as Lili de Alvarez but that she used both. But that would overflow the article in my opinion. So the first option is to remove that book note since it is useless or to add that she or more precisely her publisher used both names. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 05:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, you convinced me. I changed it to a neutral sentence. The notes have sources for the first two spellings but your addition of "Countess Valdène" has no source. Do you have a source for her actually being called the countess? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I took it from the article. But a quick Google search approves it. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 06:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
added the source since the article only said she was married to the count, not that she was ever called countess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
And if you get a source that spells it out as "countess Valdène" by all means use that spelling. But the source you gave me only had countess Valdene as a spelling. Please add another exact source for the foreign spelling, keep the source and the spelling that came with it, or remove the name from the note. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / sockpuppet

I created a sockpuppet investigation for 70.31.183.185 / 174.92.82.15 given the disruptive editing on the Djokovic Talk page. I noticed you mentioned another IP number on the Talk page of 70.31.183.185 so perhaps you want to add that info to the SPI. --Wolbo (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

He is blocked under 70.31.183.185 but is evading under 174.92.82.15 and also uses 129.97.124.85. I have tagged those pages as suspected socks and remove all his edits as vandalism while he is blocked (except on his own talk page). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

ATP World Tour Record

Dear Mr. Fyunck, why you purposely deleted all the work I've done in the ATP World Tour Record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYWALB (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I and at least one other, found many items to be very trivial on a page that was already at its limit in size. I discussed this at Talk:ATP_World_Tour_records#getting_unwieldy_in_size. The basic wiki protocol is: be bold in making your edits, but if anyone challenges those edits you need to stop and bring it to the talk page to gain consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I wish to add all these as they are all important records. Can I create a new page for all the Grand Slam Records(Open Era)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.60.103 (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I found most of them to be trivial. If you create a page with no sources and others find it to be trivial, it will be deleted instantly by someone else, not just me. A career silver slam is ridiculous though. The best place to ask about such things is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Also you should sign all your posts with "~~~~" at the end. That's 4 tildas. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, Mr Fyunck — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYWALB (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, you obviously have skills, and love the sport (or particular players in the sport)... that is what wikipedia wants... passionate editors. There are editors who are minimalists in what they'd have added and editors who are maximalists (is that a word?) in wanting almost everything. It's why we often have to talk things out at talk pages to figure out what's best for the reader while staying within guidelines and policies of wikipedia and each particular project. One of things I do is try to make sure things are formatted correctly for tennis project and that pages stay summarized, all within about 50k in prose size, 80k in wikitext size and 300-400k in file size. If the only thing an article has is charts (something wikipedia really frowns upon by the way) it isn't subject to the same limitations but large file sizes with older computers may start having page slow-down problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to add to you, Fyunck, that edits by YYWALB which the majority of active editors of tennis records find trivial, have been also performed on Tennis records of the Open Era... I undid them with comments and referral to the extensive Talk page of said article. Thanks for taking time to talk to YYWALB. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on junior results

Agnieszka Radwańska career statistics and Victoria Azarenka career statistics are two examples of what I've been talking about. JayJ47 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request notice

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Fyunck(click). I realize you've been quiet on this front for a while, but denigrating the editing rationales and dismissing the concerns of other editors simply for being foreigners is not going to fly, and in just a few minutes of looking around I've seen you do that twice (and once verbally attack Swedes in particular with unsupported accusations of editorial misconduct, plus similar accusations about various admins, other MOS/AT editors, etc.) I've asked that you not be blocked or topic-banned, just formally administratively warned, since you seem more reasonable than some other participants in such debates. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What??? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see this enforcement request went nowhere. Didn't understand it at all and can imagine you felt intimidated by it. It came across as intolerant and that is not what we need.--Wolbo (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Not only did it go nowhere... the guy who filed it was topic banned for filing a frivolous AE. I only wanted him to get a warning but I guess admins felt differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that my statement of support for you explained the issues, even though it got me blocked for a week. I plan to appeal my topic ban soon. On the sports field, players who foul or attack other players are sure to get a yellow or red flag. Players (or spectator cronies of players) who threaten the referee to try to get a penalty reversed are likely to be removed from the game for a considerable time. The excuse that a player is "important"　and "has a clean slate" and so should not be penalized for repeated fouls is laughable. At least three of the people who wrote to complain about the "lack of due process" in my topic ban just three months ago now have "retired" or "semi-retired" labels on their user pages. It's good to see that now there is one admin. with the courage to take on bullies, but maybe WP still has a long way to go before good faith editors—who are not aware of ANI and the like—will have nothing to fear from canvassers, obsessives, and muggers. LittleBen (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Too many lies, attacks and vendettas from that editor in the past to warrant me believing anything he will ever say again. It's amazing how many times he still drags my name through the mud though. Kinda sad actually. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Flagicon

I was just asking where in the guidelines does is state that in the calendar (eg. 2007 ATP Tour) does it state the the tournaments shouldn't have no flagicons. Cause maybe i was missing something. I note the calendars and not the career statistics of a player. Dencod16 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. If you are asking very "specifically" then the tennis guidelines do not single out calendar lists as opposed to other lists. That is because it doesn't specifically talk about calendars either. There have been recent rfc's on limiting flags to nationality only , and then only for events that are country vs country. In our tennis guidelines it's stated that anything about a players career has "no flag icons are used for tournaments or cities", anything with performance timelines "no flag icon or other icons are used in these tables", and for Davis Cup "Note that for Davis Cup, we use flags for the country but not the players." By putting in all these, and our conversations on the talk pages, I guess we just assumed editors would extrapolate them to conform to other tables and situations. Our guidelines are clearer than most other projects guidelines but it's tough to write it for every circumstance that may come up. I didn't format or write it, but the editors did a pretty good job of it I think. I'll try to think of a way to make it more clear for other editors, since if you are trying to find it then no doubt other editors have had the same questions. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The Flag guideline paragraph seems a sensible clarification of our current practice. Made a slight tweak to it. Guess we can remove the sentence in the Career section as that is now a duplicate? --Wolbo (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave that up to you. I was trying to figure out where best to put it, and under formatting seemed a good choice. Whatever we can do to make it easier to find and understand for editors. We want to make this a fun place to read and edit with easy to follow guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted the duplicate flag sentence in the Career section.--Wolbo (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rankings

What the hell are you talking about it has been updated for like an hour now. ATP Rankings. If it is not updated there is something wrong with your browser Dencod16 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That's weird. I checked not 10 minutes ago and it was not there. I clicked your link and it was there. Maybe browser cashe not emptying? In any case, I apologize for my error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit

You are such a hypocrite, you are not bigger than any tennis editors here, if you think you are the tennis god, go home. You use the words exciting and unable to find her rhythm, really. those are so wikipedia like, wikipedia is not your blog, it is a fact giving site. I make researches to make the article as plausible and gives enough information for a person reading it to understand it. Wikipedia acts as Encyclopedia, mean it's needs to be encyclopedic meaning "encyclopedic (comparative more encyclopedic, superlative most encyclopedic) Of or relating to the characteristics of an encyclopedia; concerning all subjects, having comprehensive information or knowledge". Conprehensive means complete. What you are doing is brief layout of things and not comprehensive. Dencod16 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

First, If you continue with your personal attacks here and in summaries I WILL report you and you WILL get blocked. I did my best in deleting the far far too detailed writing. You are correct that I could have been more concise in my style. No scoring is allowed, and set by set details are way too much for wikipedia. All the tennis bios and yearly articles are summaries, not blow by blow descriptions. That's what the refs are for. If I put this up to the general wiki populous they'll not only remove almost everything but many have been averse to yearly articles to begin with. I crushed three sentences into "exciting match" and you jump on me. Fine, I've tried to be constructive, as i see many other have been on your talk page, but I'm getting tired of it. Editors like Wolbo and James26 and administrator EdJohnston have also warned you of these things to no avail. If you're unsure simply ask at project tennis and someone will help you out with guidelines and policies. But the verbal attacks and violations must stop, please. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Then go ahead, rather than just editing stuff, when someone has done the whole article by himself and made sure everything is unbiased and sourced as much as he can. You could have just messaged me to make necessary edits about the score, because my main focus is to give as much information as I can to the readers without being opinionated, and the scores have split my mind. You act so highly to everyone else, that is is borderline offensive, if you see my former arguments with editors I have been seen to compromise whereas the other party is stubborn and is not willing to meet in the middle. Dencod16 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, with your over-editing you might be the right person to edit the actual Serena Williams page, which needs to be very brief and summarized, which i have found difficult to do. And i will be removing most of the scores in the other tennis seasons as soon as i can. Dencod16 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
All the articles need to be brief and summarized... not just the main article. I have done the Andy Murry article and many others so I may have to take a crack at Serena. I had removed all the scores from her article in the past. Also, I don't message to edit as no one owns a page no matter how much they have done. You do much work and give great sources but you don't seem to be able to edit out what's overly detailed for wikipedia, and you don't seem to like to follow consensus or rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
First of all can you point me out to the agreement of the no scores in prose rule, cause as far as i have been reading there was no consensus on it based on this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 6#Removal of scores in prose, but instead it was the tie-break score that should be removed that only received a consensus. And not giving informations makes the article encyclopedia like, it makes it blog like. First and foremost we should serve any average readers not our own who actually follows tennis and gives as much info as we can. The edit you did in 2010 is guideline appropriate without risking the credibility and is comprehensive enough. Dencod16 (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
We should NOT be giving as much info as we can. We give appropriate information to be encyclopedia-like. Obviously more than a standard encyclopedia but we are not a blog or a repository of minutia details either. That 2010 article needs to be edited down and you don't own it. No matter how much work you put into it everyone can re-edit it without asking your permission or telling you about it. As for scoring, it was scattered over wimbledon articles and tennis project. The final implimentation was at No scoring allowed in prose. Just report the round and whether the player won or lost the match, and whom they played, when the guideline was being re-ordered. It was clarified so that articles on specific matches should certainly allow the score, but we try at all costs to avoid it. If someone comes back from 0–5, love–30, that is very special. But routine 6–3 scores are not to be written in prose, and even more so for these yearly articles where you are already showing these same scores in tables below. The refs provided are for the details if readers want more info. Also, for your future score additions, we don't use hyphens in scoring... we use ndashes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi fyunck any ideas why this Dencod guy is abusing me and deleting all quote off Serena Williams' page calling them trivia. When A they're sourced, b appropriate for the article and C, the little girl mention which effectively got Serena to play again is a fact from her biography. Another editor has commented on her talk page and said that the quotes and the facts are alright but he continues and has been spouting trivia rubbish elsewhere. I notice you've had dealings with him before any chance you can help here? Thanks. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Update in his latest round of bulling he removed all references from Serena's biography for no apparent reason. You seems to be able to out gun him so I need a bit of help here, especially when you seem to have no issues with the information in the page and he seems to be trying to speak for all of the project Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really want to get into the editing of the Serena Williams articles. To be honest I have no problem with losing information as the Serena Williams article is too long and detailed to begin with. The only things worse are her yearly articles like 2012 Serena Williams tennis season which is so bloated and filled with trivia as to make me cringe. I wasn't going to be the only editor willing to challenge what was looking to be article ownership so I was letting them rot in embarrassment for wikipedia. As long as the scoring stays out and the flags stay out, the articles can continue to be examples of what not to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of world rankings

hi there - I was wondering if you knew the official wiki regulations for 'World No.' for world rankings on tennis player pages/whether there is a linked guideline for this specific capitalization? I had a quick browse through en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters and thought, say, World No. 1 or World No. 43 would count as a title? I only bring this up as recently, I've noticed quite a few 'World No.' changed to 'world no.', so wasn't sure if it was right (it sure looks far uglier :p). thanks. Asmazif (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

To be honest, I was wondering the same as you. I would have sworn we talked about it at the project and someone referred to the wiki policy in deciding it, but I can't find it now. Maybe it was just on a random players talk page that the conversation took place. If you look around all our sports articles it seems I see "World No. 1", "world no. 1", "World Number 1", "world number 1", "World Number One", and "world number one." It's all over the place in titles and in prose. We don't capitalize words in titles unless they are proper nouns but I would think that the term World No. 1 is very likely a proper noun (at least "world No. 1"). Most articles outside of wikipedia seem to spell it World No. 1 as in India News and atp, but we also have some places that consider on the "No. 1" as a proper noun and use "world No. 1" like pga tour. Maybe that's why articles around here are all over the map... no one has set any guidelines?. Maybe this should be asked on the Manual of Style talk page where they could dig up some talk about it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thanks for the response - posted it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_world_rankings_in_tennis_player_pages Asmazif (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2013 (GMT)
So many guidelines in wikipedia are general in nature (as they should be) and tennis has a lot of specific needs that aren't covered. Hence our own guidelines to give at least some uniformity. But you'd think something like No. 1 or World No. 1 would be used in so many different sports and events that it would have been discussed multiple times at wikipedia. It probably has. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For future reference it is located at MOS:NUMBERSIGN. The proper use would be written as "Novak Djokovic is world No. 1 today." Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

From WP:3O, I responded and gave you my opinion. Hope it helps :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 10:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you kinda split the difference and every bit of input helps to form a consensus to make wiki articles better. Thanks for taking the time to look things over. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Novak Djokovic career stats

Ok, sorry I didn't know. What about "significant finals"? To me that doesn't have a good ring to it though. What do you think? JayJ47 (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to include that heading, especially for people who are new to tennis. Its important to acknowledge that there are other "big" tournaments aside from the four grand slams, so I think we should use "significant finals" from now on. If we come up with a better name we can use that in the future. Your thoughts on this? JayJ47 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Go for it then...we can always post it at the tennis project and get some other views, but it seems a minor issue. As long as we don't confuse with Major I'm good with it, and unless some consensus changes I'll try to correct other pages as "significant" whenever I come across the same situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok then its settled :) JayJ47 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Leandrorezendecarvalho033 SPI

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leandrorezendecarvalho033, it doesn't seem to me like either CheckUser or a sockpuppet investigation would be productive here at this time.

  • CheckUser can only try to confirm a connection between two or more accounts — by policy, CU checks are not allowed as a means of tying an IP address to an account.
  • The SPI report does currently name two accounts, but one of these hasn't edited in over six months, and CU's are unable to see information on edits that are more than 90 days old.
  • The IP addresses involved here appear to be dynamic addresses issued by an ISP. Any sufficiently wide range block would have far too much collateral damage to be worth considering in this case.

The best thing to do here would probably be to request semi-protection of the affected article(s). If you can find more evidence of additional accounts making recent disruptive edits consistent with this same suspected sockmaster, then of course an SPI (perhaps including a CU) would be worth reconsidering. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, please do not repeatedly file reports over and over using Twinkle, as that will actually delay action by the clerks or other admins. --Rschen7754 02:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok that's interesting. What is the best course of action then? This editor is pretty much changing to anon ips on a daily basis and vandalizing. he does this to 20-30 different articles, and adds a few new ones every time. He goes by Leandrorezendecarvalho033 and Leandrorezendecarvalho55, and those have the same modus operandi as banned editor "Leandro da silva pereira santos." He's using anon ips, 189.27.186.102, 189.27.161.76, 177.18.153.40, 189.27.184.248, 177.134.43.143, 189.27.243.241, 187.113.206.13, plus more... and myself and others keep having to revert the damage. But I want to do what's best for wiki. I assume its fine to tag these anon ips with "IPsock|Leandrorezendecarvalho033" but you'd rather I not keep reporting the user to administration? Yesterday or the day before I asked for semi protection on a couple articles but it was either ignored or got missed. Are you saying I should keep using that approach? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Semiprotection is probably best, as we can't shut down the entire range due to collateral damage. But if you report named accounts, try to combine reports - you had a string of 4-5 open reports all on the same page, which is very difficult to go through. --Rschen7754 08:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Should I also combine requests for semi-protection? Twinkle only allows individual requests of protection so I'll have to do it manually if I need to link 20 articles to be protected. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That would probably be best. --Rschen7754 06:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Hello Fyunck.

This is a friendly warning not to edit war away from the consensus version. If you want to add something similar to what you added, try to find consensus for it on the talk page first. Given the fact that there was a consensus to remove the "aka stuff", it is hard to assume good faith in your latest edit.

If you add it again without consensus, you may be reported to 3RR or ANI.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The last time you warned for this you were admonished by an administrator for a false warning for harassing me. Don't harass me again or I'll revoke your privilege of editing my talk page. We don't censor wikpedia when we can source a preponderance of information. You were blocked for this by an administrator before he set up a compromised truce where they weren't removed and I didn't add any more. If this is removed then I would have to assume this compromised truce is no longer valid for any article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I was not admonished. I was asked a question, and in my response, I admitted that I might have mislabelled the warning as a 3rr-violation instead of edit-warring – which it was. And I'm not "harassing" or "intimidating" you, I am calling on you to follow WP:CONSENSUS, just like any other editor. You're absolutely right, we don't censor wikipedia. Leaving trivialities out isn't censorship. The argument is rediculous. You're the only one speaking of a truce – and you're the only one breaking it by continuously re-adding stuff that the majority of editors think shouldn't be there. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have not broken it.... that is a lie! I have added nothing new to any articles that already had that information. I certainly have had to add it back when censored and removed by you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I usually find ANI's to be unproductive, plus they create more anger on all sides...bringing out a host a editors friendly to each editor at the ANI. I really don't want to take the time to start hunting down all his verbal belligerence towards me if some warnings will do the trick. I see he has done the same to editor Wolbo now too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
You're all welcome to bring me to ANI. It will be the biggest WP:BOOMERANG ever. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Funny, I was thinking the same thing with you and your intimidation warning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
My "intimidation warning"? How do you mean? Please elaborate. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok I'll try this straight up. I change the way something is worded and make it a footnote instead of a lead paragraph item... one edit other than simply adding sources... and I receive this ridiculous warning from you. Totally uncalled for. And taken with your previous harassment where I needed an administrator to look into it and tell me I did nothing wrong. I didn't pursue it since you seemed to be gone for a couple weeks. I tend to let things blow over in hopes that in the future things will be better if not taken to ANI or multiple administrators. But now this ridiculous warning pops up again where you are the one causing more havok. If there is another from you in the future I will formally request you not post on my talk page. I hope it doesn't come to that as talking things out and making compromises...working things out that are fair to all sides of an issue, is what we should be doing at wikipedia. But I don't have to keep putting up with frivolous warnings. Those are my feelings on the issue so let's drop it and move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • HandsomeFella should know what happened to SMC when he would not stop his intimidation, and tried to get Fyunck punished at ANI. Repeated false accusations, insults, and threats are not acceptable. LittleBen (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
My warning was not meant as an intimidation, Fyunck, and I'm sorry that you feel that way about it. I realize how it can be felt though. However pessimistic I was about the chance of you respecting it, there's nothing frivolous or rediculous about it, as 4 editors out of 7 supported the removal, 1 was indifferent, 1 unstated, and only 1 (you) opposed it. There is also no basis for your – and Wolbo's – claim (in the edit summary) that this cannot be discussed and decided while also discussing an RM. Citation needed, I'd say.
Previous discussions on talk pages of other tennis players have had similar outcomes, as you well know, yet you (and Wolbo) keep re-adding the stuff. I find your repeated additions against consensus disruptive, at least to some degree, and I know many agree.
I have a hard time understanding why it is you feel so strongly that some kind of explanatory text is needed. Do you have so little faith in people's intelligence or literacy? Do you doubt that people, when they read the sources you have provided or come across "Frederic Vitoux" elsewhere, will understand that he and Frédéric Vitoux are the same person? I bet most people don't give it a second thought, and some don't even notice it. Which makes the only function of the remark "Hey, did you notice that the name was spelled without the diacritics?".
If this was about, let's say, a South Korean person, whose name was given as Yoo Sun-hee in most sources, and Yoo Seon-hee in a smaller, but still significant number of other sources, then I'd say it would certainly be motivated to reflect the alternative spelling in the article. But barely noticeable diacritics, come on.
It's bad that there is so much strife over this, and I wish there were some sort of agreement that could be made. I'm contemplating starting a new discussion on WT:AT to see if at least some common ground can be found, but I have to give it some thought first.
LittleBen, I think we all can agree that "false accusations, insults, and threats are not acceptable", but, given your record here, I think you're not the right person to give advice on that matter.
HandsomeFella (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

An administrator agreed with it's frivolity. I look at it as very important information. I would bet 90% of readers only see the name one way, Frederic Vitoux. They see tv, scoreboards, newspapers... they see the internet with sites like ESPN, ATP, ITF... the player registers under the name. Tennis Europe also spells names that way. We use multiple sources here at wikipedia and those sources don't jive with the title or the content of these articles. Consensus on some things is great but banning a well known spelling? I don't follow literary guilds or international barristers associations or worldwide Opera Singers... I assume that they don't exist. When a world famous conductor (with a name with diacritics) performs in London how do they spell his name at Wembly arena? At Madison Square Garden? They spell it with diacritics. So no problem. When I see Charlotte Brontë in English articles more often than not it's spelled Charlotte Brontë. There's no governing body of literature so we don't have that to look at. But tennis is different. The ATP and ITF both spell his name Frederic Vitoux. His registry ipin is Frederic Vitoux. Pretty much all English press and tv sees him as Frederic Vitoux. All the venues he played at saw him as Frederic Vitoux. It is important that a biography in an Encyclopedia with almost endless space retains that info. Encyclopedia Britannica does this with Ilie Nastase, why don't we.

For a long while we made sure a player' bio was in the form of Frederic Vitoux (FR: Frédéric Vitoux). I also made sure those foreign spellings were there for our readers. It was important to let readers know a different spelling existed. I thought this the least intrusive of all forms and by common name usage here on wikipedia, I also thought it the correct way to present the bio. Though I didn't change, consensus changed to wanting the homeland spelling first (but the actual title was still at the common English name). I flipped it to Frédéric Vitoux (EN: Frederic Vitoux)... nothing messy there either. There are still battles over titles, even when a person has moved to the US or spells or signs their name in English with no diacritics. Some didn't like the (EN: Frédéric Vitoux) style. I moved it "also known as"... some didn't like that so it was tried at "professionally known as" because the governing bodies of the reason they are on wikipedia at all, recognize only that name. We've tried "also spelled as" and other combos. We've asked for input into the best way to incorporate it. One editor who was often against other forms suggested and then added "rendered as Frédéric Vitoux." Not my favorite but at least it was a compromise. I preferred "also spelled as." Then i saw another editor liked the footnote idea. I didn't because it went against policy of having all forms of the name in the lead paragraph. But again it seemed a reasonable compromise, especially to those who felt the original way cluttered the lead. Now that's under attack too. Consensus is supposed to be the art of compromise where all sides with sources work to find some common ground. With a title you can't, it's either or. With the lead name you can't, it's also either or (you can't spell a name with half the diacritics). But with a well known recognized spelling variation you can certainly find common ground on where and how to place it. It absolutely exists and is far and away the majority spelling in English. So yes, I feel it must be retained in some way, and that it would censoring to outright ban it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Fyunck, we have different views. But just a few comments and questions.
Yes, the players register under a name without diacritics. Do you think they do it voluntarily? They – at that stage in their life, very young, possibly teenagers – face the choice between 1) becoming a tennis pro, with all kinds of possible future success, including money – and 2) retain their diacritic(s) and give up their pro dream. They can't turn to a competing organization, because there isn't one. What would you do?
"An administrator agreed with it's frivolity." What was frivolous? And which admin? Diff? I haven't seen an admin commenting here – only LittleBen. I certainly hope that he's not an admin (and god forbid he'll ever become one!).
HandsomeFella (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure they don't do it voluntarily (or at least most of them). I don't see where that matters at all. There are actors and actresses that don't do it voluntarily either, but the fact is the spellings exist en masse. I concede it is a point to consider when talking about what title to use or what lead to use, but freely given or arm twisted that is the spelling used in English sources and by the ITF, ATP, French Open, and down to the lowliest $10,000 tournament. This is not someone's shoe size (which people try to put in articles because they can find some sources). This is their working name. At home they can spell it as they please. You really don't see me taking this stand in other disciplines because I don't know enough about how their governing bodies work or if they even have an overseer. But tennis does and it's in our faces every day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, wikipedia isn't ITF, and with consensus being what it is, I hope you will refrain from adding such stuff again, or you might find yourself reported anytime soon.
Btw, what about the "frivolity"?
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't added anything new per the original compromise. If censored I and others will likely add it back. If still censored I will re-evaluate the original bargain and start adding new items that I had stopped with the compromise, as it would then be broken. As for frivolous I was talking with administrator 5 albert square. It was frivolous, unwarranted, and harassing to me, and however you feel about it, it was wrong. Do not place another on this talk page. If you want to talk about some sort of compromise I'll always listen and try new ideas. And remember wikipedia consensus is not usually either or. Per Policy: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal." One tries to find a compromise that all can live with... it's not supposed to be done with a club. Somehow things have changed since I first edited here when peers explained to me how things worked. Much more cliques and winning than before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course I hadn't read the discussion page where you are trying to intimidate me again before I posted here. I have asked you to stop twice with unwarranted warnings and now you throw it in my face again on an article talk page. That's it. You are not to edit this talk page at all. I have tried to be reasonable and you simply slap me in the face as I try. No more of this harassment from you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

reply by editor on my request for him to remove an attack

  • " because WP:TENNISNAMES has 1 editor warring the RfC result." - What I mean is, could you show other editors an edit that reflects you accepting and abiding by the RfC consensus? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:TENNISNAMES is more your article than my article. I have no idea if anything I may have added is on there while you may be the main editor of it of those that are still active here. As for the obscure RfC result pertaining to a personal essay of "requiring no diacritics"... I have never followed that and you know it. It's why I was not in favor of it. So knock off the falsehoods and keep the attacks off the boards. We are discussing a move request there and/or the merits of a move request, not your repeated attacks on me. And there is more than one editor that disagrees with you banning the English alphabet and the non compromising attitude. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You participated in the RfC extensively, and there was nothing obscure about it, a very large number of editors participated, and you edit summary recognises it was roundly defeated. Therefore I am asking you: could you show other editors an edit that reflects you accepting and abiding by the RfC consensus as expressed by closer Sandstein? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
If your attack is removed from the open forum, as I requested, then I'll get back to you on that obscure RfC on a personal essay "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
To be frank, I see no reason to change the statement in any way, there is 1 editor warring the RfC result, that is you. The RfC which was about as obscure as Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade was concluded as follows:

Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular. User:Sandstein 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept the outcome of the RfC or not? This is a simple yes or no question. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Also note again that your section heading is counter Wikipedia:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages although on your own Talk page no one can stop you. Nevertheless your edit history shows you warring, that is reverting not just 3RR but 100sRR against dozens of editors on dozens of articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That heading is 100% accurate, but I'll remove the name. Sorry, but as long as those types of attacks on article talk pages continue, then I really have nothing to say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
There should be no direct connection between you objecting to description of your edits as Wikipedia:Edit warring and the request to say yes/no whether you accept the result of an RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but as long as those types of attacks on article talk pages continue, then I really have no answer. I have asked you multiple times to remove it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Tournament Names

Thanks. I think this was how all the articles on wikipedia were originally, until some editors began changing it to just the city and the country in which the tournaments are held. I'm fine with including them as long as they come after the actual tournament name JayJ47 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok yep. JayJ47 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can make this more clearer? Some editors, especially IP's have been changing the tournament names back to the city and country format. JayJ47 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I can bring it up at Tennis project so that a few others can weigh in on the proper place and best wording. But in double checking it's right there in the guidelines under Career so I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. "The full tournament title should always be used along with its location (e.g. Australian Open, Melbourne, Australia) rather than simply just the city and country in which the event is held (e.g. Melbourne, Australia)." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
<butting in> The project article guidelines indeed clearly state that "The full tournament title should always be used along with its location (e.g. Australian Open, Melbourne, Australia) rather than simply just the city and country in which the event is held (e.g. Melbourne, Australia).". Yet many of the tennis player articles currently use the city, country setup. I agree that before we start making wide sweeping changes to numerous player articles it's probably best to move this discussion to the WP:TENNIS talk page to get more input and see if we should reaffirm the current guidelines (tournament, city, country) or change them (city, country)? --Wolbo (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't see why anyone would be against it since just the city is not very informative. I change it occasionally when I see it but nothing widespread like I do to flag icons and scoring in prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I just added this discussion topic to the project talk page to give it more weight if we start changing many stats in many articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that if space was an issue, why not omit the city and just include the tournament name and the country its held in? See the example below. JayJ47 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Outcome No. Date Championship Surface Opponent in the final Score in the final
Winner 1. January 16, 2009 Moorilla Hobart International, Australia Hard Czech Republic Iveta Benešová 7–5, 6–1
We could do that, but imho the city can be very helpful info to our readers. Of course by clicking the tournament name they can find out all they want about it's location. Hopefully more will comment on the tennis project talk so we can get a feel for what's liked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My user page at ANI

In last episode, if you recall, the my user page brutally cut down by the forces of darkness. Well, it has risen to shine again as a white sun of Wiki-controversy, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Goodness. With all the help articles need, and with all the undesirable comments made on article talk pages, you'd think satire plopped on a user subpage about a controversial novelist, wouldn't be worth the time of day to complain about. Glad I saw it before it was removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop re-editing my sites please!

Hello. For a long time now I have been expanding tennis sites on Wikipedia (mostly Bosnian tennis players both men and female). But my pages are being re-edited all the time for the past weeks. I dont understand why you cant just leave that alone. Without my text nobody is editing these pages! Do you understand this? For few years nobody re-edited the pages and then from nowhere there is a problem. I beg you please stop re-editing my pages:

Aldin Setkic, Damir Dzumhur, Mirza Basic, Mervana Jugic-Salkic, Jasmina Tinjic, Dea Herdzelas,

Bosnian Fed Cup Team, Bosnian Davis Cup Team Sajo10 (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No one owns anything on wikipedia. Everyone is free to edit all pages. You are encouraged to add to those articles and it's great that you do so, however if you don't follow the rules around here your additions will be continually reverted and you could be blocked from editing at all. Check out the Tennis Project Guidelines so you don't keep making the same mistakes. It is also wrong to edit one day under Sajo10 and the next under 213.112.123.66. If you need help in understanding what the proper formatting is please ask me (or others at Tennis Project) and I'll try my best to help. Remember, as has been pointed out many many times, flag icons only on players, and performance charts do not include lesser 250 level tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Fyunck, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Tennis talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder.....

Yep... Sadly I guess there's not a lot that can be done about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Djokovic–Murray rivalry

I will be nominating the rivalry page for deletion it does not merit its own page.HotHat (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, these are not rivalries also.HotHat (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Djokovic–Murray rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Djokovic–Murray rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djokovic–Murray rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.HotHat (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been noticing a billion link corrections by Colonies Chris and Jevansen. I actually think it's great that someone is taking the time to do it since I thought a bot eventually caught these things to point at the correct page. Guess not. I've now been doing the same, but of course mine seem to be getting flak from the usual entity. I wonder if it's reciprocated to the other editors or is it just at me? Just something I'm noticing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Rivalries discussion

See, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Rivalries.HotHat (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Flags

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#flag_icons. The current guideline in the project is not in accordance with MOS:FLAG. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a grey area with tennis nationalities and the fact the Major events are treated like an Olympics. Some of it probably stems from the fact that until the 60's the national team events like Davis Cup, Fed Cup and Wightman Cup were more important than the 4 Majors. Players have been known to pull themselves out of a Big tournament (even mid event) if it might affect their play in a future Davis Cup match. I tried to answer more fully on the project page but please feel free to kick it around here also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the situation now is that for all those major tournaments nationality simply does not matter, and "treated like an Olympics"--well, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but they're not operated in the way the Olympics are, with teams and representation and quota and what not. Now, I looked at a bunch of tennis player biographies and am somewhat surprised to see no separate sections with tables for Davis Cup results. That's fine, I suppose, though that would be the only place where those flags had legitimacy. Look at Viktor Troicki (a fine Davis Cup player)--can you even count how many flag icons are in there, every single one in violation of MOS:FLAG? Drmies (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree that it doesn't matter. All the time in the press you hear how it's China's first grand slam tournament win, or Britain hasn't won wimbledon in 80 years. Nationality, for whatever reason, is huge in international tennis events. And some players do have Davis Cup results listed on their pages, and those flag icons are only the countries involved. You can also tell at a glance when countries have won an event multiple times as opposed to using "ESP" over and over again. I don't particularly care if there's lot's of flags of no flags, but I do tend to follow what a project's long time stance has been. I don't see this as against mosflag either. It's a guideline because it can't possibly foresee importance in every sport or situation. Per MOS:FLAG "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself"... it is very pertinent in tennis imho. In looking at the Troicki article I have no problem with the flags in the tables however that bottom "full list" of players looks messy with the flags and is also completely overkill in and of itself. If it wouldn't be put back I would delete that whole section as trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. unsigned by Sport and politics (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

was wondering ...

... where have I heard fyunch(click) before when reading the mote in god's eye. It looked very familiar. Yes, in my wikipedia watchlist. haha. greetings.. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 02:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep...it was a typo when signing up, but it's stuck for many a year now. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bob and Mike Bryan tennis season

I am working on the article, which here is the link to it, and if you wants to try to figure out the rankings and points stuff like 2013 Novak Djokovic tennis season has you can be my guest and do so. I will try to get the prize money table together tomorrow at the earliest if I can. Also, you can work on the prose if that suits your fancy.HotHat (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Bryan's

I have created the article for all to edit now at 2013 Bob and Mike Bryan tennis season.HotHat (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And it looks pretty darned good too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bishop Bell School

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bishop Bell School. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC part II

Hi. You participated in RfC on Talk:Frédéric Fontang. Per the advice of closing admin "This result sets no precedent for similar articles. To address the other articles, I would suggest a broadly-worded RfC" I have confirmed the title of the second RfC addressing the other 105 affected articles with the closing admin and that follow on broadly-worded RfC is at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Acupuncture

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Acupuncture. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam men's singles champions

Re your reverting my revert of your revert - in my understanding of reversion policy one should refrain from reverting good faith edits, which you did in the first instance WP:REVERT - although I would acknowledge the policy is somewhat confusing. Apologies for any assumption of bad faith but as a reversion of what looked to be a perfectly reasonable edit on a page subject to some controversy and vandalism I was somewhat suspicious. (extending the open era table to 2 or more wins provides additional information and avoids the open era table being merely a subset of the all time table.)

No problem. But new material gets reverted all the time if editors don't think it works well with the current format. We could have a good faith addition of Serena Williams show size (with sources), but it will be reverted instantly. Now most good faith edits remain to be sure, but this chart has been stable for over a year with "at least 5" for both all-time and open era charts. That seems pretty darned reasonable to me. Much more so than down to 2 wins. If a change happens I feel it needs some community input because once one chart changes then other editors start lengthening all of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sousveillance

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sousveillance. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BP

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Undoing hours of my work...

You know, just because you are allergic to the "ć" in Ana Ivanović's actual legal name, does not give you the license to summarily undo hours of my careful copyediting with one ill-justified UNDO. I did a lot of improvements to that article, that you just ran roughshod over. And I remind you, that Jelena Janković is not more Serbian than Ana Ivanović, and I have not heard of Ana changing her name legally to Ivanovic. So, while you may play your stupid games line of reasoning in Move Request votes, supplying disingenuous arguments based on how American or tennis press misspells her name, it does not change the fact that her name is Ivanović, just as Agnieszka Radwańska's name is Radwańska, and in Wikipedia article content, regardless where the article may be parked, we spell BLP (and dead people's, as well) names accurately, as this is an encyclopedia. Are we clear on this? If you persist in undoing my good work, I will bring you up on ANI for willful vandalism and unconstructive, baseless reverting. Have a nice day. --Mareklug talk 08:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to copy edit that's fine.... but I'm not going to go through and just change back a name spelling that was fine to begin with. You do it if you like and keep the rest of the edits but I don't want to fix it name by name. Right... vandalism of a long standing spelling. If you persist in these threats I'll bring you to ani for frivolous attacks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for at least not undoing my copyediting other than my fixing "Ivanovic" as her legal name "Ivanović", per WP:BLP. Other than flaunting BLP policy, you are obviously oblivious to the fact that we always spell all names correctly in articles, and that includes the horribly diacritical Czech and Slovak tennis players. :/ Also, you may wish to revisit your reckless global substituting operation, as you broke the commons cat template (they spell her name correctly on Commons and lack any redirects from the wrong spelling), as well as made lie of the Serbian source vesti.rs, which spells her name in the title of the page, what do ya know, Ivanović. You may have obliterated other similar source/reference usages, but I am too tired to check for you. --Mareklug talk 08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look and see what's broke.  Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Mikhail Youzhny career statistics

Did you even read the FL review page???? Huh, the explicitly said not to use the Performance key template because it does not meet FL requirements... As I've told the tennis WP project, normal layout is not acceptable, and that has been stated in the review page... Normal is not a good enough reason.. --TIAYN (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The key as it stood before, does not meet tennis project requirements, so we have a problem then. I did not see where they specifically said not to use it... I saw a suggestion by one person on an alternate (and it's bad.) Certainly bring it to tennis project if some tweaks are needed but to simply wholesale change it and expect that other articles will do the same is not acceptable either. That key is locked into our guidelines and it needs talk before such a major change happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Magick

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Magick. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Azarenka career statistics

Thanks for removing all those disruptive edits from that particular IP on this page. I also just read what you wrote at the top of this page and am sorry you've been verbally attacked etc. Thanks for all the hard work you've done for tennis on wikipedia and thanks for all the advice and support you've given me in the last year or so. Stay strong and happy editing :) JayJ47 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: The Tennis Barnstar

Hi Fyunck! That is very kind of you, and somewhat unexpected too, seeing that I've hardly made any edits over the last couple of weeks! May I return you the compliment with your diligence and perseverance in re-adding the tennis links and flagicons recently too. That was a great help in spite of others' hindrance! In the next few days I will be back to speed and create a few more notable bios for you to muse at smile all the best! Jared Preston (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mikhail Youzhny career statistics/archive1

Read the last comment, important, if you want to use the performance key, improve it. :) --TIAYN (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I asked him to clarify and he did. The last comment being "I wouldn't oppose your choice whichever way you felt was best." Here we think the best balance is the consensus approach. A little tougher on the eyes but it doesn't overwhelm the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I think this works, do you? --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
No, way to big. But that 90% font you changed it to doesn't look too bad and it keeps the basic form. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to Vietnamese geo article titles

Since you participated in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2 you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well this should be interesting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DIACRITICS

I see you got the point. I'm done complaining. Happy editing! :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being done complaining. However this is consistent with what I have always said... we need to back up everything we do with English sources. If we do that with tunnel-vision, all should be well. Like Charlotte Brontë. At least half the English sources and most major literary guilds and tv shows have it spelled Charlotte Brontë. It would be ridiculous to change that. Anyway, have a good day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
'If we do that with tunnel-vision...' should that be 'without'?--Wolbo (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:-) yep.

Substance needed on alleged Tennis Project consensus

Please provide a link for the "consensus" discussion for why the infobox needs two flags in tennis articles.JOJ Hutton 21:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was in error here. It does not need two flags in the infobox for playing nationality. Did I add one where one already existed? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I see the mishap. Andre Agassi, correct? It looks like he actually has two infoboxes where the olympic box simply doubles up the info in the tennis bio infobox. I would think that second box could be removed as unnecessary. I'll have to check with others. He would be the odd man out if there is no flag in the main box, but I agree two flags are not needed, so I removed one. Thanks and sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, and perhaps either you or I can get a broader discussion going at the project talk page. Either way, I will participate in the discussion and hopefully we all can come up with a viable solution that not only satisfies all parties, but adheres to the current wording of the MOS on flag usage in the infoboxes. JOJ Hutton 22:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It has been talked about several times and actually had one going on at the tennis project a week or two ago. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1964 U.S. National Championships

When you get a chance could you please take a look at this edit to the 1964 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles article. It changed the winner of a 2nd round match between Eleazar Davidman and Owen Davidson to the Australian. Davidman's ITF profile says he made the third round but Tennis Archives reckons Davidson won. I had no luck going through the google news archives and couldn't find any past draws on the US Open website. I thought you might have some books you could check? Jevansen (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll give a check tonight... I think I only have wimbledon and french draws in book form. However we also have the Grand Slam Tennis Archive website at our disposal. They have Davidson as the winner also. I see what you mean by the ITF... they have them flipped. Well, both can't be correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I sent an email to the ITF asking for clarification or correction. They have had errors before that I got corrected by correspondence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Bill Talbert's book Tennis Observed (1967) has all the draws of the U.S. Men's Singles Championships from 1881 to 1966. The 1964 draw (p.139) shows Davidson beating Davidman 6–1, 7–5, 6–3 in R2 (and losing to Osuna in R3).--Wolbo (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so looks like it was probably Davidson. Interesting to see what the ITF say. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LGBT rights under international law

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:LGBT rights under international law. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


video game notability

Hello Fyunck. I am a frequent editor on Wikipedia and I came across an article that seems to be about a game that is not so notable. There is no reason mentioned in the article of why the game should be on Wikipedia. Stellar Mercenaries is the article I am talking about. The entire article is written from only two sources that are not so credible. I would have nominated it for deletion myself, but I don't know the process. 182.189.100.213 (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. While I've played zillions of video games it's not my field of expertise. I posted your query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and you can check on the link for an answer to your question. Projects usually have the best insight about what is notable and what is important in the particular subject field. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josh Willis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Josh Willis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mikhail Youzhny/GA1

Fyunck(click), it looks like this review has stalled. Have the issues you've raised so far been addressed? Are there others you need to raise? Did you want to drop the review? It's been over three weeks since you posted anything. Please get back to it as soon as possible, or let me know if you want to put it back into the reviewing pool for someone else to do. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I had forgotten about it. Since my last post I see nothing that has been fixed per my suggestions. I also assumed that other reviewers would also chime in with their own thoughts and help and that I wouldn't be the only one to check it out. There are plenty of tennis project issues that need help (and I tried to help on) but I'm guessing there are also a few MOS bio standards that others could help with too. If someone else would rather do the heavy lifting on this article by all means put it back in the review pool, but so far it hasn't even passed tennis project muster. I just fixed the tennis scoring myself but it really needs to be condensed from it's current state. I can fix one section so he can see what would be best, and he can take it from there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WTA finals (and ITF finals)

User 37.116.121.87 informed me that there's a change in format. I'm not on top of the changes, I reverted his changes. It was this change that had me scratching my head! Why is there change from wins & loses records such as 3-2 to actually stating 3 titles, 2 runners-up? But this change seems only for WTA finals but not ITF finals. Thank you! Raul17 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by changes in format. As far as I know, both formats are appropriate but I have lately seen more editors using 3 titles and 2 runners-up than simply 3–2. Maybe they feel that 3–2 could be mistaken for 3 wins and 2 losses in those tournaments as opposed to 3 titles and 2 runners-up? I'm not sure. I actually have no preference between them except that if you use the full term of titles and runners-up, it must be lower case and it must be runners-up, not runner-ups. I don't think the actual case has been brought up at tennis project as to which is better. I concern myself with following formatting that is well established. This color in this edit was wrong. No scoring is allowed in prose at all in her article... all of it must be removed except in charts (which I have now done). I hope that helps a little. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I've been editing the 2013 year, but didn't know that scores weren't allow in the summary. I do not change an article's format or anything like that. Just update and follow want had been established. Thank you! Raul17 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Usually the sourcing will lead the reader to a score if they really want it. If the score breaks some sort of record, then of course we include it. Or if a final set tiebreak is amazing (like 15–13) we may give the final set scoring. Otherwise we leave it out. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Asian top tens

Again, I just followed the pattern. Don't recall how long those list weren't updated. Does the ITF consider Russia part of Europe or Asia? I think the previous editors (and myself) thought that since Russia participates in European group in the Davis Cup and Fed Cup we assumed that Russian players were European players. No big deal, because I will not update the rankings much any more. Again thanks for your help!!! Raul17 (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well since I tagged those twp templates I looked a little closer at the titles. I see one is labeled "Top ten female tennis players of countries in the Asian Tennis Federation." The Asian Tennis Federation does not include Russia. That title should not confuse readers though it's not the title I would have chosen. The other template is called "Top ten Asian female doubles tennis players." ITF or not, by using simply the term Asian without Asian Tennis Federation being attached WILL confuse readers. The world says Russia is mostly in Asia. I personally would use the titles as simply Asia, as we do with all the other templates. But maybe other will disagree and I'll bring it up with tennis editors better equipped to answer that. I see that Russian players at wikipedia are listed under Template:Top ten European female tennis players. That seems very strange to me and all my learning in geography. I'm not sure what the ITF thinks about it, and I will search it out, but it may not matter if readers could be confused. That we don't want. Off to do some research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
First problem I see is with Maria Sharapova. She was born in Western Siberia... absolutely part of Asia. Do we use the Ural mtns as an absolute boundary, and if so do we consider Maria Asian? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Asian_tennis_players for wider input. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WTA 125K Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Career statistics

Since the Mikhail Youzhny career statistics FL nom is passing, its about time to discuss how to change the layout of the career statistics. It would be great if we could turn the Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray career statistics articles to FL status, but I feel I can only do that with support in the WP:Tennis project/community. --TIAYN (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Batting (baseball)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Batting (baseball). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:American cuisine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:American cuisine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Flags

You can't have flags per WP guidelines, WP guidelines you actually have to follow. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style... I can't do anything about this (and you can't either), the rest of WP tennis should do the same (actually, you have to do the same)... I'm reverting you're edits, but I can add the tournament names, instead of the location (it will take a time).. Anyhow, reverting all my changes were a bad move.. Either readd the info or ask me to readd it. I will not read the flags, per eManual of Style, but I will add tournament names to the tables. --TIAYN (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing banning flags in MOS... there are recommendations only. Per Tennis project they must be included included with the players. I will revert it back as it is against guidelines. Take it up at the project, but it was just talked about recently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the MOS explicitly state no flags in tables.. Secondly, I don't see any consensus, I've asked this several times (I even tried to start a discussion, none of you replied), and the flag question has been asked several times, but the only person I see defending it is you. I'm reverting, I'll be happy for you to start a discussion at WP:FLC or WP:MOS about this, and people agree with you, I will stop. But until then there is a consensus, maybe not on WP:TENNIS, but everywhere else. And if this is to pass FL the country codes will have to do. --TIAYN (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Where does POLICY state that? If it does it's brand new. And many have defended it, not just me. This was discussed only a week ago at the project. I replied but you made no mention that I saw about upending our guidelines on flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
True (i forgot), but you could have understood that by reading the Mikhail Youzhny career statistics article.. No flags. As said, per MOS "Headings should not contain images, including flag icons" ... I think this is entirely vague, and has nothing to do with flagicons used but is being interpreted that way.. Secondly, if you want the flags so bad, readd the flags, you're reverting to a much "bader" version because of flags, everything else is better. But again, I'll be happy to change, if you start discussions at WP:FLC, WP:MOS and WP:TENNIS.. Last, you can't accuse me of not following policy, when you're breaching the very same. --TIAYN (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WP:TENNIS about the use of flags, we should model them after the official ATP rankings, by that I mean using the official country codes. --TIAYN (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Heading is totally different. And no way am I adding back 100s of flags that you removed. You re-do the work, not us. If you make a change that is opposed and reverted then you are supposed to get the tennis community to agree with you before adding it back. I am not breaching policy at all. Banning flags is not policy... it is Tennis project consensus and guidelines, and has been for years and years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll readd the flags for now (and If I win the discussion, I will revert them of course)... However, it might take some time (I have a lot to do today and tomorrow).. But I will readd them.. Secondly, why are you on WP if you're lazy, that doesn't make alot of sense.. Again, I will be readding the flags. --TIAYN (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Lazy? What the hell is that supposed to mean? No personal attacks on wikipedia. You were wrong for deleting them and you are wrong for not immediately reverting yourself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Its not a personal attack, you wrote "And no way am I adding back 100s of flags"... As said, I will be readding them, and see how the discussions go. --TIAYN (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a personal attack so knock it off. If you change something it is not my responsibility to change things back piecemeal... it is all on you to fix it to begin with. I do it out of courtesy if a couple things get messed up but when it's 100s it's for you to fix. There's a lot more wrong with those tables other than the flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I was not a personal attack; "fuck you", is a personal attack, this was a remark.. Secondly, to the more important stuff, I've readded all the flags I've removed, and I'll be readding all the tournament names tomorrow after university and real work tomorrow, OK? And yes, I'm willing to discuss. You and I agree more than you think.. I'm willing to split the 250 series, 500 series and Masters 1000 series into different section and tables in a subsection of the ATP World Tour, but I've written that on the WP:Tennis talk page (you would have known that if you had actually read what I posted). Anyhow, no harm ment, I'll readd all the official, non-sponsored tournament names. --TIAYN (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No, "Fuck You" on my talk page is a profane personal attack that warrants instant blockage by an administrator. Yours was not profane but it was a personal attack. Don't do it again. Otherwise, I'm sure we agree on a lot of things. The problem is not what we agree or disagree on, but the way you went against protocol and told me banning flags was correct when I told you it was not. Grand Slam Tournaments usually have their own color as opposed to being one color, they list the name of the tournament and have a subscript of how many times it was won. The added Davis Cup charts must have a flag next to the nation (not the players) per guidelines. I personally do not like the country codes next to the flags, since they add nothing. As for your mouseover not working on the flags, I checked the Mac forums and it works for everyone else. That is a browser issue and you must have something turned off for it to be non-functional. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the detested "Category" table boxes, and split up the ATP World Tour sections (as you asked) --TIAYN (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I've found the answer, see the WP:Tennis, I know you said leave it at the sandbox, but I believe more people with bother looking at it if its there. --TIAYN (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Great Dane

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great Dane. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariana Duque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian Open (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

We've agreed to use the amended tables in the Roger Federer career statistics, we've agreed that we must use symbols to help colour blind readers and we've agreed to use flagathlete to to follow MOSFLAG as close as possible, what have we not agreed upon? Tell me. --TIAYN (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But I will go with Wolbo on this issue. We are in no hurry and this is a major change to thousands upon thousands of articles (most of which will never be changed because of shear volume. It would be nice to get 5 or 6 regular tennis editors to agree before we make such a major change. We do not have to use symbols for the colorblind since you also showed we can use a column with 1000, 500, 250, etc... That may be better understood by our readers. The flags do not have to change since we have been shown article that have reached FL quality with them just as they are. It may be better to use flagathlete than flagicon but it might be better to use a flag key so our readers aren't subjected to that silly country code. I'd give it another week or so to make sure all project members understand the implications of change. We just had a new poster say he didn't want any of it, so editors are trickling in. We may very well wind up using your suggestions but with a prominent editor saying not enough time has been given, then I would go with that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
But he isn't active in the discussion.. While some, or maybe many, have a problem with them, if they chose not to participate, what can you do about it. And I don't really care about the other (or at least, the great majority) career statistics, why? Because, first most, my edits will cease to be controversial and secondly, not all of them need to be WP:FL quality, only the most important ones should be. --TIAYN (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess we could also use your chart as simply an "optional" choice under the guidelines. It's not just choosing not to particpate... some editors could be on vacation, or simply aren't here as often as you. To do a major change it's best to give them a reasonable chance. But you are correct in that if they simply refuse to participate, there's nothing we can do about that and it's their loss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
How long should we wait, until next Monday (the pleasure of being sick is that I'll be online often...)? --TIAYN (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Feel better. The problem now is there are 9 choices with none being more popular than the other. The only thing that really must be changed is the "color only" of tournaments type. There are multiple choices for that and no comments other than us. let's see what happens over the coming days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Please see the message that Mark Arsten left here User talk:TheOldJacobite2#Block Evasion. I note that you did not file an SPI so your bad faith accusation of sock puppetry is an offense to the Wiki community in general and to TOJ specifically. If it were me I would leave an apology on TOJs page as well as performing a double edit in the articles that you left edit summaries accusing TOJ of socking. Of course you are not required to do anything but I would suggest you proceed with caution regarding this situation for the time being. I am also sure that you are offended by this message so you are free to remove it. MarnetteD | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Events have moved on this morning and it turns out that the TOJ2 sock was created by MoonMetropolis (talk · contribs). I know that you have been around a long time and have WikiP's best interests at heart. You are also a very productive contributor to tennis articles. In fact several years ago you were helpful in fighting off a prolific sock puppeteer (whose name escapes me at the moment) so I would be remiss in not thanking you for your work away from this situation. Many thanks and regards. MarnetteD | Talk 16:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow...that guy has an unfriendly enemy. I have apologized to him for assuming he evaded a block. I had assumed the other edit-warrer wouldn't stoop to something that low... an assumption I should not have made. Sorry to you also.Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and your gracious note on TOJs page. My failing memory just dredged up the name KnowIG as the person who was doing damage to tennis articles all those years ago. Cheers and happy editing whenever possible. MarnetteD | Talk 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That was it. There was also another huge problem with "Tennis expert" we had to deal with. From time to time it happens. Good luck with MoonMetropolis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The fact that you took the time to leave the edit summaries to correct and clarify things is much appreciated. There are editors who would not have been so thorough. I am leaving these for you to honor your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female education and economic development

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Female education and economic development. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS

OK, the discussion isn't going nowhere.. So this is what we're going to do, we're going to have two options... Option 1, as it is know, Option 2, the RF one.. It should solve everything. Option 1 can't reach FL quality, but if someone wants to nom it to FL, they can use Option 2. That's the best we can do, right? --TIAYN (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We should keep using option 1. If an article is nominated for FL then we should use option 5, unless this option will prevent that article from reaching FL status for any other reason. JayJ47 (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Choice 5 doesn't work for doubles, see; --TIAYN (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score
Winner 3 6 May 2007 250 series Bavarian International, Germany Clay Germany Philipp Kohlschreiber Czech RepublicJan Hájek
Czech RepublicJaroslav Levinský 		6–1, 6–4
Runner-up 3 24 February 2008 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Clay Germany Philipp Kohlschreiber Czech RepublicTomáš Berdych
RussiaDmitry Tursunov 		5–7, 6–3, [7–10]
Winner 5 5 October 2008 500 series Japan Open, Japan Hard Germany Mischa Zverev Czech RepublicLukáš Dlouhý
IndiaLeander Paes 		6–3, 6–4
I can't understand what you mean. The original and choice 5 work fine for doubles. We had two picks for choice 5 or we leave it as it was before you messed with it. What you put here is NOT choice 5 so I corrected it. Those seem to be our choices. You even have JayJ47 onboard grudgingly agreeing to adding a category to help out the visually challenged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
When did the discussions end? Secondly, I added the category first, you did not like it. Keep the discussion ongoing, more people will come... --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't practice what you preach. You did all these changes BEFORE we agreed. Now as it turns out what I was about to do was to add a column and eliminate the symbols like you just did. i would have also got rid of flagathlete and brought it back to the original (which I may still do). Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about, the old table was introduced per the discussions on the amended tables (if you remember correctly, I wanted to use the "category" system, which you opposed... if you had actually used as much as you are doing know criticizing me, this problem would have been solved.. I'm following the discussions, but there is still a dispute going on, and frankly, you seems to do everything possible for getting the discussions to go awry, and I can't understand why. --TIAYN (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You just don't get it. These discussions have never ended... no charts should have been changed until the discussions have ended. You have been wrong since the beginning. Editors got tired of arguing with you and let the charts be while we continued talking, yet you continued to change them. That is wrong and we can't seem to get that through to you. As the discussion stands now the columns will change to including a series, outcome will change to result, No. will not be sortable. But that's it right now. It could well change but as it stands, flagicon will be used, not flagathlete, and it should not be in the charts you have put up on the article website. That is against our long standing guidelines and you should know better than to try and ramrod it down peoples throats. That's not the way we work here. It's a slow process of convincing many editors to come to your point of view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
First, you're making my edits sound controversial when they are not. Secondly, WikiProject don't set policy, read Wikipedia:WikiProject.. These discussions are superficial, and don't make them sound any different. WP:TENNIS doesn't have a right to set how career statistics should look, and by the look on the WP talk page not many are really interested (at most 6 people have been active in the discussions, and that's not enough to push a certain way of organizing career statistics on to other peoples throats). Thirdly, flag, flagathlete, I only want to follow WP:MOSFLAG as close as possible (and you seem to do the opposite). "That is against our long standing guidelines", as said, you're guidelines don't mean shit. They should really be deleted, because you and some of other people seems to think they are the unofficial regulation on how things ought to be organized around here, against, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject.. Its only the guidelines which should be removed, also the "rule" (which isn't a rule" which stipulates that people outside the top 200 don't merit an article (that goes against central WP policy)... But ramrod, really? That is what this project has been doing from the very beginning it seems, and it goes against WP regulations. --TIAYN (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost all your edits have been controversial, that's why they've been deleted by editors. Wikiprojects set guidelines all the time so I have no idea what you're talking about. Mosflag says nothing about flagathlete. As I said we can also add a flag key but you seem to have ignored that and just implemented your view above all others. Our guidelines mean a lot and your opinion means nothing unless you can convince others. No the only ramrodding is what you are doing right now. You are demanding your own rules and interpretations of those rules...Going against long-standing guidelines. You came into this thing changing overnight the complete structure of Federer's stat page and got into an edit war over it. You opened a header on talk page which said "We can't use flags per MOS" and that was an absolute falsehood. You have demanded absolute timeframes, you have stated that "you can't duplicate information" which again is completely wrong. You seem to be coming at this as a dictator of terms as opposed to working within the system BEFORE implementation, as we always do. I was going to take this to ANI or dispute resolution but you seemed to calm down for awhile... but now your tone is getting very demanding again, and I don't like it. We are discussing things at the talk page BEFORE we implement things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This is WP regulations, read Wikipedia:WikiProject. It says "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.". The Guidelines don't mean crap. --TIAYN (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No guidelines do... only policies really mean anything. The guidelines are a means for consensus no matter whether they are attached to projects or not. What means zippo are your forced beliefs against consensus, which is why they are constantly reverted. Bullying will not help get an article closer to what you want...only changing editors minds will do that. Our projects guidelines have been upheld by many many administrators in disputes so I have no qualms about which way this would go if you continue on this path. We have all tried to work together and you have convinced us of some things but not others. That's the way it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not community wide consensus, this is four people (mostly 3) discussing the issues, if it ihad been community wide more people would have participated in the discussions.. --TIAYN (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Again WRONG. These guidelines have formed over years and years and years. Different editors at different times. Administrators and common editors have added input over a long period. So you coming in and making demands to rip them up over a couple weeks doesn't sit well with me or others. Jay has warned you, Wolbo has warned you and I have warned you... and maybe others. You have convinced people on one key issue, but not all issues. If it keeps up I could see editors (self included) changing even those things they agree with you on because no one wants to be bullied into something. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Please lighten up and go with the flow where some votes will go your way and others won't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
how have I bullied any of you? Really, tell me, how? If you mix up policy regulations will bullying, then yes, I've bullied you, but I doubt any other person would see it that way... Actually, the only users who have criticized me is you and Jay... And honestly, if you're that childish, fine, I can't do much to stop that, can I? --TIAYN (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No Wolbo also told you that your demanded deadlines were unacceptable... twice. When I say bully, I mean in the way you are using a club-like like manner to try and get your way, regardless of how others feel. That is not right. That is not the way wikipedia is supposed to operate. We have told you how the article is supposed to be while we figure things out but you have repeatedly ignored and edit warred when you were corrected. Again, wrong for wiki protocol. If you can't understand what people are explaining I don't know what else to say. I'm not going to argue just for the sake of arguing. I laid out 6 or 7 charts and you added a few, and right now Chart 5 seems to have been agreed upon. Other items may follow for all I know, but at least we have corrected the colors. That's a good thing you have brought to everyone's attention. If nothing else gets changed at least we have that. From there what should have happened is that starting from the original consensus charts we would have added a column... but not before we agreed. Or you could have created a duplicate in your sandbox and we would have kept changing that until we agreed on as much as possible... at which time after consensus you would have transferred that chart to Fed stats page...not before. We have no idea why that is so hard for you to grasp. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Here are some other problems that I haven't even mentioned yet. You do realize that wikipedia has page size guidelines. Lots of different variables because some people have older systems or use tablets that load very slowly. If too big, pages need to be split or they can crash a computer. Splitting is never what is wanted. I thought the page was getting a bit code heavy at 153k...before you started changing things. Now it has at times bloated to 207k. That's getting really up there. It's because a simple design and a few words have changed into much bulkier coding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
That is likely due to two things; first, the creation of a national participation section, and the inclusion of the missing titles (Challenger, ITF Men's Circuit and ITF Junior's Circuit + doubles top 10 win) ... To shorten it,, winning streaks should be moved to a other article (its a notable enough subject in itself and the removal of head-to-head versus top 20 opponents (top 10 is what everyone talks about; top 20, it could as well have been head-to-head versus top 30 opponents. The top 20, just like the top 30, changes a lot throughout the season, the top 10 doesn't).. I would also think prize money could be moved, buts that would be more difficult. --TIAYN (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Two things. 1) aren't the junior results already at Roger Federer junior years? And by the way... I certainly like your way of handling the "category" column using 500, Masters, Tour finals (and using it on every single line), than the way it is now. Yours looks much smoother for readers to follow. When we finally decide on the proper chart it's what I would want. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
1), the point with the least is that it should be complete, and its not complete without having all his career finals (or so I would think).. Career finals, performance timeline, top wins and national participation should be the four subjects which go through the career statistics articles.. But fine 2) good. --TIAYN (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Craig Breslow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Craig Breslow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Non-free review

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Non-free review. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

AfDs; GNG

Hi. I don't want to clutter up that AfD any more than it has been cluttered. My concern isn't that sole AfD. It is a clear Keep -- I would have thought you would have admitted as much already, and reversed yourself. My concern is the lack of respect for GNG. It's like the AfD here -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarmere Jenkins ... AfDs like that that don't respect GNG simply waste community time. You can't just focus on tennis guidelines .. that is a second place to look, if GNG is not met. And, btw, as reflected in what I just added to the Abrams article, he has a relevant record ... whatever the meaning of "record" might be.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as a clear keep, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth and stretching the record of someone to make a point. When someone is notable, they are notable forever no matter what. So I read GNG a lot tighter than you do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If you don't see it as a clear keep, there is a problem. From what you are saying, while others point to GNG you keep on saying things that don't reflect acceptance of GNG as the be-all-and-end-all when there is substantive significant coverage of a subject. You keep on changing the subject to what I quoted you as saying (that's not putting words in your mouth). In the AfD I point to above -- do you see what (all) the others are saying, and why they disagree with you, same as at the current AfD? If you don't, we will suffer through more of these.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
GNG is subjective, as are most things at wikipedia. It is not black and white. All the others? Until just now there was one other.... now there are two others. If you see it as black and white then yes, we have a problem. I will always nominate things that I don't feel are notable. And that AFD you mentioned above... No, I don't think he's notable but before I nominated the article I asked at the ACC athlete of the year talk page and I asked two other editors if winning the ACC Athlete of the year automatically makes one notable... they said no. So I nominated it and all three who voted basically said winning that award does automatically make one notable. So I was given 100% opposite information, just to show it depends who is actually doing the voting. I don't feel there is "substantive significant" coverage of this minor player. And yes you put words in my mouth and used wrong terminology as far as junior championships and rankings. We will suffer through more of these, but I don't look at it as suffering. Most of what I nominate goes through easily... some do not. I look at it as part of being in the wiki community. I do not look at it as a way to attack/berate other editors as you have done. That's not my style. I usually just make my point and move on, but in this case I had to defend myself from your falsehoods. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you miss that at that AfD, where you also received no support, GNG was also mentioned? And I never quoted you as saying "junior"--and that is a phrase used for non-senior tennis events ... which is why he is referred to as a "USTA junior phenom". I also see a number of noms before that which you made which were similarly flawed. Feel free to nominate things you don't feel are notable "under GNG and wp's other notability rules." But if your standard is going to be "I don't feel they're notable", while ignoring GNG, that's a problem. And if you aren't going to learn what a consensus view of "substantial RS coverage" is, then continued nom's ignoring that can also be deleterious to the project. That you don't believe the many articles devoted solely to this player, and the hundreds covering him in general, constitute "substantial" coverage boggles my mind. Perhaps you will look at the feedback you are getting from others, and allow that to inform your understanding of what the consensus view of "substantial" coverage is. I think your interpretation ignores community input, but I hope you will be open to listening to it in these AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus view of coverage changes with the wind. Every vote I do seems to have a different interpretation and you insinuating it is something etched in stone boggles my mind. But then again a player can have his name spelled in the press and tennis organizations in a particular way 99% of the time, yet it is against wikipedia to ever mention that spelling in a players bio, literally banned. So with consensus like that, nothing will really surprise me anymore around here. But if I don't feel an article passes nsport notability, tennis project notability or gng, I will continue to nominate knowing that some will garner enough feeling to be kept and some won't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This isn't random. If everyone disagrees with you, like at the above AfD and the AfD we are discussing, some might think it would be helpful to the community if you were to consider how your sense of gng might be at odds with that of the community. Because editing at the project is a community exercise. Secondly, as to names, the key if you face such a problem is wp:commonname ("Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.").
Your use of everyone is interesting. The above was 3 people. And my sense of gng works far more times than not. As for the wp:commonname, believe me... it has been overruled by consensus and fully censored. No big deal, but that's the way it is now... at least for tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, in the "theatre district vs. theater district" debate of the decade it has prevailed. For now.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... Yogurt/yoghurt/yoghourt was pretty intense too. But I'm not even talking about article titles. Common spelling of tennis players can't be mentioned anywhere in the article...period. It's home country spelling and nothing else, per consensus. But that's settled and done with so like I said, nothing will surprise me anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

If you check the contributions for the IP address that reverted TheOldJacobite's edits, you'll notice that User:Elockid reverted every single edit by that IP address, all of which were constructive. It's a typical example of a mod not even bothering to look at the edits they revert.--190.248.94.78 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, MoonMetropolis. Elockid (Talk) 01:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
And actually, I saw what was done after the fact. If a user is blocked or banned and they make an edit, it should be reverted whether it's a good or bad edit. Elockid did exactly what I would do, and what should be done. I just didn't see it when I corrected the removal and added the summary. Next time on this particular issue I will check first. Thanks Elockid. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet activity?

The recent edits by [this user] seem very familiar (as does the user's location). Do you recall the details of those previous edits of YUG/former YUG country fields? Is this a sockpuppet?--Wolbo (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... must be the same user with a new sock. That was User:Leandrorezendecarvalho033 aka User:Olavo braga nunes da silva and his dozens of sockpuppets. Looks like he's back again. Merry Christmas by the way, and happy new year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's him. Has been dealt with for now. A Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you too! --Wolbo (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive_5&oldid=1142521950"