Template:Archive box collapsible

We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Stubs				Cleanup
		Tom Nijssen				Vania King
		Miljan Zekić				Nikola Pilić
		Daniel Kosakowski				Ekaterina Makarova
		Adrian Ungur		Merge
		Irina Falconi				End of a Year
		Tina Obrez				Crosstown rivalry
		Pere Riba				BBC News
		Northern Soul (54-40 album)		Add sources
		Russia Fed Cup team				Turbo-folk
		Nikola Čačić				Carlos Moyá
		ATP Studena Croatia Open				Tennis Europe
		Guitar Man (song)		Wikify
		Marko Djokovic				2013 Rafael Nadal tennis season
		Judy Murray				List of Once Upon a Time characters
		Elizabeth Kerner				Margaret John
		Mark Koevermans		Expand
		Hypo Group Tennis International				Roy Emerson
		Julien Boutter				Atlanta Braves
		Jesse Huta Galung				Grant Connell

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Threats and attempting to intimidate you are nothing to do with "conversation" or "compromise". Wikipedia should have zero tolerance for bullying. LittleBen (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For future look backs here is a link to the harassment answer two weeks late.

• Did you see this canvassing? LittleBen (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Diacritics discussion here. LittleBen (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Look again. There it is. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I took it from the article. But a quick Google search approves it. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 06:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, Mr Fyunck — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYWALB (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What??? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• note to self - continued false SMcCandlish comments about me with no remorse at all - for future reference in case I ever need to refer to this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note this one too—equally lacking in remorse for having you attacked for your NPOV and for your attempts to use even one instance of majority English versions of names on English Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deleted the duplicate flag sentence in the Career section.--Wolbo (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok then its settled :) JayJ47 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That would probably be best. --Rschen7754 06:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• HandsomeFella has repeatedly tried to intimidate me, too. If he does it any more then, let's document all his intimidation of other users and take him to ANI. LittleBen (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing with you and your intimidation warning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My "intimidation warning"? How do you mean? Please elaborate. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

• " 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it stays, the fact is you are 1 editor warring the RfC result. It's an objective statement. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]