64.229.32.48

May 2019

Hello, I'm ST47. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Lew Hoad— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ST47 (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

TOC in tennis

Please stop moving sourced info on Tournament of Champions (TOC) in tennis. The LA Masters is not the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan] There was some confusion over the history of the TOC.....1956 TOC at L.A. did not even exist, yet it was continually found listed as a TOC event. I was trying to correct that mistake.

The 1956 L.A. event was in reality the inaugural L.A. Masters, as the L.A. Times and other area newspapers make clear. 64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan]

May 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Lew Hoad does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Wolbo (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Lew Hoad article

Hi, please ensure you do not add any unsourced statements to the Lew Hoad article, I have had to revert several. On a tennis forum it may be fine to speculate but any info added to an encyclopedic article (that could possibly be contested) needs to be reliably sourced (see WP:VERIFY policy). There are still plenty of tennis articles that have not yet been properly sourced but this one has been for a considerably time and we should maintain that standard. The same applies to adding words like 'tiring' which are entirely speculative and unneeded. Another point is to keep the focus on the subject of the article. It is an article on Hoad, not on the professional circuit so any info added on these tournaments and circuits should be strictly limited to what is necessary to provide context to the reader. The article as it stands is already pretty long so we should avoid adding any fluff. --Wolbo (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the observations. I have added much crucial material to the Hoad article, including the existence of a world championship tour which has only recently come to light in the literature, and which is not well referenced in standard tennis histories. This major oversight required some work for me to discover and reference, and I added many references to the material on the Hoad article, including a French language source.

I am still collecting a few more source references which I will add to the article in support of statements there.

Your editing on the Lew Hoad article is becoming problematic in terms of bias. Please note that editing from a neutral point of view is one of the central policies of Wikipedia and needs to be followed at all times. I am well aware of the discussions on Hoad at certain forums. It may be fine to have a biased opinion there (all tennis fans have their favorites) but when editing an encyclopedia any bias needs to be checked at the door. Please be more mindful of this.--Wolbo (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan] [ Thanks for the advice, Wolbo, I will try to keep in mind the need for objectivity. Actually, I have no opinions on Hoad or other players, and if I did those opinions would be worthless, I never traded strokes with any of them, and cannot offer any personal evaluations regarding their strength or skill. I rely entirely on the observations of the real experts, the players themselves, and sometimes it seems that Laver, Gonzales, and Rosewall are Hoad fans, judging from their evaluations of his game. But those are not my opinions, I never met the man nor saw him play. I have nothing in common with Hoad except for a stable marriage. That is enough similarity for me.

Thanks again.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan

- If you add a book as a reference, as you did with this edit (to Max Robertson) a page number is required so that other editors are able to verify the source of the claim.--Wolbo (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

- You added the sentence "The Chicago Tribune reported that Hoad was paid considerably more than Mickey Mantle or other baseball stars or professional athletes." with a reference to the Chicago Tribune, 1 March 1959, p.258. I could not find this exact claim in the source. Can you explain where exactly in the article it is stated that Hoad was paid considerably more than Mickey Mantle? --Wolbo (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

- With regard to the 1959 Grand Prix de Europe regional tour of European locations from August to October you state that "Hoad did not make a huge effort". How do you know this and on what source is this based? --Wolbo (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan] Wolbo, I have corrected the Max Robertson reference, see body of text. I have also extended his ratings to allow a greater perspective.

For the Chicago Tribune, that original statement of mine has already been amended, I had originally made my own evaluation about its contents and someone has kindly rephrased the reference to give a more exact rendering of the contents. Hopefully satisfactory result. I now have some additional information on comparative money winnings which show Hoad winning substantially more than Mickey Mantle or Arnold Palmer in that period, which I will add to the article.

I have explained the Grand Prix de Europe evaluation below in a special section, Hoad consistently under-performed on secondary tours. Again, someone has already corrected this.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan

June 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Lew Hoad has been reverted.
Your edit here to Lew Hoad was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x-yEjgB6U, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WqA2TyyvY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Lew Hoad have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Lew Hoad was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x-yEjgb6U) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Grand Prix de Europe

There was an oral history of Australian tennis online in which Ken Rosewall stated that Hoad would try hard to win major events, but that in secondary tours or minor tours "you were not going to get much out of him". We also know that Hoad's wife was an art collector, and that Europe was a destination in which she and Hoad liked to spend time shopping around. Furthermore, Gonzales skipped the Grand Prix de Europe, presumably to rest up for the concluding stages of the Ampol World Championships, so it seems likely that Hoad was doing the same, and this would probably account for his less than maximum effort in that European tour. The European tour did not include either Wembley or Roland Garros, both of which were included in the Ampol tour. Given Hoad's back problem, it would seem likely that he would not make a maximum effort in Europe, and the results bear that out. Simply comparing Hoad's results on the Ampol World Championship tour against Rosewall and Sedgman (he dominated both) to Europe, where he lost to both, bears that out.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Pancho Gonzales. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As further information, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site, message board, advice site, advertising vehicle or tabloid. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, gossip, personal opinions, personal experiences, messages, commentary, advocacy, complaints, advice, joke edits, promotional material, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lew Hoad have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2019

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Ken Rosewall. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oshwah...I have now given a citation for the lifetime H2H between Rosewall and Hoad.64.229.32.48 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Few points

• Are you familiar with the preview function when making edits to an article? Can't help noticing that you frequently make several (spelling) corrections to content that you have just added to an article. There is nothing wrong with fixing the odd mistake, happens to everyone, but you can largely prevent these unnecessary edits by first clicking on the "Show preview" button and reviewing your edits before publishing them. This also makes it a bit easier for other editors to monitor the numerous changes that are made to an article.--Wolbo (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I also notice that you are adding [Tennis Fan] to the your comments but have not registered yet. If your register at Wikipedia as an editor and choose this as your user name you don't have to add it manually every time you make a talk page comment. Registering also hides your location which can be tracked via the ip number. Most editors register but it is not mandatory. --Wolbo (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

TennisFan....Thanks.64.229.32.48 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

July 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lew Hoad. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wolbo (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I am giving you this warning for your continued edits on the Lew Hoad article that are in conflict with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your editing continues to be disruptive and despite all the advice and guidance other editors have been giving you there is little to no sign of improvement in your editing behavior. You continue to falsely represent the content of the sources you add to the article and you structurally do so in a biased manner. Your edits now require almost constant supervision from other editors and that is simply not sustainable. --Wolbo (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur here. Adding new info is one thing, but unverified additions, biased numbers, and original research are nonconstructive and disruptive. When so many edits of yours have to be checked and then found out to be iffy and fuzzy, there is a problem. Work with others to make things right, not against them. We are a team here at Wikipedia and Tennis Project, and we want the best articles possible per "sourcing" and "verifiable facts." If it isn't there we throw it out with the bathwater. Get yourself a real Wikipedia ID and stick to the rules so that when we see your ID pop up on an edit we can say "...I don't need to check that because he's always on the ball with his facts." Right now it appears to be just the opposite and that creates as many problems as it fixes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood....I will get a registered Wiki ID and stick carefully to the sourcing rules.64.229.32.48 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

---