User talk:Wolbo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome

Welcome To WikiProject Tennis Hi and welcome to WikiProject Tennis. As you might have known, WikiProject Tennis is a project dedicated to improving tennis-related articles. These are a few things you might find useful, when editing with us: Feel free to create some templates regarding our WikiProject. Vote for the article you think needs improvement, in our Collaboration Department. Join in assessing tennis articles with the Assessment Department Participate in one of our many mini-projects, including the Grand Slam Project or the Davis/Fed Cup Project If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or one of our other members. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! --Dark Falls talk 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Axios_XRF_Spectrometer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Axios_XRF_Spectrometer.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mens Grand Slam Champions

Wolbo, the men's last names were converted into hidden formulas, not removed entirely:

Gomez

Please consider fixing.Ryoung122 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wolbo, if you look at all the names on the page, such as 'Nadal', then you check what is written on the editing page, you'll find all the first names are included in hidden formulas such as Nadal (you can see the first name in the edit box but not in the main page). What this does is allow the front page to display just the last name, but when you click on the last name, you are wikilinked to an article on the person. Given that the goal is to write an eventual biography for everyone, wikilinks are needed. So, if you have time, could you restore the first names you deleted, just in hidden format? Thanks.Ryoung122 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I see what you mean. Actually I am aware of the hidden formulas but as far as I can tell my removal of the first names in the list only consisted of the pre 1925 French Open players and none of them were wikilinked. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_Men%27s_Singles_champions&diff=next&oldid=143275520 Wolbo 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Grand Slam champions" fork

Mr. Wolbo, might I ask you to edit my version, not the Fyunclick 'fork' for the Grand Slam champions? I believe it is incredibly unfair to not count the pre-1925 French champions, but to count the others back to their initial inception. I have already shown that:

A. The French Open's first winner was an Englishman (a foreigner) while Wimbledon's first 29 winners were all UK natives. Hence, the argument of 'exclusion' or lack of 'internationalness' is a farce.

B. The early U.S. 'Open' only allowed members of the U.S. clubs, but we don't see any greying/blanking.

C. Champions like Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra clearly demonstrated their top-level ability post-1925 as pre-1925.

D. Not counting the pre-1925 titleholders would be like not counting Babe Ruth's home runs (because no black players were allowed). Except that non-French players WERE allowed.

Note that, to date, only one person, Fyunclick, has disrespectfully opposed my efforts at equity/fairness, calling me a 'nutball' and suggesting a was just a short-term person. Believe me, I am not in this for the short hall. I spent several hours adding and finishing the formatting. I am not opposed to third-party edits. However, Fyunclick is trying devious maneouvers to try to split my edits from everyone else's. Look at my track record. Look at my 'user page'. I have a lot more standing in reality than Fyunclick. However, I realize that, right or wrong, one person cannot win an argument...the key to victory is to persuade others to come around to one's position. Wikipedia IS about consensus-building. At the same time, Wikipedian principles include the concepts of pluralism (allowing room for multiple viewpoints). However, unilateral dictation by one person is not consensus-building, nor does it allow multiple viewpoints. Fyunclick resorted to scorched-Earth tactics (refusal to negotiate, name-calling, mass reversions, etc). This, despite the fact that I came up with top-notch citations: the Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Almanac, CNN, ESPN, etc.

I did suggest that, to placate Fyunclick's concern, we could use 'italics' for the pre-1925 French titleholders. Of course he didn't respond. Grey-out is simply too much, and it smacks of cultural imperialism.

So, I ask: what are your thoughts on this?Ryoung122 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On your dispute with Tennis Expert

Per your suggestion, I moved my entry on User:Tennis expert's talk page to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#The_question_of_putting_links_in_tennis_performance_timelines. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Official ATP tracking?

Can you show me where this? Thanks. —MC 21:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links on JC Ferrero for Recent Results, Ranking History

You removed links I had just re-entered on Ferrero's page following a lengthy discussion with HJensen.

Your stated reason was a violation of the Spam policy. Can you please elaborate?

How are these links Spam in any way?

The Recent Results link performs exactly as advertised, pulling up ALL of Ferrero's recent results.

If your issue is as HJensen's issue was when he first deleted the link, that the info is already covered at the ATP site, then this is simply not the case.

The ATP Site has a Player Results page. Among its glaring faults are:

• it does not show Qualification matches (not much of an issue for Ferrero, the last time he had to qualify was the Hamburg Masters in 2005, but if his ranking drops below 30, he will again need to qualify for a few Masters events each year).
• it does not show the most recent matches until the rankings-eligible results are updated. that is, right now, the link I entered shows his US Open results and is updated daily. the ATP site shows nothing until the entire 20-day tournament is over.
• doubles matches are on a separate page, instead of showing up along side the singles results with each tournament -- again, not much of an issue with Ferrero, his last doubles match was US Open 2006, he seems to play just a few matches a year, if that. but i am guessing that if you encounter these links on other player bios, you may be tempted again to delete them, from players who do in fact play doubles as well as singles.

As for the Ranking History link, if you click the link wondering why it is there, you probably will not see the value. If you click the link because you actually want to know a player's ranking history, how he is trending very recently and more generally over the years, then the link does not disappoint. But you still might say, "well, the data is already on the ATP Site." Not really. The ATP Site has glaring faults here as well, compared to the SteveGHelper page:

• SGH shows a telescoping view of the data, so in a single screen of data, you can get a general feel for how the player's career has gone recently and over time.
• ATP gives you a garbage dump of data, with a few extra clicks showing every ranking week going back for years. It's 2007 now, do you really care to know his ranking in the first week of 2004 and the 2nd week, and the 3rd week ...? It's September, do you really care to know his ranking in the first week of January, the 2nd week, the 3rd week, ...?
• ATP gives only the numeric ranking for each week.
• SGH gives the player's ranking, points, # of tournaments played, and also a link to directly to the full ranking list for that ranking week, as well as points increased / decreased since Jan. 1. If you actually wanted to know a player's ranking history, the points and tournaments played would be extremely useful pieces of data. For instance, if you were looking at Nadal, you would see that while he has been #2 for 2 years now, his ranking points have continued to increase and he has continued to close the gap slightly vs. Federer. If you looked at Federer, you would see that he has slid a bit from his obscene ranking points over 8,000 from a year ago.

Anyway, aside from HJensen, other users I have explained this to (Epeefleche, Goran.Smith2) have immediately recognized the unique value these links deliver and have ceased to remove them.

Please let me know if the above explanation does not address your concerns. ShabbatSam 09:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tennis statistics" and "Tennis male players statistics" articles merge

Hello.

You've suggested to merge those articles and I agree but some disapprove it because these articles treat different subjects. I've said in the talk page that "Tennis statistics" had an inadequate title because this article eludes all the great pro feats before the open era. "Tennis statistics" is a modern but wrong conception of tennis history because it mainly takes into account the Slam tournaments which became the main tennis sporting events only in the mid-1980s (when great players began to play the Australian Open). In the 70s, WCT Finals, Masters, US Pro, Los Angeles Pacific Southwest Open, Wembley Pro and so on had sometimes more importance than Roland Garros or the Australian Open. In the 60s all the great pro events were superior, in a sporting view, to any amateur Slam tournament. In the 50s the same can be said and furthermore the Davis Cup was much more important than the US amateur Chps or Wimbledon. In the 30s - 40s the best amateurs were as good as the best pros so it's hard to select the greatest events. In the 20s the best players were the amateurs and the Davis Cup was the Graal. Finally from 1877 to the 1910s several events were important : for instance the Irish Championships were as great (if not superior) as Wimbledon in the 1880s. The US amateur Chps (ancestor of the US Open) was worth "nothing". In 1881 the British Irish J. J. Cairnes, who wasn't ranked among the best British players,went to the USA and easily defeated Richard Dudley Sears, US Chps winner. Until circa 1900 no US player was in the same league as the best British players. Until 1902-1903 no "down under" player could rival with the best British players and before Froitzheim, Decugis and others arrived, no European player was a World Top player : therefore only the British events were great ones and the US and Australian Slams were very ordinary tournaments (the French Slam attracted for the first time all the top players in ... 1969 and for the second time in ... 1979).

Consequently to have "good" tennis statistics we should select the greatest events of each year since the beginning of tennis competition history and then merge those statistics which would be an horror because they are hardly comparable. Imagine that the greatest event in 1937-1938 was the Davis Cup and in 1939 the French Pro and in 1940 the US Pro : Donald Budge had won those events making him the best player in the world during that period but how can you synthesize those performances : he has won 4 "what? greatest events ?" in a row. Nowadays it's very simple : Wimbledon is the greatest competition so you can say that Federer has won 5 Wimbledon in a row and the statistics are simple and easy to understand. Budge at the end of the 30s was the Federer of his time but then the hierarchy of the events changed almost every year. In 1937-1938 as an amateur he could enter Wimbledon and won it but in 1939, though the best player in the world by far, he didn't won Wimbledon because he wasn't allowed to enter it as a pro : that year Riggs won the tournament where all the pros were absent (and amateur von Cramm too because he was rejected, though he had trounced Riggs the week before) but it was clear that Budge, Vines, Nüsslein and Perry all pros were superior to Riggs that year. Therefore to say that Budge has won the greatest tennis event four years in a row is not very easy to apprehend.

In conclusion merging both articles would be great but seems very difficult. So I don't oppose it but I don't push either to do it. Wait and see.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

13-year-old gravestone at Srebrenica

Hi there,

Please see the Srebrenica talk page for why a 13-year-old's gravestone is not appropriate at the top of an article about an event in which the vast majority of those killed were *over* the age of 13. There's a specific WP directive which I've cited, called 'undue weight', and it's an important part of NPOV. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, just to save you the trip over there...

[excerpt from talk page starts]

I've found the relevant Wikipedia guideline which I believe this photo clearly violates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Specifically:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. (my emphasis)

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table), and I'm notifying you as you identified yourself as a member of the project. The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnstone's article

Hi Wolbo

Please improve sentence in Srebrenice massacre rather than just deleting. I have opened a section on this on discussion pages. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Federer's GS record

Hey man its richard, i was just saying, this page will eventually be editited right? because its unreliable if it isnt. and by the way, i think federer had 176 before wimbledon, not 175, because i hand counted them or whatever. can you just respond back on this page? thanks

Hi Richard, I moved your comment to the discussion page. It's commonly accepted practice to only update the tennis results after the tournament has been ended or after the player's participation in it has ended. This to avoid confusion. So yes it will be updated soon. I believe it is actually 175 and not 176 and this is also based on Roger Federer's career statistics Wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics. You can see in the 'Performance timeline' that Federer has 175 wins to his credit after the French Open. Of course if you have any information substantiating your claim it should be 176 I'm all ears. Cheers --Wolbo (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

hey its me again. it turned out i was right. i look at the time line, and his wimbledon record was one of. instead of 44 victories, it should be 45. in 1999-1r, 0 wins in 2000-1r, 0 wins in 2001-QF, 4 wins in 2002- 1r, 0 wins 2003-2007- W, 35 wins 2008- F, 6 wins 35 + 6 + 4= 45 you can check for yourself, but im positive the person who made it calculated incorrectly please respond back, thank you

nevermind it was a walkover, it doesnt count.

WP:3RR

Hi Wolbo,

You have deleted the "including banned materials" wording several times from the lead of Gaza flotilla clash, in effect violating WP:3RR. Please do not do this again. Breein1007 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolbo, please consider taking a break from that page. Your revert rate is clearly excessive. There are more than enough people keeping an eye on that page currently. shellac (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the concern. Just doing my bit to keep the article balanced and fair against obvious POV abuse--Wolbo (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to pile on here but warning you that if you continue edit-warring you will be reported and probably blocked per the three revert rule. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ATP world #1 rankings

Hello Wolbo. You have now twice attempted to delete referenced material which clearly demonstrates that Rafael Nadal has clinched the world number one ranking through the end of 2010. Please do not delete this information again unless you can add a reference supporting your viewpoint. Thank you. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your question!

Hello, Wolbo/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- Luke (Talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Wolbo/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by heather walls (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mary Bevis Hawton

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Mary Bevis Hawton. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

added see also sections

I noticed you added a bunch of see also links to the List of French Open women's singles champions. Those had existed before but now instead they are at the page bottom in the collapsible boxes. I don't think we need the info twice but maybe you didn't notice the boxes? You may hve done the same on several other pages too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Wolbo/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Talkback

Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 20:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Károly Mazák's book

Hello, I sent a message to Károly. He should contact you.

And thank you for the star Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo, contact Károly at mazakk(at)freemail.hu. Please erase this e-mail address after use. Carlo Colussi (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, did you contact Károly ? Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Tennis_photo_from_Boston_Public_Library.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Louise Hammond Raymond

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Louise Hammond Raymond requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

• (cur | prev) 21:19, 11 May 2012‎ Wolbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,594 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 491982648 by In ictu oculi (talk)Revert possible vandalism. No support for name change, not even in the French sources.) (undo)

Following me around is one thing. Leaving edit summaries like this is something else. I appreciate that you're a dedicated tennis editor. I appreciate that you don't like it that many if not most of us think that accuracy with names is important. But that doesn't give you a blank cheque for this kind of edit summary. Take it down a peg please. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Article TENNIS

Why article tennis is locked? Greetings. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not locked but semi-protected which means it can be edited only by registered users. I was not involved in the protection so can't give you any background but the article mentions it was done in October 2011 because of excessive vandalism. --Wolbo (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why cant not I editing article? I am beginner on Wikipedia so I ask. Greetings! --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open

I am not sure why you left a message on my talk page about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open as I have not contributed to the article and I am not a member of any of the projects listed on the talk page. Although it is clearly canvassing, I personally do not think it inappropriate as you can not know my opinions on the issue, but if I were to express an opinion in favour of your position on this issue, then some may assume that your heads up was made in bad faith. I strongly suggest that in future you only directly canvas someone who has either edited the article or placed a comment on the article's talk page, and if you canvas one you must canvas all those editors in the group you approach whether or not they are sympathetic to your point of view. My advise here is only covers direct canvassing onto a users talk page and not general notification via project pages etc. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Laver article

The reason that information was added is because his tour records/achivements for the most part are excluded by lot's of tennis record articles such as ATP World Tour records which by the way does include consecutive title runs hence why it went on his main page. I see no reason for you to remove it I was merely following these guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability. where the section #2:The Lead "The Lead should be a brief summary of WHO the person is, WHY they are here (accomplishments), potentially WHAT they are doing now". It does not define what those accomplishments should be no reference is made to include or exclude information or if does I can't see it. So instead of just removing it I'd be interested for you to explain to me why those achievement's in your experience are not worthy in the first paragraph would you mind expanding your argument. --Navops47 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Mtking ^(edits) 03:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Template modification assistance

Hello, Wolbo/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- Trevj (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Redirect blanking

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with 1887 U.S. National Championships - Men's Singles. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, was not aware of this procedure or the existence of this discussion board. There are a couple more similar redirect issues within the Tennis Grand Slam project and I will take these to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Thx for the heads-up. --Wolbo (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Svetlana Kuznetsova copyedit

I left you a note at Talk:Svetlana Kuznetsova/GA4.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Award

-

	The Tennis Barnstar
	For continued excellence in maintaining the quality of tennis related articles or to those giving great assistance and time to WikiProject Tennis. ~~~~

-

For doing so many things for tennis articles (that need to be done) that many of us would call tedious. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your copyedits and help on Svetlana Kuznetsova! :) GoPTCN 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Toni Androić

Hello.

Please stop re-adding that nonsensical clause "or Toni Androic". You might not believe this, but people are actually not that stupid that they don't realize that Toni Androić is the person they were looking for when they entered "Toni Androic". "Androic" does not amount to a "significant other spelling"; we're not exactly talking about Muammar Gaddafi/Khadafi/Ghaddafi/Gadhafi here, so it need not be included. In fact, WP:OPENPARA (the Mitterrand example) indicates that it should not be included.

Here's a post by Filelakeshoe that I found rather amusing, and that I suggest you read.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added John of Reading (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again -- John of Reading (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And again -- John of Reading (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war/close at Jelena Janković

As you have been a recent participant in a content dispute regarding diacritics at Jelena Janković, I would ask that you read the close I made earlier today at Talk:Jelena_Janković#Full_protection. The edit war on that particular question of the lead wording is, across a wide range of articles, as I previously stated, not acceptable, and violates WP:EW.

Any further reversions (of articles), in either direction on this question on talk and policy pages, will likely be seen as a continuation of that edit war. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: Apologies for the belated notice, related to this, I have started an RfC on the accent/lead question, which you may wish to participate in, at [1]. My previous note was very poorly worded, and was meant to stop reversions on the articles themselves, nothing else. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Federer article should be protected

Hello Wolbo, I predicted days ago that User 76 would continue to delete the "GOAT" line in the Federer article, and sure enough, he's continued to do so.

I would like to see an admin protect at least the first paragraph indefinitely, and the default wording should reflect the consesus view. What do you think? Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, what a surprise. TennisAnalyst going around again to people's talk pages crying about me and telling more of his lies. Haha. He's apparently obsessed with me. The fact of the matter is that I simply reverted back to what two administrators had reverted to temporarily, until a consensus was reached. Interesting how TA fails to mentions his own revert today of putting it back to the "widely considered" version, plus his history of edit-warring according to administrator Slakr. Those things just slipped his mind, I guess. ;) And he also fails to mention the 10 or so other reverts by other users over the past day. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Misclicked there and ec'd with you undoing. --DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You had me confused there for a second but no worries --Wolbo (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider this a polite request

Wolbo. There's now a significant demonstrable edit history, several dozens of edits over 2 or 3 months, of you following me to articles and undoing completely mainstream edits following your own views.

• e.g. removing É counter WP:FRMOS

You also do not get to delete large chunks of other editor's text from a Talk page. If you continue doing this to editors what do you think an appropriate response to your behaviour should be? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To which you respond by doing it again and adding an edit summary about Zimbabwe. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Flag removal?

I noticed you removed the Nazi flag from List of French Open men's singles champions‎ and i think a few others. From what I'm reading the Nazi flag became official on March 12, 1933. Germany at that time had two "official flags", but both equally official. On 15 September 1935 they officially scrapped the Black, White and Red flag but it was rarely used anyways. Nazi Flag in 1933 and Swastika_flag#Nazi_Germany. Even in a 1933 video. I didn't put it back but why would you remove the swastika flag? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think both flags are allowable but my reading of Flag_of_Germany is that the swastika flag was not internationally recognized, at least not by the US (see Bremen Incident), and as a result was declared the only official flag on 15 September 1935. The 1933 video shows it being used as the Nazi Party (NSDAP) flag and we cannot draw any conclusions from that regarding it's use as the national flag. What finally swayed me towards using the flag for the 1933-1935 period is Template:Country data Germany which shows the flag variants and when they were used. It clearly mentions for the 1933-1935 period and for the 1935–1945 period.--Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that template is incorrect and will bring it up there right now. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My updates of ATP/WTA

Sorry if you take offense at my premature updates, but being a huge tennis fan myself, I keep a running log of statistics and ranking points, which are also documented on the WTA site, and they've also mentioned what the next week's ranks would be on TV and also on the ATP/WTA sites if certain results would turn out to happen, generally every week a big tournament is held. And while Azarenka did not play, neither did Sharapova, who was defending champion; Azarenka had no points to defend as well, skipping it last year. And Radwanska had to win the title to have any shot of overtaking the #1 ranking, and she just lost. Similarly, if Federer wins his semifinal tomorrow, he WILL retain #1 for another week, even if he loses to Djokovic, which was mentioned on TV and the ATP website. I could wait until the rankings are "official", though. GAThrawnIGF (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification

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

The RM also discussed the removal of that clause.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

wondering about see also

Just wondering....You added a link at Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles under see also to ATP World Tour records. I had removed it since it is listed just below with all the other important links. Do we really need doubling up on the links or did you simply miss the link below it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

turned pro

In regard to the 'turned pro' field on the tennis biog infobox, perhaps it would be better if changed to something like 'career began'? That way, we can add some useful, relevant and factually correct info for tonnes of players pre-1940s/1950s. Or perhaps a new 'career began' field could be added for these cases, coexisting alongside the 'turned pro' field, i.e. Rod Laver would have separate entries for both. Thoughts? Asmazif (talk) 19:26 9 September 2012 (GMT)

Edit summary label

Since you previously commented on what to do with the thing, here's a heads up that I've opened a new discussion regarding it. Any input you may or may not have now would be appreciated, regardless of what you said previously. -— Isarra ༆ 06:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dutch photos

That Dutch repository of photos is pretty darned nice, and much needed. I was really bummed though that there were no Margaret Osborne photos since she passed away on Wednesday and it would have been nice to have at least one pic of her in the wiki article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence, was just about to post a message on your talk page to thank you for leading me to the Dutch Photo Archive tennis photos. I found the site via the Margaret Court photo you uploaded. As a Dutchie I should have known about this site and I recall having visited it a while ago (Dutch Archive site itself instead of gahetna.nl) but didn't bump into these photos. So I was very pleasantly surprised as I have been searching the last few months for good photos to add to the tennis project. The Bain collection at the Library of Congress is a great public domain source and the Leslie Jones Collection of the Boston Public Library has excellent tennis photos from the 1920s and 30s but sadly they are not CC-BY-SA / public domain. The Dutch collection has photos from the national championships, the Dutch Open and the Rotterdam tournament which means that most of the international photos are of male players. I think the women's tournament where you got the Margaret Court photo from only ran for a few years and that was after the days of Margaret Osborne. I'm sure we'll find a photo of her somewhere. Was just thinking the other day that quite a few 'old timers' from the 40s, 50s and 60s are still with us and Margaret was one of them. Darlene Hard, Louise Brough (played her first US final 70 years ago!), Shirley Fry, Doris Hart, Thelma Coyne Long, Frank Sedgman, Vic Seixas, Neale Fraser, Mervyn Rose and Tony Trabert are all still going strong ... or at least still going. Gardnar Mulloy is almost a centenarian. Tennis must be a healthy sport.--Wolbo (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I created an article on the Canadian player Robert Powell earlier this week and was looking for info on Max Decugis as they apparently played against each other in Vienna. Didn't find more info on that match yet but I noticed you uploaded a Decugis photo and that led me to the French Gallica site (+ europeana.eu portal). What an amazing treasure trove of historic tennis photos that is! And at first sight it looks like it's all public domain and available for Wikimedia (need to double check that as these copyright rules can be pretty complex and confusing). The Dutch collection is great but the Gallica collection, if indeed allowable for Wikimedia, is simply superb. There must be at least 100 photos on there that we could use.--Wolbo (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I forget who led me to the dutch archives, but a couple days before I uploaded the Court pics someone else had uploaded an obscure tennis photo from those same archives, and like you, I then did some searches there and found a whole bunch. I know we try to limit the number of total pics in an article to 10 but ALL our players could use at least 1 or 2 photos... especially in the infobox. And pre-80's pics are tough to come by in public domain. I don't know how long I've been searching for a single Margaret Court photo... I even had a multiple email correspondence with Ms Court to get her to send me some pics for wikipedia (which she did). Wiki basically demanded them be notarized and that was too much of a hassle for her, and I don't blame her. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your message

I would like to know what the "ongoing community decision, debate, or vote" is exactly? Am I am not allowed to Talk, or should I notify you when you are apparently following me anyway? Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Be that as it may.

I see you are Dutch. Some day you can explain to me why you don't nominate the Dutch names on en.wp such as André Rieu, André Kuipers, André van Duin for anglicizing. But in the meantime I have other things to do. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the note, I prefer not to have it on my page, you may do with it as you please here:

Cheers.

You wrote: Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Diffs: 1 2 3 4. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Wolbo (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And I replied: And it appears you have been stalking me again. It is not "canvassing" to speak to 4 other editors whose views I already know about a discussion that is not a "decision, debate, or vote" . While we're on the subject, I see you have been following me and deleting a couple of tags as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wolbo. You left this on my Talk: Hi IIO, I noticed you removed my canvassing notice from your talk page (Diff). It is your talk page so you are free to delete any message you want (including this one). To avoid possible confusion please be informed that deleting a canvassing notice does not mean it has not been given or that it no longer stands. I just want to make sure you are clear on that. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that you seem to have some experience with canvassing notices above. But I intend to continue conversations with those I am already communicating with, and I will not pay attention to you following me or your views on whether I can continue to communicate with editors I am already communicating with. Now if you want me to go through your contributions and check whom you have been talking to then I can, but I am really not that interested so I do not intend to. If you have anything further on the subject to say I will check back on your Talk page tomorrow. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly the diacritics-related RfC at "Reliable sources for names in BLPs" may be of interest. LittleBen (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much . Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 ATP World Tour Infobox

Hi. I corrected the information in the infobox that you added to the 2012 ATP World Tour article. The player with the most titles is Ferrer and the player with the most finals is Djokovic. Also added the players who received the ATP Awards.

On a sidenote, I would also like to ask if the removal of the country flags next to each tournament is justified, since WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines only states that flag icons should not be used for Career and Player Performance articles. It does not reference ATP Tour/tennis seasons articles. Regards Cpfig (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Djokovic

Firstly, you stop the edit war. Secondly, why do you think that my edit is vandalism? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you do not provide the reasoning as to why the edit is vandalism, I will restore that edit. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 kick-off

Wow, you've been on the roll lately. Congrats to all that. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx. Added a couple of articles but have mainly been working on the Tony Wilding article. Just finished his biography, very interesting character who was tragically killed in WWI. It's quite a challenge to find all the sources to complete his list of tournament wins. Made a lot of progress (added 100+ references) but there are still some open ends. Your upcoming article on H.C. is looking very promising.--Wolbo (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A plea for advice about another editor

Hi Wolbo, you might not be the right person for this question but I had to start somewhere (being new to this). I am one of the editors of Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles. There is another editor, going only by IP 84.120.33.73, who makes exclusively partial, inconsistent, premature or incorrect updates. I had to undo almost every one of their edits, and all the others I had to expand or fix. I wrote them on their Talk, but no response. Their revisions are, of course, not commented. How can I block this person, who might be good-willed, but is totally incompetent to use Wikipedia? Thank you --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, had a quick look at the edits of this editor and in my view a block is not justified at this stage. The user has only made eleven edits in total and while some may be slightly disruptive (premature, incorrect updates) I don't see anything that amounts to vandalism and would require a block. I suggest the best course of action is to keep assuming good faith for now and, if required, revert edits with explanation and an additional message on his/her talk page. FYI in case of serious disruptive behavior / vandalism WP:AIV or WP:ANI are routes you can take.--Wolbo (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A plea for an additional page for the ATP World Tour Records

Hi, Wolbo, for your information, most of the stuff I added in are of important records. Olympics are held every 4 years, unlike Masters 1000 tournament which are held 9 times annually. Besides that, some records like consecutive titles per GS tournament, finals & consecutive finals per GS tournament are equally important as it is difficult to reach a GS final for 8 times. We should acknowledge these records.YYWALB (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Lendl

He represented USA during his last years as a tennisplayer and holds the citizenship now, during his last year as an active competitive player his former country Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist. Alexmcfire (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if he became a U.S. citizen and represented that country before retiring but he clearly did (between 1992 and 1994) so the infobox has been updated to reflect that.--Wolbo (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Hello Wolbo, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed appeal of topic ban

Mentioned here. LittleBen (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

List of WTA number 1 ranked players

Hi!

While I agree with this edit, someone has asked about it on OTRS. "Players who were ranked world no. 5 or higher but never world no. 1" does not belong on a page titled "List of WTA number 1 ranked players", but it seems to have been used, so please find somewhere else to put it. I rarely edit here, and do not touch sports articles, so I will not be bold in this case. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilding at San Remo in 1910 ??

Hello Wolbo,

unfortunately I have no score or opponent, my source being Ayres' Lawn Tennis Almanack 1913 with the Riviera Championships (at San Remo) roll from 1908 to 1912 : Wilding apparently being the champion of this event in 1908, 1910, 1911. About 1908 and 1911 I found other details elsewhere but for 1910 I have nothing elseCarlo Colussi (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source contradicting Ayres' 1913 as indicated by Fyunck(click)

Hmmm... per the listed source here of "Lawn Tennis and Badminton" of 1910, the winner that year was Artimus Holmes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilding Web links and Richardsons' book

Hello,

Wolbo you wrote “P.S.: The score for the Cannes Beau Site (Cannes Championship) match against Brookes in 1914 does in fact show 6–4, 6–2, 6–1” and in a way you’re right because it’s the case in Wilding’s tournament wins list but the error is indeed there, as I noted, close to the very end of the article in the Wilding-Brookes head-to-head list.

The Richardsons’ book has 451 pages.

The 1910 Paris win is suggested in the main part of the book p. 255 : “After a few days in Paris he (Wilding) was on the road again to Brussels and another tennis tournament” thus suggesting there was also, before the Brussels tournament, a tourney in Paris. And in page 392 in Wilding’s tournament wins list, the Paris tournament win is inserted between Évian-les-Bains (with an É and not an E as in many English speaking literature because earlier there weren’t accents in the Anglo-Saxon keyboards) and possibly Sapicourt (I left the book at home). Unfortunately there are no more details so this source is perhaps not more reliable as the Ayres’ Almanack 1913 so this win is doubtful but not impossible.

I will list you the errors I noticed 6 years ago in the book. I didn’t check them since and to gain time I will be very minimalist and just write the minimum of words so you will not be able to understand them until you will have your own book to hand.

p. 67 : F. H. Payn → probably F.W.

p. 98 Wimbledon. In the semifinals → quarterfinals

p. 100 The reigning American champion … B.C. Wright → future

Holcombe Ward … failed to get passed the second round → first

p. 120 1906 … English tennis … leading exponent, Reggie Doherty → Laurie

p. 121 Racing Club and Club Stade de Français → Racing Club de France, Stade Français

l’Ille de Puteaux → Île de Puteaux

p. 124 in 1906 added the Swiss open → it was a tournament held in Lucerne, Switzerland but I don’t think it was the Swiss Champs

p. 122 or p.132 or … ? I wrongly noted the page : Gore … was to play every championship until 1927 → perhaps he entered in Wimby doubles events until 1927 but he played his last singles match at Wimby in 1922

p. 136 In the first round C.C. Cox → rather a second round because there was a first (or a preliminary) round before with two players eliminated, the event has a 10-man draw and the match with Cox was a round of 8 (quarterfinals)

p. 138 French and German Championships → not really an error but here the French Championships don’t refer to the “almost close” French outdoor Champs held in May-June but to the French indoor international then considered as the true international French Champs.

p. 142-143 here the 1906 Monte Carlo tournament is wrongly inserted in the 1907 events.

p. 147 tournament in 1904 → apparently in 1903 if I believe p. 61-62 of the same book ?

p. 175 in this page they are talking about the London Grass Court Champs at Queen’s but I don’t understand because in 1907 Kenneth Powell won this tourney over Josiah George Ritchie

p. 185 international contest winning in three straight sets → four

p. 205 West Australian title → Not wrong but this event was also the Australian title (in the tournament wins list circa p. 390-1-2-3 this event is also listed as the West Australian title)

p. 208 6-2, 6-2 (about the beginning of the 1909 Victorian final) → 6-2, 6-3

p. 210 four matches to one → five matches to zero

p. 211 Clothier, the reigning US champion → wrong

p. 211 6-2, 6-2 → 6-2, 6-3

p. 236 began on the 25 May → probably 24

p. 240 just one set → just one game

p. 241 in 1910, before coming → after

p. 256 Wimbledon the following year → the same year

p. 271 the Queen’s covered court → in this book they made no differences between the British Covered Courts and the London Covered Courts both held at Queen’s, here it was the British CC

first loss on grass for three years → I would say 2 ½ years if we except a default to the same Wright in the June 1910 Kent Champs final

p. 275 there is no error but I precise that in the end Wilding did not play Manchester

p. 276 fourth round in 1909 → sixth

p. 293 he remained unbeaten → I don’t understand if it refers to the current year however Wilding remained unbeaten on grass since 1910

p. 294 in the final against André → challenge round

p. 295 the next three sets → two

victories over Ritchie, Lowe and Gobert → ??? I don’t know what they are talking about, probably wrong assertion

p. 301 le dernier en → perhaps they used the French expression “le dernier né”, né in French meaning born in English

p. 302 unbeaten → see my remark about p. 293

p. 303 the Queen’s covered → still the British CC

p. 304 despatched both Froitzheim and Decugis in three → No, a) Gobert, and not Wilding, defeated Froitzheim, b) Decugis was beaten in 5 and not 3, 60 63 36 46 63 (to be checked)

p. 316 André Germot → I think Maurice Germot (to be checked because there was a brother)

p. 329 the Onwentsia match between Wilding and Brookes, being probably a sort of private match is not listed in the head-to-head matches in this book

p. 340 22-year-old → 23

p. 384 1977 and 1980 → 1976 and 1980

p. 391 1904 … Buxton (Derbyshire) → ?? Wilding was possibly defeated by George Whiteside Hillyard whereas Wilberforce Vaughan Eaves won the event

1906 … Queen’s (Covered Court) → this time this is not the British CC but the London CC

p. 391-392 are probably missing the Marienbad, Franzenbad, Carlsbad and Baden-Baden tourneys in the 1907 list

p. 406 Oxford 5;5 → I think 6;4 according to Spalding’s annual

p. 435 Brookes … 237 … 308 → No pages … 238 … 309

p.437 Decugis … 240 → ?? I didn’t find any reference to Decugis p. 240

p. 444 → Ritchie … 95 …140-43 → 96 … 141-43 Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carlo, many thanks for posting your elaborate list of errors in Richardsons’ book. --Wolbo (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

flags

Just a question where does is this "Removed flagicons for the tournament city / country per WP:TENNIS Article Guidelines' located? Dencod16 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See section #4:Career: .."Note that no flag icons are used for tournaments or cities."--Wolbo (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not the same, tournaments and careers are not the same, cause what you are looking makes the calendar look sloppy.Dencod16 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As i keep repeating you are referring to Career guidelines and not guidelines to calendar, there is a difference. Dencod16 (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 1877 Wimbledon Championship

The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Wolbo; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons

I have noticed one thing you edit everything but the recent year, and i think you know that it is not right that is why you are trying to sneak it in, Please do something more productive to tennis, like completing the other year calendars. Dencod16 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Rolf Kinzl

Agree to DYK nominate it? I think an official match with a WWII leader worth it. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 17:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go for it.--Wolbo (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Bela von Kehrling.jpg

Wow, it must be the earliest known picture of him as of yet. Nice catch. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Was not aware of that at all, that would indeed be nice. It's from the BnF / Gallica selection which is a real treasure trove of tennis photos from the 1910s–1930s. I'm in the process of uploading some of the best ones. Might even get a higher resolution version of the Bela van Kehrling photo.--Wolbo (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Check out www.europeana.eu for more images. They mostly use BnF / Gallica sources as well, but they publish it under the commons copyright and wikipedia has a template for europeana uploads so it's one step easier to transfer them here. And really thanks for the Cochet pic, I definitely will use it in the near future . Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User JeanBono kindly uploaded a higher resolution photo which in turn allowed me to upload an improved version (cropped the frame and adjusted shadows and highlights). End result looks pretty good.--Wolbo (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Hello Wolbo.

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) 21:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wolbo, as you can see from Fyunck's talk page, HandsomeFella has been intimidating other users as well. If he refuses to stop his false accusations and intimidation of other users, then let's document all this and take him to ANI. LittleBen (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

first one page then another?

First Frederic Vitoux and now Roberto Maytín‎. I don't know how many sources I should add to show his name is spelled more than one way? Even at his university. I figured it looks less obtrusive to put it in a note rather than the proper wiki way. I have no idea if the same thing will be tried at Stephane Grenier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A short note of thanks

for changing the Bobby Riggs section of French Open champions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closedthursday (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. INeverCry 19:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian tennis articles

First of all I am sorry for doing this on your page but I have never written to people on wikipedia. But please this is important to me.

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) 20:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to Björn Borg

I came across WP:INFOBOXFLAG and didn't realize its application wasn't universal. I'll tread a little more cautiously next time.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rivalries discussion

See, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Rivalries.HotHat (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

any thoughts on this flag icon conversation?

An editor has expressed concern on our flag icons RIGHT HERE and I wondered if you had some thoughts on it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship GAN review

Hey. I've placed 1877 Wimbledon Championship on hold. I have a few comments, but don't think you'll have any trouble addressing them. - Shudde ^talk 11:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Very Good Work

I just wanted to say well done for all the hard work you have done on the Grand Prix tennis circuit individual year by year articles recently. I'm not on as much as I would like to be too much work but at least I am getting paid for it. --Navops47 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx. It helps to have a couple of old 'World of Tennis' yearbooks lying around. The yearly Grand Prix articles are already pretty good but need a bit of work to make them more accessible and useful (i.e. infobox, links to individual tournaments). Still some way to go, but there's no hurry.--Wolbo (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You have done a grand job all round and I really like the style of the info boxes --Navops47 (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship

I passed 1877 Wimbledon Championship. I was keeping an eye on the review page, but thanks for the reminder. The article looks great. Congratulations! - Shudde ^talk 10:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A-class reviews are (as far as I know) conducted at project level—so unless WP:TENNIS or WP:ENGLAND have a robust A-class review system, then the only further option is FA level. The criteria for FA status is a lot more comprehensive than GA status. I have taken a few articles through FAC, but that was several years ago, and it has no doubt gotten tougher since then. I've got something nominated at the moment (Thomas Ellison), but the review hasn't finished yet. I can give you a couple of pointers:

• Make sure that it complies with all sections of the WP:MoS, rather than just the sections listed in the Good Article criteria.
• The article may not be "comprehensive", which it needs to be to pass. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I can't say for sure.
• The grammar and language will probably need a copy-edit; I don't think it'll get through as it is without significant improvement.
• Have a read through WP:FAC and see what kind of comments/questions frequently pop up. Might help identify possible issues within the article.

I would take it to peer review, and try and get some experienced editors to give the article a thorough review. Make sure it's clear that you want to bring it to FA level—ask people to be as pedantic and picky as they can! Once you have done that, then take it to WP:FAC; the best way to learn what is necessary is to give it a go. Good luck! - Shudde ^talk 12:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for improving 1877 Wimbledon Championship, the very first championship and getting up to GA. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for your good job done on 1877 Wimbledon Championship article. Keep up the good spirit.

Enjoy! Cheers!! - Ninney (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Fumiteru Nakano

The DYK project (nominate) 10:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit

Wolbo. these aren't "unproductive pointy edits" This is trying to make available access to an RfC which expressed the view of the community. You have been working against the conclusion of that RfC and making edits reflecting your own view which was rejected in the RfC. The soft redirect gives people trying to find the RfC access to the close. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And there was talk by multiple admins and editors about completely deleting the page forever, and others who said it should never have left user space. With the original essay writer in semi-retirement, and worried it could disappear, I moved it back to his user space for safe-keeping. The editor then returned and edited it some more... thankful I had saved it for him. Your edit was pointy and unproductive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wolbo, we don't delete RfCs, they are left there to keep a record of what editors have decided. Wolbo, do you recognise that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names RfC was a WikiProject Tennis RfC. Do you recognise that the decision is valid? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Henner Henkel

Hi, have a look here. It reads "als er Anfang 1943 nach einer Schussverletzung in der Eiseskälte der Ostfront nahe Stalingrad erfror" ["as he froze to death after a bullet wound in the freezing cold of the Eastern Front near Stalingrad in early 1943"]. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ludwig von Salm-Hoogstraeten

Yes, he was probably a French tennis club member. It wasn't unusual as the French tennis scene was the most developed at the time and other foreign players chose to train there as well (e.g. Vladimir Landau, George Lyttleton-Rogers). The latter two thus has some sort of ranking, which leads me to my question and I'm curious if you can help me.

Considering those many finals focused on 1914 von Salm should have been ranked inside the world top ten by the end of the year. Do you own any tennis books or newspaper that could confirm that? I didn't find anythink on the net...

I'm also planning to add the early life section soon, so the article will be ready for a DYK. We could elaborate one together if you have ideas for it. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ludwig von Salm-Hoogstraeten

The DYK project (nominate) 20:33, 11 July 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) 11:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Decorative and uninformative flag icons

Dear Wolbo, I noticed that you have inserted several dozen of these into a table here. I'm not sure what your tennis "project" says, but what we do know is that postage-stamp pretty things are widely regarded as purely decorative, especially when they either (i) contain many unfamiliar flags, without textual reference to the country they are purported to represent, or (ii) can easily be confused, such as the Australian and NZ flags, even at full size, let alone tiny size.

I look at those tables wondering why they're prettied up in this way when the information content is lacking. It goes against our service to readers. Please consider re-thinking this. Tony (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this post and figured I'd answer first. Actually, since you commented on the last discussion at tennis project you should know what the project says about these "pretty little things." They are in our guidelines by consensus and mouseovers tell you exactly what nationality our players play under in international events. It was also pointed out to you that the WTA, ATP, Olympics and ITF all use these items to convey important information. They help me at a glance to distinguish patterns at tournaments and I know they give the same help to writers at the ESPN staff. They are not used for countries, only player nationality, unless it's something like Davis Cup... but then we don't use them for the players. Many charts also add decorative colors throughout wikipedia... useless to some important to others. It is a service to our readers and a very important aspect in pro tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS guidelines

no, the discussion ended, if you want to reopen the discussions please do.. If you'd actually followed the discussions you would have known that they were closed on monday.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

me and Fyunck(click) agreed to monday, so we waited until monday.. Some people replied, the majority didn't (you being one of them)... If you want to restart the discussions, START THEM, don't revert legitimate edits because you disagree with them!--TIAYN (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - A Wallis Myers contributions

Just wanted to say a big thank you for your contributions to the page on A. Wallis Myers (my great grandfather). Creating the page was my first proper foray into Wikipedia and I've been delighted to see the entry not only survive its proposal for deletion, but expand. Thanks again. Hy6e (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Tennis stats

So what are your thoughts on simply leaving the coding 100% as-is, but simply adding an extra column for tournament type? It's gotta be the easiest solution for all the editors who are familiar with the current chart, yet satisfies FL by accommodating the visually challenged. That was the main concern all along. Shall I just do it and have done with this? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nell Truman

Hello! Your submission of Nell Truman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nell Truman

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

lol at Havoc

Were you the one who said i was creating havoc, i am the the only one creating Challenger Pages and trying to finish every page as possible with proper references. please. I don't give a crap about empty talk pages. Dencod16 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cochet

No problem . I had to take a short wikibreak and restricting myself to small fixes but in a recent days I was thinking on getting back to it. It needs only a few finishing touches and of course every help is welcomed (even in my sandbox). As always my edits do require a post-copyedit so if you feel like have a read on it. Also I'd like to sort put the refs as I've already experienced edit difficulties with articles over 100 refs (1930, 1931 in tennis). So I'm planning to rearrange those as well to separate sources sections such as newspapers/books/online media and remove repetitive materials with that and save space. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To tell the truth I almost entirely gave up on this project so if you feel like taking control of it go on and reanimate it. I'd be glad to see it getting in the limelight again and being finalized. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. Sorry for not responding but I have a ton of work and don't have time for my usual Wikiedits. As I said earlier I gace up on this project (though I had bookmarked pages for his Playing Style), but I deleted every document I've stored for it. I only left the psage open for you (and others) to edit if one feels like. So feel free to publish it because I already forgot what were my plans on improving/revamping it and lost my interest in it. Though if published I might come back to haunt the page a bit but right now I'm busy for any major effort . Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Xmas Wolbo! I saw you working here during the holidays and I thought I'll share a birthday present with you for our project. Guess what I got my bookmars back thanks to my Google account. It had an archived version of my Chrome setting back from May. I haven't signed in until now. I was able to tweek it and summon my old bookmarks by singing in from another computer then export them and after sending it to my laptop importing them. Kinda tricky but worth it. Now I have those bokkmarks I haven't used for the article (I have a habit to delete those I've already used up so these are what left). I have various info on his playing style, his son, his move career, post WWII titles and so on. I just drop all the pages here so feel free to use them. I am thinking on getting reinvolved in the project as well. Maybe we could push it through a GA. What do you think?

The links are : [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (playing style in Hungarian), [8] (free photo series of Cochet's backhand, p.98), [9], [10] (playing style by Nigel Sharpe), [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (Stadium named after him in Lyon), [19], [20]

A belated Merry Christmas to you too! Glad to hear you were able to rediscover the lost bookmarks. They should certainly help to further develop the article and I'm happy it was published as it would have been a shame if your considerable efforts on this article had gone to waste. When I have time I'd like to help to improve and complete it over the next few months or so, a little bit at a time, and let's see if we can get it to GA status in the first half of 2014.--Wolbo (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Keil

Hi Wolbo. I've looked at this article since it came to attention at WP:AIV. I'd like your advice since you have done some work on the article and have experience with tennis articles in general. It appears that an IP editor contends that the article is causing "national security" issues for Keil, due to incorrect information in the sections that IPs continue to blank. See this edit summary for example. Assuming for a moment that this is not just someone messing with us, perhaps we might remove some of the unsourced information in the "Playing history" and "Coaching history" sections...? Do you have any opinion as to what we might reasonable remove as being unsourced and challenged information? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul, the IP editor in question claims to be Mark Keil, the subject of this article (see 1, 2). I have done some work on this article and have a fair amount of experience with tennis articles but have no prior experience with such repeated section blankings by someone claiming to be the article subject. What I have done so far is revert the section blankings made by the various IPs (and user Markkeil1) and at the same time tried to improve the article and add sources to the two sections in question, Playing history and Coaching history. Also added 'Refimprove' tags to both sections. Note that several other editors also reverted these section blankings. The reason I reverted the blanking edits is that initially no reason at all was given for removing this info or it just stated "not correct" without explaining why. Later on the edits summaries mentioned "too much information" or "wrong information " or "cluttered" and the one you refer to "national security". But again none of these explain what information specifically is "not correct", "wrong ", "cluttered" or "too much" or why it should be deleted because of "national security". To protect the article I warned the IPs several times and when this did not help reported the IPs at WP:AIV which resulted in two IP blockings.

So how should we proceed? I read up on WP:BLP to find some guidance and, if we assume that the IP is indeed Mark Keil, it seems that WP:BLPEDIT might apply. We could communicate to the IP and explain what actions he can take based on this, specifically 1) add the {{adminhelp}} tag and/or 2) post a notice on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I really don't know what to make of the "national security" claim, it sounds far-fetched, but we can explain that legal issues can be communicated to the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (OTRS) at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. In the meantime I will try and find reliable sources for the unsourced bullet points in the two sections and if I can't find any within a reasonable time will remove the unsourced info. I'm reluctant to remove any info right now as I don't think they have yet been validly challenged. Let me know what you think of this approach.--Wolbo (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful reply, Wolbo. I too had thought about attempting to communicate to the user (noting WP:BLPSELF and such), but held off because of the frequent IP hopping: I was doubtful that he would get the messages, even if I left them at the talk page of User:Markkeil1. Perhaps it is worth a try, though. I'm not sure about "national security" but I could imagine a scenario in which Keil might be applying for a travel visa, is required to provide a list of places he has previously visited, and then a bureaucrat with a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's reliability challenges Keil about discrepancies between what he has provided and what his Wikipedia article says. Anyway, I think your approach to the sourcing issue is quite all right. Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)