User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removed Prod on List of Wimbledon champions

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of Wimbledon champions, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Mike Cline (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I disagree with your removal on the grounds that I didn't put it there because the article was unreferenced (I never said that's why I put it there). I put it there because it is a duplicate article and a poorly and incomplete one at that. I shall do as you stated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fyunck - my apologies for the unreferenced comment in the edit summary. I suspect I was in a hurry and wasn't as diligent as I should have been. I looked again this morning and cannot find a duplicate article (the main Wimbledon article links only to this list). Unless you are talking about the individual division champions lists--mens, womens, et. al, then I think the duplication is OK as this list consolidates all that information. If there is a separate duplicate list, what is the article title? Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done of wikipedia!

I have had my battles with you, but we usually have worked them out! In the golf project, they don't care about seeing the other side, they only care about their own ideas and darn with the others! I will miss you, but I hope you have it well on here in your editing endeavors, good luck from Bluedogtn, GolfAuthority, TennisAuthiority! I might come back in ten or so years, but you might not be on here then!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagreements are a healthy thing and usually an article winds up for the better when a compromise is reached. We have had our share of battles and you're right, we almost always worked them out. Maybe our styles lend themselves to compromise and I can certainly say others I have had disagreements with have not always turned out so well. You did a lot of tedious editing that I really didn't want to do and I hope you come back sooner as I might be dead in 10 years. Take care my friend. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tennis player

I have changed the way the HOF displayes the url, since they re-did their website, which now it is not a numerical value like 243 it is pete-sampras for the ID in the infoboxes, but I just don't have the time to do it anymore or the will! I did Boris Beckers and Martina Navratiova for examples! Good Luck!69.137.120.81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

ALL DONE!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Court photo in List of Australian Open Women's Singles champions

Look at all the other articles before reverting consensus for them, because the List of US Open Men's Singles champions has Federer in the lead not Bill Tilden, so the open era record holder because the are OPEN article titles are to be put in the lead because the amateur days did not include pros. If you think this needs to be reversed it needs to be discussed because I think the Open and Amateurs should be spilt up into different articles for all things on here if you want to go down that road to make it historically accurate!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert it. I added a photo of someone who was not listed at all. I had no idea that there was some sort of consensus of order and I have no problem with the all-time leader being put second. I simply added the person who had the most titles to the top of the food chain. There are no public domain photos of her on the internet and I got this pic directly from her personal assistant. By the way by your own calculation we need to remove Nadal from the French page and put in Borg. I'll work on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY! I could not get a pic of him to use that is fair use!69.137.120.81 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bjorn Borg 2007.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bjorn Borg 2007.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Margaret Court.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Margaret Court.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed the correspondence with Margaret Court for verification. If I mislabeled the type of free use set me straight as to how best to label it. It is was given to me for public domain use on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have emailed your correspondence to permissions-enwikimedia.org then you can add Template:OTRS pending to the page to say it is in process. You need to make clear what permission/copyright release has been given and it has to be acceptable to wikipedia. You may have problem if they have said it can only be used on wikipedia as that is not acceptable, it has to be free for anybody to use. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not. The correspondence I had specifically asked for a Public Domain photo so that I could use it on wikipedia. My goodness I take the time to correspond to Margaret Court just to get a photo (which no one else did) and I feel a bit singled out for doing something horrible. There are a lot of photos I saw on flickr being used on wiki where the flickr owner "says" he took the picture but there is no way of knowing whether it's true or not. The Borg photos run into that problem as do many other photos in the tennis articles. So I took the time to email Mrs Court for the betterment of wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your fustration and admire the effort you have made to get an image, once you get the permission into the system then it cant be questioned again. On the other hand one has to be a bit careful with flikr (see Commons:Flickr washing) as if the image is iffy it will be deleted rather than take the risk of breaching copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Borg2008.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Borg2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rod Laver 001.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rod Laver 001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Straight sets

I was just wondering do you like the data that I researched and found, and the ways that I presented the data!69.137.120.81 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The presentation and data looks well thought out. To be honest I'm not crazy about it because I think it's overkill of data on the articles (which are too long as it is imho). The percentages especially I would have left for the reader to figure out since there is a good chance that others will start including all the slam winners instead of just the open era. I had thought myself of doing just that but I would first have to get up the gumption to do it. So it's not my cup of tea but it's certainly not something I would argue over unless asked to give my opinion. I can't fault your energy or the presentation since you are almost always so thorough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Striving4

I think that this user might be the dreaded Tennis expert! I am just highly curious. Go look at the date of creation on account and when we found him again doing things. By the way tell me what you think!69.137.120.81 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had thought the exact same thing but I have no proof. You could always ask an admin to check. Considering he's new he sure has a great working knowledge of wikipedia coding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to request a checkuser as admins can't check these things out. If it is Tennis expert, he's displaying a newfound enjoyment of Australian-related articles, which doesn't fit his usual MO. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is true and is another reason I made no formal accusation. The arrogance is similar towards me but the writing style and the fact he/she is doing so much on the Aussie side made me say "this time it isn't worth it." I still say that runner up career slam charts is nutty and makes the article look bad, but that's my own opinion. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Date created account does not ring a bell? I think s/he is doing something similar to Chidel, but that is just me!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But I can't go after every kook. If Chidel/TennisExpert came back unbeknown to me and edited an article for the better I wouldn't know the difference. And just because I disagree with Striving4 and don't believe for one second he is "new around here", he even got a newbie barnstorm for goodness sake, doesn't make me automatically pull out my periscope. You mention the date of creation and that is suspicious, I asked him a simple question and he was instantly rude to me (strange for a newbie), he is editing a ton but it isn't the usual thing TennisExpert worked on. So I'm watching carefully. I hate to be the constant complainer to the administration so I try to pick my battles wisely. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the one Tennis expert got pissed off first at, which is what unnerved s/he to do disruptive editing on here, and that disruptive editng got s/he blocked. Then s/he used the account Chidel in order to cause more frustration to me and others' on the tennis project, but s/he got blocked again. Then, s/he got many IP's and started to vandalise and they got blocked, and s/he just recently had an IP surge again look at WP:Tennis for that aspect! I have a feeling s/he is targeting work that I have done to tear and rip it to shreads, as a vindictive measure! That's my evidence why the date of creation matters a great deal with respect to the recent IP block!69.137.120.81 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly ask for a checkuser as rambling man says. If it is tennis expert I'll join the line to remove every single one of his edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to alert you all in case I am not on here much anymore, so you all can monitor s/he! If I do have the time to stick around, I will wait till I have more evidence than just circumstantial!69.137.120.81 (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for doubting you on your suspicions. I only wanted him to stop reverting and they now say he is User:Tennis_expert. wow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Slam Men's and Women's singles

Go look at the pages and tell me what you think about the infobox instead of an aimless picture, which I created!BLUE_DOG^TN 03:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw them before you posted this and I like them a lot. Can we use the event's logos on wikipedia? I assume so but the powers that rule have been very uncharitable towards my own uploads as of late so I'm wary of everything. I had the chutzpah to contact Margaret Court herself by email to get a photo we could use, which she answered and sent, and since it's not in a form wiki approves of it may simply be removed. To be so high on something I could offer wikipedia and then be rebuffed is a big letdown in the image upload department for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

They are a**h***s sometimes, but they see it as protecting wikipedia from lawsuits! I understand you pov!69.137.120.81 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I sent my email correspondence with Margaret to them, as they had asked of me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Striving4 again

This user is moving way too many pages, but I did not want to get you involved, which now I have to. I found s/he move the 2010 Wimbledon Women's Singles page, and s/he is decaptailizing the W in Women and S in Singles, which I think we have to stop it before the user goes to far look.BLUE_DOG^TN 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:Tennis to talk it out!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see it. Is there a wikipedia policy on capitalization? There might be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

He's pretty much changing every article with no discussion. But per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)I believe he is correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

As you've pointed out to him, IP 98.238.208.110 has a penchant for adding unsourced info. Also, it appears, deleting sourced info. Annoying.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So true. You know, I do think his intentions are good, he just seems to have no concept of any kind of sourcing at all. I even went so far as to source a few things for him but after awhile and after so many "fact" templates I just delete many of his posts. I believe he used to coach tennis in the 50s or 60s, or at least owned a tennis shop in the LA area back then... so his knowledge on trivial items may very well be true. It's just tough to make him understand that word of mouth info or personal knowledge isn't good enough here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Got it. Unfortunately, the end result after your good faith effort is the same as an ill-intentioned vandal.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Armbrust's talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Striving4

Hello Fyunck(click). Can you show me where evidence actually exists that this user is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Tennis expert? You have tagged his page a number of times as being a "confirmed sockpuppet" and I've yet to see that proven. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Under blocked at [[1]] it said he was blocked as tennis expert. I only assumed the admin got it right when I added it. Then Armrust changed it to "checkedsockpuppet" as if more checks had been made. I those two changed their minds then I apologize and won't add it back. I was sort of following the sheep. I originally sided with you that the MO was a bit different than TE even though the very first time I conversed with Striving4 he blew me off in the same manner as Tennis Expert did. Now with that ban and then his attacks on my talk page in the exact same manner as tennis expert, and the date creation coincidence that Bluedog pointed out, I do believe they are one in the same person... but it is only circumstantial evidence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I'm trying to track down whether or not an actual checkuser was conducted. Thanks for your reply. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow...been busy around my user page here on a holiday weekend. Thanks. Hard to tell if TE is jr high/high school prankish and laughable or adult mental disorder that may find help some day. One can but hope he grows up or gets the help he needs. Kinda sad either way though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pancho Gonzales edit

A while ago an Italian gentleman completely removed the section in which Pancho appraises other players. Said it wasn't relevant. Since it had been there for about 5 years previously, I think that most other people *did* think it was relevant. You might take a look.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1922 flag

I notice you reverted these edits by Macmike10. While you are correct that there was no Ireland prior to 1922 there was also no United Kingdom and this is probably where the user may have been confused. It should really be UKGBI. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I was only following the standard used from 6/09 Talk:List_of_Wimbledon_gentlemen's_singles_champions in which Wimbledon uses "BRI" to stand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Do you feel we should change them all to UKGBI (till 1922)? I have no issues either way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Really they should. I think it is the link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that is important here (especially as it avoids confusion when a competitor is "Irish" but seemingly has the UK flag). However, I see no reason not to pipe is as UK or whatever is suitable (see what I've been doing with them in this. Fred Perry links to UK and others link to UKGBI but there is no visual difference. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1922

just letting you know I saw your edit on List of Wimbledon ladies' singles champions just letting you know, I reverted and think there should be a proper discussion before this change is made since its kind of a big change to the article. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, since I didn't see any opposition I just seconds ago changed the mens as well. Discuss away on the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll talk to Rambo above who seems to be the first person to of told you and then get back to you. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#.C2.A0UKGBI.2C_.C2.A0GBR.2C_.C2.A0UK.2C_.C2.A0BRI so anyone can weigh in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a message on my reasoning. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 20:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since its 5 days since the discussion started up and though there is still time for a discussion, I'm gonna withdraw my objection atm since I seem to be the only person objecting at the moment, so feel free to re-add your edits if you haven't already, this can always be discussed in future if any more objections arise, just thought I'd let you know. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 22:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I have no problem waiting as I don't look at this as very urgent and I find that editors here in the tennis groups don't respond very quickly to discussions. That is unless I'm out of town for a week... then 10 people discuss it day and night and make consensus the day before I come back home :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you might as well just Be Bold and implement them in the meantime. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 07:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it some more and came at it from another angle. I like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Hi Fyunck(click), I would like to invite you to a discussion on setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability. Please feel free to give comments and suggestions there. Thank you. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Tennis handedness

I am less concerned with the parentheses than I am with consistency and having hyphens and no unnecessry caps.Ksnow (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Ksnow

Clijsters US Open Finals?

Look at the last sentence in the article because ESPN says Clijsters can win her third consecutive title? So I extrapolated that over to finals as well, which she missed 2004 and made the 2003 final! Any need to call in unofficial seems to contradict Nadal at Wimbledon Finals as well. I am just curious...to here what you think about it?69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. If someone misses playing the French Open, wins the other three, then wins the French the next year do they win the Grand Slam? No. If someone wins the Australian and French, skips Wimbledon because they don't play well on Grass, then wins the US, have they won 3 majors in a row?...not in my book. If you miss it your slam streak ends. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about what you like it is about what is fact.

• BBC Sport
• USA Today

These two sources say he'd did it straight syn for consecutive.69.137.121.17 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops I thought when you asked what I thought about it you wanted my opinion, so I gave it. Sorry about that. I think wording is everything. It may be Clijster's third straight title but she has/will not win three straight (Consecutive) US Open titles. You could say she is going for her third consecutive non-consecutive title. And I have informed ESPN of this as well and Andria Armstrong of ESPN marketing is looking into the wording. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No your opinion does not need to be about what you like it needs to have some evidence to an opinion. I think we are arguing over semantics, but words do in fact matter. I respect your views moreso if they were based in fact, which most of your opinions and stances are, but this one is rather fluff, that's all! I love working with you on wikipedia to make tennis articles better though.15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.121.17 (talk)

Things also need to be based on common sense and I don't see it here regardless of what espn says. It is a valid source, I agree, but it would be difficult to source the opposite viewpoint. No media is going to print that it is "not" her 3rd straight... they simply will say nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a wait and see approach to it! If you want to see it removed then we can hide it in the wikipedia HTML code!69.137.121.17 (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can wait a bit but it shouldn't be there imho. I'll note a couple things. ESPN is now showing on video and its website that it is 2 straight wins, not 3, so they've reversed themselves (or that one editor was fired)[[2]]. CNN is reporting the same.[[3]]. Maybe my complaint to ESPN worked. Also USA Today [[4]] and the BBC [[5]] say three titles but not consecutive. So all your original sources back that it is NOT 3 consecutive US Opens for Clijsters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will take it out, now. Thanks for showing me.69.137.121.17 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Bryan

What do you think about his ATP Masters Chart, where I put W1 for Win 1 and R1 for Runnerup 1 to sort correctly, and do you see the benefit of extrapolating it onto other similar wikitables and charts event the slams of all tennis players?69.137.121.17 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

On first glance it looks fine, however many people will not know what the heck W3 or R2 mean so there would need to be a legend to explain. I'm not convinced it is necessary to have these W/R's listed but I'm not convinced the obverse either. Maybe you should bring it up in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis to get more opinions. Remember I'm a minimalist and you're a maximalist and maybe someone in between could give a better assessment of its worth to the charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I only took and did that for sortability and to allow wins to go with wins and runnersup to go with well runnersup. I love being called a maximalist or inclusionist!69.137.121.17 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I put in a legend at the bottom of each wikitable to explain what they do in fact mean!69.137.121.17 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Old Pros

Sorry for taking ages to response but something urgent came up. But still these are my source for the old pro tournies. Details of 1926-1945 tournies here, database of all matches from 1881. I don't whether to put it in as an external links on the pages or reference it as it will always go back to the default setting of the page that you can see there. Then I found this one earlier today. Total rubbish in a list of Champs for each tournie put may be a good place to get tournie names from if unsure, although some of them are inaccuate e.g. Adelaide Pro, which we have listed as the South Aus Pro. But it could be a good place if one is unsure of the tournies names and locations. I will say that I always try to cross reference between 2 of the sources to make sure that what we have is accuate. KnowIG (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of US Open men's singles champions

I put the ndashes back it and if you don't like it make a discussion thread on WP:Tennis, so this is similar to all other men's and women's singles grand slam pages, go look! I fixed the tiebreak to match Tennis score guidelines, which your last revert of my edits removing consensus!69.137.121.17 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The ndashes were already there and with a lot less coding. You changed it from what it was in June and I changed them back long ago. This was already discussed at WP:Tennis and both are acceptable in wikipedia so why would you add more code and make it harder to edit? The tiebreak got reverted because i wasn't going to revert all the code by hand just to save the tiebreak. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I will make all code uniform on all pages regardless of how much code in your mind it is and the tiebreaks were a critical issue that was resolved via consensus here and the standard is ndashes go look before you revert me again. This was laboriously talked about!69.137.121.17 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the tiebreaks completely. It's just that originally you changed all the coding to 7x what was needed and then you added the tiebreak info. It wouldn't let me just revert the the 7x extra coding, if I recall. I was going to post this on Tennis project but I see an administrator has already reverted your changes without me even mentioning it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I got them all done to the new standards, which just go look at my edit history, but you have to recognize that I am a uniformist, and don't like deviations from consensus or standards, which is why I fight hard to maintain stuff on here to a certain standard(s). I only go outside of it for a purpose like sortablity. I love working with you still!69.137.121.17 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for doing all that! I was going to load some of them up in MS Word and do a search and replace to please you but you beat me to it. I assume you did it the same way? I know you are an inclusionist (and I'm the opposite) but I see you are also a uniformist. I am to a point. Within an article, yes... I hate to see some endashes and some not within the same article. And when you are talking 4 slams I see your point that it is nice if those four are the same especially for editors working on all 4, but I have no problem with a gradual change. It doesn't have to be done overnight. What I do not like is lets say tennis articles on people e.g. biographies, that all look like they were made from the same cookie cutter. I like each and every article to look different. The infobox, and charts being the same is just fine, but the rest of the article should feel like it was written from scratch each and every time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think every article needs to have a uniform style to it in order to be edited like sections in the same order and stuff like that, but prose can be written differently because everyone has different writting sytles! Infoboxes need to be uniform to give the same information to all biographies because without that it will be rather difficult and tediously time consuming to edit. I love individuality with articles but not with respect to templates or charts, you don't see me changing prose all over the place do you?69.137.121.17 (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talckback: MOS and flags

Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at P. S. Burton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P. S. Burton (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TW-RF/Sandbox 1

I have developed this do you think it would be good to use it to show all the finals in tennis grand slam history! I got it done for the women's singles as well here User:TW-RF/Sandbox 2!69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the charts, but where to put it and what to call it? The same charts are on List_of_Grand_Slam_men's_singles_champions and List_of_Grand_Slam_Women's_Singles_champions minus the runners-up. And from those pages you click to the proper Slam and the runners-up and champs are shown, so you do have redundancy. However that chart is extremely clean with nothing except the winner and losers... I love that. No color, country, etc... just the facts on who won and who lost. You might add it to the singles pages as an extra chart BUT...and this is a HUGE BUT... I will fight to the death if you include the pre-1925 French as an international slam since it was not at the time, just a minor French only tournament. It would have to be removed before adding. Or it could be put on it's own new page in its entirety just so long as the word Slam or Major are nowhere to be seen. Nice job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I will think about how to do this before it proceeds, which I will have to title the Pre-1968 stuff accordingly as well!69.137.121.17 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Got them all done with everything addressed now we just have to come up with something to call the darn things! Any suggestions?69.137.121.17 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you can put in the scores if you want to, just kidding! I got the Australian 1977 to sort correctly. I was thinking about calling the men's List of all the Grand Slam men's singles finals and the women's List of all the Grand Slam women's singles finals. What do you think about these titles?69.137.121.17 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You can leave in the pre-1925 winners if you have a separate page for them, which might be best. Hmmm... maybe "Tennis championship historical winners" or something provocative like simply "Australian, French, Wimbledon and US singles tennis champions." They may not have been slam winners but the pre-1925 people were certainly French Champions. Then you could simply say in the header, "This is a list of Australian, French, Wimbledon and US singles tennis champions through the years", no mention of slams or majors and be done with it. We could simply link to it from all the usual pages. Just a suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about naming the article List of Grand Slam singles finals because I think if we put back in the pre-1925 French Championship we would be making a huge set-back.69.137.121.17 (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Career Slams and Career Golden Slams?

I am wondering why we are marginalizing the careers of those who have done this feat multiple times becasue we are giving Rod Laver credit for multiple grand slams, we should do the same to these as well for players who deserve the merit of two or more conquests of these accomplishments.69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well by definition a career slam is winning all four Majors at some point in time in your "career." It doesn't matter how many you win of each as long as you win one of each. You can't win multiple career slams by the definition. Whereas a grand slam is winning all four in one single year. That can happen multiple times and did with Laver. That's how I see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

They can do it twice like Navratilova won the career women's double slam seven times but you won't get that by looking at the article, and a list article is supposed to be an exhaustive source on the subject. Court won four mixed doubles career grand slam but that is not even mentioned as part of the historical records. Now Graf, she won the career grand slam four-times in women's singles competition. Newcombe won three career grand slams in men's doubles competition. These are just four, I could highlight more if you want me to do so in order to show you the inadequacies to the article in question. I could put them in to a List of Mutiple-time Grand Slam and Career Grand Slam champions page if you would like that better. See what records are missing which makes the list and the records inconclusive at best.69.137.121.17 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods are the only ones to complete the career grand slam in golf three times.69.137.121.17 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the definition. A Career Slam is winning all four tournaments at least once in a career. No matter how many tournaments you win you can only win a career slam once in a career. That's why the term career is in there. Martina won each event 7x and she won a career slam. She did not win 7 career slams from what I've ever heard. She only had one career in tennis and she won the career slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I believe you on that, but I can understand your point!69.137.121.17 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Slam Sets

I was thinking if career grand slam is not right for those who have won two or more of each slam in the disciplines like singles or doubles, we could at least call it Multiple Slam Sets (MSS). We would have to put in the first to show they have got multiple sets not just one for their tennis grand slam successes. What do you think about this proposal to showcase the historic nature of these?69.137.121.17 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I never meant to trivialize the fact that a player has won, let's say, 2 of each of the 4 Majors... it is significant. My beef has always been terminology since we want don't want to step on the toes of history or the press. So on wiki we'll have Grand Slam (all 4 in one year), Career Slam (all 4 in a lifetime), and Multiple Slam Sets (MSS as you suggested). MSS rolls off the tongue very nicely and it will be able to highlight the fact that Steffi Graf for instance, has a total of 4 MSS's. Very tough to do with all the surfaces today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I will start working on it this weekend, but it might take me a while to get it done though.69.137.121.17 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done here, I am going to let you put in the prose! I have got them all done, but I left off the first because it is technically not a multiple because it is a solo and career grand slam not a multiple slam set, which would come after or follow the first one!69.137.121.17 (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tennis Career Grand Slam Champions

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have updated this, and was just seeing if there's anything that I missed!69.137.121.17 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it would look better or not but since the chart is about the player winning a career slam, shouldn't the player name/names come first and then the year/years they did it? It looks pretty good though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I did it the only way it could be done without streaching out the navbox forever, I did not like having to do it that way, but if you could find out how go for it! I did it to the best of my abilities.69.137.121.17 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I wasn't clear, sorry. Don't make it longer, just maybe switch the names and dates around. I edited the first two calendar year grand slams for you to look at and decide. Otherwise it looks fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

IE will not display the mixed doubles correctly when doing it with the year after the name, so I had to revert it, which it is not the top ones that were the problem it was the bottom ones. In addition, all other navboxes in tennis have the years come before the names anyways. I am going to leave the navbox at that, but you are more than willing to try your hand at it!69.137.121.17 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn/Sandbox

What should I do with this thing I created? It is 60 thousand bytes in size, should it be apart of the her main page or new page?69.137.121.17 (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I did Chris Evert's grand slam history!69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's in the right place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Later this year I plan on doing one for Martina Navratilova.69.137.121.17 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye for now!

I will be taking a four to eight week sabbatical from wikipedia, so I will see you down the road Fyunck!69.137.121.17 (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's cool. You'll be back with extra energy and fresh ideas as always. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye Forever and Always!

Hello Fyunck(click), Me and You have had some hard editing battles over the course of the past year, but we worked them out generally. I said that I was going on a sabbatical and would come back, but I have made the decision at 04:00 UTC on October 1, 2010 to forever leave Wikipedia. You will always be considered a wikifriend of mine. So all I can say now, I wish you all the best in your future endeavors on here. I give to you all the Faith, Hope, Love and Peace required, but the greatest is love my friend. I am a weary, very weary soul, I bid you a farewell and forever goodbye from Bluedogtn.69.137.121.17 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have always enjoyed working with you and I wish you would reconsider. Take some time off and come back... you add a lot to the tennis articles here and do some tedious edits that few compliment you on yet don't want to tackle themselves. No one will agree 100%, heck I'm not sure if I agree with my relatives even half the time. The secret is compromise and working things out or at least trying things to see how others like it. Lessons Republicans and Democrats should learn these days. I hope it's not goodbye and as always take care my friend. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

columbus day in california

Hi, i saw your edits to the columbus day page. Columbus Day is recognized by California. it is no longer a state holiday, ie, state workers still have to report to work, however, the state still recognizes it as a holiday. Please see this list of Legal Holidays as differentiated from this list of State Holidays which close down all state offices. Also note this list of court holidays in the state. The key distinction for the other states isn't they they "celebrate" it as a state holiday, but the three listed in the article do not even recognize "Columbus Day" they call it something else or ignore it altogether. Thanks. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't just write it arbitrarily... I pulled it off other websites. timeanddate. It is also talked about in the wall street journal here wallstreet journal. The edd has it on their list because it is a federal holiday and they work around it. The superior court also agrees it is no longer a state holiday Superior Court says no to Columbus Day. According to California State University East Bay Furlough Information and Schedule, Columbus Day used to be a state holiday until 2009. It is no longer a recognized holiday by the DPA and the state of California. Because of this, all state offices will open normally on that day even though it is a federal holiday when federal offices, post offices, and banks close for the day. California (where I live) also has dumped Lincoln's Birthday. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a bit confusing and I certainly didn't assume you were editing in bad faith. I have done some further research and I can't find explicitly the changes adopted last year which eliminated Columbus Day. I have looked at the 2010 versions of the California Civil Code and the 2010 Government Code (those are the 2010 versions, I confirmed on Lexis Nexis, but i didnt want to link you to a subscription service) and Columbus Day is still listed. Also Good Friday and Admission Day, are listed though government offices are open then. Furthermore, all the news articles regarding the change and the court case indicate that the law was changed last year and such changes should be reflected in the 2010 laws. They all tend to use the language "paid holiday" rather than "holiday" but that is not 100%. I'm leaving your language in, since I'm certainly not completely sure, but I think this evidence tends towards the conclusion that CA still recognizes Columbus Day as a holiday, but not a paid government holiday. I'm also going to move this discussion to the Columbus Day talk page so anyone with other information can weigh in an hopefully we can get this cleared up and I hope if you find anything else you will post it there. Thanks. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010

Go take and put your opinion in.BLUE_DOG^TN 19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Burma/Myanmar

Continued from this diversion on Talk:Burma/Myanmar

"I barged in?"

The discussion was about one thing and with no comment about the existing subject you suggested it should be about something else. I think that's barging in.

"Who the heck made you judge of the talk page?"

If you disagree that you barged in with old arguments then fine. My reason for posting was to encourage you not to focus on how new other people's comments are but rather on how valid they are. Whether or not you're guilty of the same things you complain about, it still does your position a disservice to answer every comment which looks like something you've seen before with an undirected reference to the archives.

"If someone brings up lopsided old news"

Discussing whether modern-day usage has changed since the election and the year preceding it isn't old news.

"I'm going to add in additional old lopsided news that is also relevant"

If that isn't a refusal to assume good faith then it's dangerously close to deliberately disruptive behaviour. And it's already been established that demonym usage is not relevant.

All I wanted by my first comment was to encourage discussion to stay on the topic of the naming dispute, rather than repeatedly turning to users' choice of topic or argument. Obviously there is something hypocritical about me doing this by commenting specifically about your own comments, which is why I brought it up where the subject had already departed from editorial matters, and am not continuing to discuss it on the talk page. So long as you have no objection to constructively dealing with outstanding concerns about editorial issues, as I'm sure is the case, I'm not interested in continuing to debate past conduct. You can take or leave my comments about what is and isn't constructive, but I think from the perspective of shaping future discussion they have run their useful course. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On the barging in, people were talking numbers and I asked for even more numbers. No one provided them so checked it out and added them myself. That is not barging and I think your stating that was arrogant and way out of line. I'm really not sure where the "good faith" part is coming from since it has nothing to do with that at all. You seem to be reading into my writing something that isn't there and I'm not sure why. Look at it from my point of view, I see see a post on a topic that I feel has been talked about many times in the past but has been presented simply in a new form. We disagree on relevance but from my point of view it's bringing up the same old stuff I've seen for years. For me it gets old and I say so, while also pointing out the archives contain this already. And I also see google usage or wiki usage being put out that I feel is redundant or out of context. If it's going to be there then everything should be there including demonym usage which I do feel is as relevant... as do others who do not post regularly.

So I may not like the way something works, but if it's going to work, regardless of whether I like it or not, I want to make sure every part is accounted for. That's what I meant by "I'm going to add in additional old lopsided news that is also relevant." I feel the Burmese/Myanmarese issue is just as relevant even if you don't. Now perhaps I came across as a bit too harsh in my original post to whoever asked "why" though they never said anything to me. Your posts however were pointed directly at me in an attacking style that I felt were unfair and unjust when I had said nothing to you at the outset. I have no problem moving away from this...heck this is pretty mild in wiki world antics. But if numbers pop up from time to time on google usage or wiki comparisons that don't include the full deluxe package I will add it to the mix. I hope that helps clarify my view to your satisfaction. catch ya later Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ilie Nastase 17-3

Good day, only I just wanted to say that Ilie Nastase had a record of 17-3 in the ATP World Tour Finals, Breaking Down now:

1972 5-0 1973 4-1 (Lost versus Tom Gorman RR) 1974 4-1 (Lost versus Guillermo Vilas F) 1975 4-1 (Lost Versus Arthur Ashe)

Good Luck in everything --Bry17may (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. My mistake in simple addition. Sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Career Super Slam

In some media and websites used terms as Carrer Grand Slam, Carrer Golden Slam and Carrer Super Slam in the same way. Winning the Carrer Golden Slam and titile on ATP World Tour Finals/WTA Tour Championships and Davis Cup/Fed Cup has been called a "Super Slam". Aca Srbin (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2010 (CET)

I searched and from what I could see this is incorrect. Career super slam seems to be only on a persons' blog and is not usable on wikipedia. Then it gets put on wikipedia and a few other sites copy the wikipedia info and put it on theirs. This is also not acceptable as a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Greetigns. :) Aca Srbin (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (CET)

Merry XMAS (2010)

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png		Merry XMAS (2010)
		Armbrust is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Mōdraniht, Diwali, Hogmanay, Wren's Day, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus, Jonkonnu, or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. Best regards! Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much... a very merry Christmas to you too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

ATP 250 Tour

Thanks for "|}" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edamian (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

you're welcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5