User talk:Fyunck(click)

You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out on to the court to play each other; to have heard the applause, to have heard dead silence from the crowd as a point was in progress. The years came and went as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... as did the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, Sampras and Federer. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King and Goolagong, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Navratilova, Graf and Williams. Service has changed from having to keep one foot on the ground or just getting the ball in play, to players who can fire a dart that only high speed cameras can behold. Of course I wasn't there in the 1920's when tennis truly went international and the ILTF wrote into their bylaws that no Major championship could claim to be a "world championship" or that the language of tennis would be "for ever in English." But the repercussions of those early days, and binding together of adversarial organizations, laid the groundwork for what we have today. The sport is special to me and it always will be.

When I started editing at the English Wikipedia 7 or 8 years ago things were much much different. Guidelines and policies were not as complete and it was certainly more "English alphabet" oriented; other language Wikipedias were being formed to cover their own spellings and foibles. Vandalism and personal attacks happened to be sure but not to the extent it does today. Item placement was based much more on common use, sourcing and verifiability, rather than a consensus of opinion and how we would like things to be. We reported what we saw and read rather than making our own truth that would get picked up by Google and become a self-fulfilling factoid. It was source, source, source... verify not truth. The wiki world has changed. Maybe it's newer younger editors and their own world viewpoints, maybe it's that the percentage of English-first speakers has gone down in numbers. I'm not sure. But something has made this a less pleasing place to edit.

Over the last year I've been attacked and lied about by one or two editors... nothing has happened through my pleas. It wears on one but by ignoring things most of the time, I've been able to muddle through. When it gets to be too much I call them on it, but nothing is ever done. I know others read what is written and I know that they ignore it. This includes many administrators. Again maybe this is the way things work here now... who you know seems to be very important. But again, while not as enthused as I once was, I still fight vandalism and add items to established pages, while occasionally creating new player bios. But now I see that no matter how well sourced an item is, Wikipedia is looking to allow censorship of established player names. Amazingly, English spellings found as commonplace in the press, books, organizations, etc... are not just being systematically moved into the far corners of an article (that had already been done over the last couple years), but now these spellings are potentially being banished from Wikipedia forever, as if they never existed or are never used. Literally expurgated from this Wikipedia. And this with many administrators blessings. I have to say it hurts to see it go the way of New York soft drinks. It's not like we have storage limitations. Encyclopedia Britannica will often make sure multiple spellings are present so as to give their readers full information. I can't even comprehend how censoring could happen, but it has... here of all places.

This will require a re-evaluation as to what I can really offer to this encyclopedia and what enjoyment it can offer me. Sadly the environment I see now does not appear to be going in a direction that is pleasing to my typing efforts, and fighting off character attacks is certainly wearing me down... at least in an enjoyment capacity. Where consensus used to mean trying to work with everyone to find common ground that all can live with (whether minority or majority), it now seems to be an all or nothing, my way or the highway type of decision. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive box collapsible

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
34		Silver Bells (talk)						Add sources
31		Dominik Hrbatý (talk)						Add sources
463		Mexican Open (tennis) (talk)						Add sources
8		Svetlana Kuznetsova career statistics (talk)						Add sources
91		Velvia (talk)						Add sources
59		Ace (tennis) (talk)						Add sources
63		Vania King (talk)						Cleanup
12		2012 Rafael Nadal tennis season (talk)						Cleanup
28		Crash 'n' the Boys: Street Challenge (talk)						Cleanup
69		Queen's Club Championships (talk)						Expand
50		Tennis records of the Open Era - Women's Singles (talk)						Expand
41		Sorana Cîrstea career statistics (talk)						Expand
64		Hypnotize (System of a Down song) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
122		Vera Zvonareva (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
85		Tennis male players statistics (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,262		Family name (talk)						Merge
114		Rio Open (talk)						Merge
76		Straight to Hell (film) (talk)						Merge
16		2012 Novak Djokovic tennis season (talk)						Wikify
76		Ryan Harrison (tennis) (talk)						Wikify
6		2011 in tennis (talk)						Wikify
9		Antichlor (talk)						Orphan
1		Aqueduct of Albatana (talk)						Orphan
1		(718) Live Farewell Extravaganza (talk)						Orphan
29		Alexander Peya (talk)						Stub
14		Open GDF Suez (talk)						Stub
37		Abigail Spears (talk)						Stub
12		George Washington High School (Danville, Virginia) (talk)						Stub
45		Monterrey Open (talk)						Stub
9		PTT Pattaya Open (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nice try, MoonMetropolis. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yeah... must be the same user with a new sock. That was User:Leandrorezendecarvalho033 aka User:Olavo braga nunes da silva and his dozens of sockpuppets. Looks like he's back again. Merry Christmas by the way, and happy new year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's him. Has been dealt with for now. A Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you too! --Wolbo (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some corrections on the page of Gábor Máthé (tennis). Thank you for improvements. I hope that you evaluate this person worthy to be on Wikipedia although he is not wide known and celebrated. Even though he is a handicapped person and the neglected port of deaf is supported when we write articles about them. I am pretty beginner in editing Wikipedia so my question is that a correction was posted with this note: "no scoring allowed in prose". Is this an official or an informal rule? Thank you. Koti.hung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koti.hung (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is really official unless it's spelled out in Wikipedia "Policy." However the next step down from universal Policy are Guidelines which are usually brought about by consensus between editors and then written out for people to follow. Tennis articles are part of Project Tennis and has guidelines set up at Tennis Article Guidelines. "Scores should not be added to prose unless strictly necessary (i.e. sets a record). In such cases the tiebreak score is omitted. Just report the round and whether the player won or lost the match, and whom they played." You will find that many articles do not follow this format, but when we find them, we try to fix them. As for his notability and whether he should be on wikipedia... technically we have no listing in our guidelines to include him. But we do have wheelchair tennis and Olympics in the guidelines. The article seemed well sourced so when I saw it I simply used the same thing to cover deaf Olympics. I guess others could disagree. I thought that certainly anyone who wins a Gold Medal at the IOC sanctioned Deaf Olympics must be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I believe I am responsible for Rafael Nadal 2014 tennis season page, since I am the one who did all the tables and stats on the page. Rafa confirmed for his 2014 schedule Copa Claro in Buenos Aires. Since he was forced to withdraw, I edited his page. If you observe Rafael Nadal 2013 tennis season page, to every tournament Rafa confirmed for his schedule and withdrew, it written was on the schedule table. Now please, don't touch anything of what I put on the page since it is legit. Alva9311 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Um... no you aren't responsible for that article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort... no one owns anything, even in their own sandboxes. If I see unsourced info added I remove it if it looks suspicious, and I will "touch" what I see fit. You also added incorrect dates and I fixed them. Please add posts to user talk pages in the future and add four tildes afterwards to sign your post. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what incorrect information did I added? Alva9311 (talk)

You had the wrong dates for the Australian Open, which I corrected. I inadvertently removed your addition of the tournament Nadal pulled out of. That was my mistake. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mr Whoppit. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You only check it when it is updated ahead of time, but don't edit it when it is necessary to be applied. Dencod16 (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I usually don't update the rankings. But your edits are still against wikipedia policy. You have no sources for your edits so they are original research until you have a source. You MUST wait till there is a source. If a player retires they are instantly removed from the rankings so we are not a WP:Crystal Ball. It's also not a race against other editors in who adds the info the fastest. In 36-48 hours the ATP and WTA will officially update their sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YOu keep claiming one thing and another and act better than everyone else. I edit base on time convenience, You are the one keep who keeps rushing to the rankings section and does nothing. I bet you just look if someone edits it rather than do it yourself. You are not a moderator but a user same as everyone else. You don't contribute anything to tennis, but your bossiness and saying this and that. I expected an updated ranking as of February 24, 2014, even a week after you don't even edit the rankings. Dencod16 (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't act better than anyone else... I simply follow the rules set down here. If you can't do that then you are the problem. 90% of all your edits I don't even see, of the ones I do see 90% look fine to me so of course I do nothing. But those early against-policy edits of yours pop up on my screen when I log in and I simply correct them. Remember that if you follow guidelines and policies there is no problem here at all. What source do you use to get those stats? If you point out the webpage that lists them we can use them, otherwise our many readers will see the rankings you posted, look at the source, and claim they are bogus. We don't want that. Heck I often compromise on this as is. If it's the same day as the rankings come out (PST) and anyone has changed them, I usually let it go. But a day and a half before I don't. What's to stop 3 days before.... 5 days before... 3 weeks before? If we keep it to when it's published at the ATP and WTA websites we have no problems at all, and it can be readily sourced. You can always bring it up at tennis project if you think it's unfair and that we should allow the rankings to be updated unsourced a day or two early. Remember also that administrators/moderators are editors like anyone else. When they get into an "official dispute" amongst parties, yes they carry more weight. But they also edit and get reverted like everyone else around here. It's a team effort to keep sources proper and information flowing. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these tournaments are significant enough to warrant inclusion in a player's main performance timeline or a separate performance timeline. I've tweaked the article guidelines to make this clear but one editor continues to re-add a timeline with Federer's results at the ATP 250/500 levels. I think this is absolutely unnecessary for the reasons I have mentioned before and because Federer's stats page is already relatively large. What are your thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually per consensus, they are NEVER to be included in the performance timeline. I'll help out with the reversion and to try and make it clearer to the editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. JayJ47 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion in China. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. But a world ranking is like a title isn't it? So wouldn't the capitilization of "World" be warranted in this context? "world No. 1" for example just doesn't look right at all. JayJ47 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with you on what looks better to me. I can only tell you that in looking at MOS grammar around the net that it is world No. 1... it is not considered an all-in-one deal. Just like you could say "ranked No. 1 in the world"... you wouldn't capitalize world. You could also say "world ranked No. 1".. again you wouldn't capitalize "world." So there is really no reason to suddenly capitalize "World No. 1." I forget where it was talked about on wiki where I was told to use "world No. 1"... MOS states right up front that it is always a capital "No. 1" but says nothing about the word "world." The Olympics (and Paralympics) specify "world No. 1" right here in 19.1. I believe the Chicago Manual of Style says the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the interests of peace, I will offer a particular apology: It has never been my intent that you should feel "harassed" or "bullied". I wanted, back when there was a dispute between us, only that you would realize that your editing behavior on diacritics was perceived as WP:BATTLEGROUNDing by me and others, including some who, like Joy [shallot], did not originally agree with me about it but took you to AE again for it later. You weren't blocked or banned then either, so there isn't even really any "official" word that you were being disruptive, just the reported perception of several editors that you were. I wasn't nothing, but it wasn't damning either. I acknowledge that you do appear to genuinely feel harassed or bullied, in your words, and am sorry that you feel this way. I reiterate that I don't see that your editing today exhibits the sorts of perceived problems that triggered my criticism, and don't feel that I have any open dispute with you at this late a date. (I'm no longer a regularly active editor anyway, so even if I did, it would be a moot point, but it's not there for me any longer). I cannot apologize for my old but genuine perception of your former editing actions as problematic or for using official WP dispute resolution processes like AE to address that (that's what they're there for, and I was punished far more than necessary for filing a poor case). But I do apologize for my own tone and approach, seeing that they upset you that much on a personal level. I have already acknowledged (at AE, previously) that my own debate style has sometimes been too heated on some topics; that AE request involving you may have been among them. I would feel a bit like a hypocrite to demand acknowledgement from Sandstein that I felt administratively harassed by him while denying you the same acknowledgment about my case against you (though the cases differ markedly - I did not criticize you with zero evidence, only insufficient evidence, I did not even seek a block/ban against you but specifically asked that such an extreme action not be taken, and nothing I said about your editing back then had the force of an official administrative accusation of wrongdoing). Nevertheless, I guess it probably feels about the same, so I offer that much of an apology (albeit less than you'd want, I'm sure) out of genuine empathy as well as a desire to let bygones by bygones. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely helps that you are trying, in your own way, to understand the way I felt. Let's be clear on one thing though. The ani you brought about was not for an "edit"... it was in a place that others were asking for comments on a talk page. I gave a single comment that absolutely no one thought was inappropriate. It may have been a polar opposite of your view, but it was a simple comment. I was brought to ani because my views were different than yours. My views have not changed at all on the subject by the way. However wikipedia has changed. Since the community has banned/censored even the mention of English spellings (except where it can be shown that the person uses the spelling in everyday life), no matter the if the sources are 99:1 in favor of those English spellings... then there is really nothing I can do but let it go. My amount of editing has also taken a nose dive since your ani with the realization of wikipedia censoring. You also keep saying evidence, but you don't realize that evidence was taken out of context, and you didn't take into consideration how that so-called evidence came about. For future reference between us, if any evidence has anything to do with H.Fella or IIO then I stop reading it as 100% trash and lies. I have needed administrative help multiple times for those two and I'd have to hand you my complete folio on them for you to even start to understand their attacks and conspiring. Joy is fine and reasonable... we don't always agree but that's the nature of wikipedia. In fact in 8 years on wikipedia I only really had a problem with 4 editors... one who kept vandalizing my talk page, one who threatened me, and two perpetual liars. That is probably because I'm always open to compromise and always listen to find solutions that "everyone" can live with as opposed to 100% victory for one side of the equation. That type of "consensus" is the essence of Wikipedia (or at least it was when I first started editing here).

Remember also that each of those diffs I debunked or could have. You complained that your posting was cut down by Sandstein... well guess what... mine was too. I notice that a recent editor brought that to the everyone's attention... of course my full post was left out, and so was another of my explanations. I look at that as the "who-you-know" hierarchy of wikipedia. Editors are not judged equally... I've never liked it but I realize that's the way wikipedia works. I'm not sure you will ever get me to believe that your ani accusation was anything other than "he has a different viewpoint than I and must be expunged" or that you simply got bamboozled by a couple of other editors with vendettas against me. But I'm willing to try. I also haven't seen your heavy-handedness used on others since that time period (granted you really haven't edited much) and I still feel you deserved a formal warning to never do that to me or anyone again, but that's all I ever asked for. The extra punishment you got is between you and others that I never really followed and didn't care about. I only reposted in that recent ani because history was starting to get rewritten from the indignation I felt at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It was so far back, I'm not certain I recall the particulars with certainty at this point, as to exactly what I saw as the issue, why it seemed an AE or ANI matter. Most complaints about me are for arguing too much and failing to use dispute resolution, certainly not for running to admin noticeboards to complain about others' arguments when the other party feels there's not actually even a dispute. I think I was wondering then why you seemed so hot about that style issue and how far back your activity on the issue went, and upon looking it seemed like a pattern; the older comment that seemed to be to be going after Swedish editors was probably the trigger (and I think you'd have to admit it's hard not to see it as inflammatory). I'd recently been dealing with inveterate violators of the WP:ARBAA2 case (some of these people were so hell-bent on pushing ethnocentric views about Azerbaijan–Armenia–Turkey disputes that they were even vandalizing cat breed articles that happened to mention Turkey, etc.). I was probably being unusually sensitive to anything that looked like nationalistic editwarring to me, whether it really was or not. Anyway, I agree with you that the culture here has changed, in a censorious direction, and it has much to do with why I've stayed away for so long. On the other hand, I've not seen that it's actually gotten notably worse in the intervening year, which is why I've considered returning, if my dispute with a particular admin is resolved. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall my exact wording anymore either. And I don't recall being specific about Swedish editors either. I do remember saying something about this originally being an English Wikipedia and every language had their own wikipedias. And that as multiple news sources (like cnn) have been telling us over and over, English editors of wikipedia are dropping out at will, while foreign language editors are on the rise. I'm sure that continues to this day and it's why foreign language points of view are becoming more common and it's also why this has become a more international wikipedia then when I joined. But that's not really a viewpoint of mine, it's simply a fact. This is both good and bad imho (as nothing is black and white). It certainly makes us well rounded with many points of view... much better than any other language encyclopedia by far. That's always a good thing. However as the terminology of "consensus" has changed at wikipedia to now being mainly "whoever has the numbers should destroy the minority at all costs" that makes for problems in an Encyclopedia originally based on the English language. Suddenly the things taught in every UK/US/Canada/Australian school first become secondary to other language idiosyncrasies, and then are censored altogether if enough editors think something should be eliminated. There's no in-between now. But as I said, there's nothing I can do about it... that's the way it is here now. My enthusiasm is dampened and I don't create articles like I used to. Anyway, that's where I come from. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is what talk pages are supposed to be for. If you see something that is written, try to understand the others' pov before complaining. If you aren't sure why I wrote something or the meaning... bring it here. Ask me. See if I can explain where I'm coming from to your satisfaction. I always at least try to explain myself when editors come here with queries. We may still not agree but we may understand each others motives. If not, AnI is always a last resort, but at least we tried and no one will wake up not knowing who this other editor is that is bringing action against you. I think I've only banned two editors in 8 years from ever using my talk page again, But that was severe and even with those I tried before doing so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]