Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:27, 25 February 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

Are you in TT warehouse?

You should go! Greetings. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I added "Archive box collapsible" since it automatically list archive links. If you don't want it, please feel free to delete it. -- Suntag ☼ 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I kinda like it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

There are a couple of reasons why calling an unregistered user's changes involving the official name of Burma "vandalism" is a little uncalled for. Cheers, Bigbluefish (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. There are so many actual "vandalisms" I have to fix that I should have simply used "error" or "corrected". Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sally Jaye

Hi! Thank you for the message you left. Actually I have to confess it wasn't until this morning that I looked at your contribs and realized this wasn't the typical fly-by-night fancruft. Thanks for not taking that the wrong way. May I suggest adding a {{Underconstruction}} tag and/or providing more context as to notability in the edit summaries. That's an immediate big STOP sign vis-a-vis deletion when patrolling new pages. And sorry for causing you to lose sleep :) Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

One learns something new every day. I had no idea that there even was an {{Underconstruction}} tag available for wiki and it does seem that it would have been a good choice to use it. I do also realize that a Sally Jaye article is sort of a borderline in music wiki-dom. I thought I would put up an article, tweak it a bit with references and talk, and then let the chips fall as they may with regards to those who administer WP:MUSIC protocol. It seemed good enough to me for an addition to wiki but maybe a majority would not agree and I understand that. I just want to give it a chance. Thanks again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Burma (Myanmar)

I've read some of the comments in the debate of its name and I do get the scale of the controversy so I am not going to push it for now, though I would prefer that there would be a guideline that would use the name above anywhere else in Misplaced Pages in reference to country so that there would be consistency in what to call it. (The name "Myanmar (Burma)" would not be preferable since the name "Myanmar" lost the debate so by default it also lost its precedence.)--23prootie (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is a good point... consistency in wikipedia. If there could be consensus throughout wikipedia that the term Burma(Myanmar) is going to be used whenever the country is mentioned then I could go for movement of this page to Burma(Myanmar) also. You'd still have the problem of not using the parentheses throughout this article as that would get cumbersome so Burma could be used within. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Conventional long name

I'm going to butt out of this discussion but I would leave it as 'Union of Myanmar' if I may make the suggestion. The common name in English is 'Burma', but the conventional long name does not follow the same logic as the common name and it is arguable that 'Union of Myanmar' is more accurate than 'Union of Burma'. Still, the degree to which you want to pursue this is your call. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... it's like I completely disagree with the opening line saying "officially Myanmar" but it's not worth the effort to argue the point. This one is poured out of the same mold. However I would say my choice is to let it change to Union of Myanmar not let it stay at Union of Myanmar. I think I may take your suggestion. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ladies #1 list

Hello Fyunck. No I'm not very competent about women (that is the least I can say) but for me your list is great because I will copy it in a private word document. Károly Mazák who made most of the pre WWI men rankings is truly competent about women too but unfortunately he doesn't write much in Misplaced Pages (as me for a while : you can note that I only see your message today that is 40 days after you wrote it and I don't know when I make my next really important edit in Misplaced Pages).

So sorry for not being able to help you

but thank you very much for the ladies article.Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Fyunck. I don't know how to upload an excel file. (pasted file saved)

Thanks! Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes about BRI-G (or GBR-G) and BRI-I (or GBR-I). Sometimes you have also BRI-A, A for Australasia. About women's rankings I indeed think there was none of them before the 1920's but I can be wrong. I can't answer you about Pastime. I just can say that Pastime or Lawn Tennis and Croquet classification of British players ranked almost exclusively players who toured in Great Britain (some European continental tournaments could be taken into account). Sorry for not giving you more accurate info. Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Editor

I was doing this to be better suited to display on all browsers, which the Australian Open already had a color scheme going on before I did it to all the others. The reason I did this blue for US is because that is the color associated with the tournament. I did Red for French and Green for Wimbledon. This will make it distinctive, so you know what page you are on! TennisAuthority 22:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't really like it and I put up a discussion on the wiki tennis project page. Unless the color scheme is white or almost an off-white it looks unprofessional. I think other than the yellow on the one championship (which is way too bright) it makes the articles harder to read. The centering also looks weird. If the Australian open was the only one with a color scheme then maybe it is the only one that should be changed back to white? the French championship charts were especially hard on the eyes. Then again the French charts also need a re-write to get rid of the world hardcourt results since they do not belong there at all... but that will have to wait till I get back from a weeks vacation. I just wish you would discuss it in the talk page of the articles before making such a visible change. I only changed some of them back before I realized that you had done it to all the articles so I then put it up for discussion on the project page. Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You Won, It's DONE! I am OUT! TennisAuthority 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

please don't say I won, I wasn't in it for winning I just didn't like the look. If everyone agreed that your version looked better I would have had to say my eyes were in the wrong. I'm usually pretty conservative so less is best is what I gravitate towards. No bells and whistles for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

File:Burma Coat of Arms.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Burma Coat of Arms.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gump Stump (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really fond of my hand-drawn image at all. BUT from what I have seen and read, the image it was replaced with is copyrighted and may one day incur the wrath of the owner. I sure hope not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Global Warming talk

Hi Fyunck,
You're welcome - although I suspect my response (see here) may not very much please you. Whilst I'd love to agree with everybody(!), I simply have to agree that the post which was deleted was inappropriate (talk-pages do have guidelines which restrict certain types of comment). I hope you're not too disappointed with my response, but would remind you there's always other forms of dispute resolution if you want to take things further.
Kindest Regards, Muzhogg (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's ok.... I wouldn't have asked for a neutral 3rd party looksee if I was sure of myself, it would have been straight to a moderator. I would bet that 95% of those posts do not get purged from a talk page but with a very protective group of editors it seemed (and still does seem) a bit harsh to remove it. I like to read everyone's viewpoints on what should go and what should stay in an article but I will not pursue it as it's not even my fight. I just wanted to make sure someone wasn't getting pushed around too much on wiki. Thanks again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are too late - the cartel dominating all aspects of Global Warming is so firmly in control that they have already pushed all opposing views (and many good editors) out of Misplaced Pages. I have seen it happen over the years and can show you the evidence if you wish. The end result is that even the article on "Global Warming Controversy" or "Scientists opposed to Global Warming" are now written to discredit all opposing views. Nothing can be done about it, I've tried and any minute change is immediately deleted, reverted and the editor concerned is hounded and blocked. Regrettably this has brought Misplaced Pages into disrepute and the Global Warming articles are now simply pro-AGW propaganda. ~ Rameses (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your desire that everybody should get a fair opportunity to contribute is very commendable - well done! And thanks for bringing the issue to our attention. Feel free to drop me a line if I can ever be of assistance around the place, All the best, -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing Charts Again!

You know what I am talking about!TennisAuthority 11:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well shoot. Someone has now removed it. What I did was take your reverse chart and replaced the main page chart with it. That's the way it was originally, with newest on top. You're right, the sorting won't work with it but since they eliminated the reverse it's the only option. I'll keep an eye on it and go to mediation if necessary. I hope not though. My goodness you put in the time making new things around here. I know I don't always agree but I really applaud the effort. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rod Laver 001.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rod Laver 001.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 GFDL 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages: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 uploaded by following this link. 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. TheGrappler (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I pulled it from the Australian History Society page. On the page that has the image it says "The images used on this page are free for public use; these are in the public domain or copyright has expired." I have now added this info to the photo. Thanks for the heads up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists

I've got no problems with your changes, but I have just switched to a different grey for the "No competition" color. I've left a comment on the FLC review anyway. On a side note, I saw you uploaded the (very useful) Rod Laver picture. Do you know where we could find one for Roy Emerson ? He's got 11 GS, and a record 6 Australian Championships/Open wins, we ought to have a good pic of him somewhere. Cheers, --Don Lope (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said maybe others want very bright and colorful so if there is a consensus that your colors are preferred I can live with it. Content, accuracy and orderliness are more important. As far as Emerson I'll do some searching. It was hard to find a public domain pic of Laver (and then colorize it myself) so Emerson may be harder. I'll try. Thanks and good luck in getting some of the tennis pages as FA status. The US Open is right around the corner so it maybe should be the main priority since it will get plenty of hits come September. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you just give me your opinion on the pink/red color used in the List of French Open Men's Singles champions. Since I've used your lighter colors in the Wimbledon, US and Australian Open lists, we might as well do the same thing on the French Open page. --Don Lope (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I just did so. In the Wimbledon page I kept the same color and dropped the saturation down to about 1/4 of your amount. Here I again kept your same color but only turned down the saturation about 1/2. It looked a little too faded at 1/4 for this sandy color. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's great. Thanks, and feel free to mention any other problem you could have with the lists. Cheers ! --Don Lope (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Navratilova?

I believe these links makes it pretty clear that below her on 1978 and 1979 it says USA, which it comes from Wimbledon themsleves, and don't you think Wimbledon knows their own records? http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/ladiesroll.html and http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/ladiesroll.html TW-RF (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey I agree. I thought that since she was not a Czech citizen (lost it in 75) and she was playing in the US under US Tennis guidance, she should have a US flag. I wasn't going to argue the point if most people disagreed with me since I have other items I'm arguing about in other topics. But with wimbledon having her as a US player that gives you a verified source that I concur with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Open proxy editors

Hey Fyunck, thanks for your note. I'm pretty sure that IP is an open proxy so I've listed it here for it to be properly checked. If it is proven then it'll be blocked, probably for at least a year. If you come across this type of thing again, Google the IP address and you should see a number of hits on Proxies - if so, list it at the open proxies project. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, and having discussed the matter privately with a couple of 'crats and Arbcom members, and as a result of some investigations (including direct contact with him) we are pretty sure that this isn't Tennis expert. I think you would be right if it were him, as the right to vanish does not equate to the right to re-appear under a different guise. It may be worth talking it over with User:John Vandenberg if you still have serious concerns.

Thanks... I'll just see how it goes for awhile. You guys give enough of your time to these things and to keep checking on something that at best will probably wind up as a technical "maybe" probably isn't worth it. Personally though, with how Chidel has acted towards me since he first appeared...I'd lay money on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know what to do with User:Chidel anymore. I've put a lot of hard work/time/good will into improving those Grand Slam lists to bring them to FL and I'm getting really, really, really, really (yeah, really) tired of having to face such aggressivity from that particular user. For me, his behaviour is taking all the fun from editing here and working in collaboration to improve articles. --Don Lope (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, could you give me your opinion on one of the issues raised by Chidel in the Wimbledon FLC ? Is "The All Comers' winner was automatically awarded the title six times in the absence of the defending champion." using "defending champion" in an ambiguous way ? --Don Lope (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's ambiguous at all since I see "defending champion" used in that manner a great deal, but the way it is written now as "previous year's champion" might actually be better. Why the doubling up on champions color chart? Do we need both a color and ‡◊† symbols? I always try to make do with less but maybe you included both for those colorblind readers? Good Luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the reviewers, User:Chrishomingtang, had asked to have both colors and symbols, probably for colorblind readers. Thanks for your answer, I'll go for "previous year's champion" then. Cheers ! --Don Lope (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Last thing and I won't bother you again: What do you think of the fourth point on FLC ? Should we have two sentences or only one ? I'm not entirely seduced by Chidel's proposition, but I'm not against it either so should you think it's better I'll go for that. --Don Lope (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You can bother me all you want, you have always been civil even if we disagree on issues. I'd go with two sentences but since I liked the "advantage" link I might have written it thusly: "All sets were decided in the advantage format, a two games difference, from 1884 to 1970. The "lingering death" best-of-twelve-points tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-games-all until 1978 and at six-games-all since 1979." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that option. I'll switch the article to "All sets were decided in the advantage format from 1884 to 1970. The "lingering death" best-of-twelve-points tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-games-all until 1978 and at six-games-all since 1979." – I think we can spare "a two games difference" in that sentence, since the system is already explained in the previous one, and also in the link. Thanks again for your answers, hopefully consensus will be reached with Chidel and the list will finally reach FL status. --Don Lope (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say that users being disruptive on open proxies can be acted against using semi-protection. Not an ideal solution perhaps, but a solution nonetheless. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions

Hello, I am going to moderate your dispute with Ryoung122 on this articles behalf. First of all, I need to know your opinion of this dispute.TennisAuthority 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First off it's both this and the women's page too... heck all the tennis slam pages. Second, I will be out of town till Sunday night with probably no internet access (withdrawal pain already setting in). I'll post my side before leaving tomorrow morn... probably in a couple hours. I assume here and not your talk page? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you look at the first paragraph I've listed 10 sources... the sources were pretty much endless but 10 seemed sufficient way back when I put it on the page. Almost every source you will find will not list the French Championship winners prior to 1925 as Slam/Major winners and this is because the French only opened up their event to members of certain French clubs. There were a couple English allowed to play because they were living in France and were members of these clubs. Originally whoever made these articles listed the pre-1925 names out of courtesy but they were grayed out and not numbered as slam winners... depending on which article you would look at. Heck, until me and few others fixed them, most wiki French Open articles (and still some to this day) didn't really list the French winners before 1925, they listed the world hardcourt champion (which was usually held in France) in the tables. people looking quickly would assume they were French Champions but they were not. I haven't had a chance to fix them all.

I really don't see any reason to change from the overwhelming majority of sources and include them here. Now for awhile we had them grayed out in the main chart. I feel that's lying to wiki readers but I have agreed to put it back grayed out. What was happening more and more often was readers saw those names and started numbering them. There are many other charts in this article, and others, that use numbering: Most slams won, consecutive slams, most times in a final, etc... and readers were changing those totals also. I seemed to be the only one fixing it. Mr Ryoung never fixed any of them that I can recall. Then when I was gone for a week or so there was a vote to switch the order of the main chart and since I had to fix the sorting ability of the reverse ordering anyways it seemed a good time to dump the problem area so as not to entice newbie trouble.

To be fair, Mr Ryoung has one good point. The very first "mens" tournies of both the US Championship and Wimbledon were not open to foreigners. Every source I have been able to find always lists 1877 Wimbledon and 1881 US Championships as legitimate slam titles. I have no answer for this. Maybe because they were inaugural events sources let a single year slide. The French however was blocked for 33 years, deep into the heart of Tennis as a major sport. That may resonate with scholars and historians much much more. I simply don't know why. One thing though... this only applies to the men's article. All the ladies Majors were open as far as I can tell except the French. A mediator already said that Suzanne Lenglen won 8 singles titles, not 12 titles, in the tennis statistics article.

Now the other day I backed down and put in separate charts for the pre-1925 french winners on these slam winners pages. Do I feel they belong there, no, but I wanted to get by this thing and move on. Some have asked about moving the first winners of the US and Wimbledon championships into a separate chart too and I guess that could be done. It would then show Richard Sears winning only 6 slams instead of 7, and when every news organization reports he won 7 we already know whats gonna happen around here every August-September. We'll have no sources to list those two events separately so it will be Original Research through and through.

So that's how I see this conflict of interest. The pre-1925 French Championship was not a Major just like if today's China Open becomes the 5th Major 20 years from now (there has been talk of this), players that have won it the past 20 years will not be considered to have won a Slam. They will simply be pre-slam China Open winners and will be listed only on the China open article, not in the slam winners articles. I hope this clarifies how I see things. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am user tennisauthority, I think what we have to do is list it like Don Lope did it in the FL content with highlighting and putting of symbols in the chart, and not having an independant non-slam chart like Ryoung122 says because they are in fact listed on many multiple sources incluse about.com, and rolandgarros.com. Go look at the slam champions for men!_BLuE 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In the navbox go look at the mens sections!_BLuE 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the following principles: You cannot use those two sources. Of course Rolandgarros.com would include ALL the French winners... they ARE the French Championship. And about.com 99% of the time uses wiki as its source. You mentioned two... what about the 100's of sources that will not include it? Rememeber, no one is arguing that they are not French champions... but the overwhelming number of sources say it is NOT a slam/major. Every chart in all the different wiki pages would have to be changed into what most everyone would call false information. Sorry but I really disagree on this one and I think the sources back me up completely. One other thing... you asked for both of us to add our opinion and that's great. However I added mine and I didn't see Ryoung122 add anything... yet you made an decision? It seems a bit unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you have to say about your own source in CBS French Men's champions! I am curious you disagree with this now and the ESPN source Ryoung122 cited...? Don Lope who even create the article on French Open Mens singles champions even included them, which will be a FL soon after the USOpen gets done? How come we don't take out all champions pre-open era under your same principle or yet even the challange round? I think you need to divulge all your sources because you can't say you've got sources and not produce them for verification to the wikipedia community of editors!_BLuE 04:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are arguing here. Are we arguing whether they are French champions or slam champions? They are most certainly French champions and Don Lope did a great job (which I helped with). Those names 100% should be in a French championship article. You mention that cbssports link. Lets talk about that. You posted the link to the french champions and, as they should, they listed all french winners. But take note on that same page and click on grand slam winners and you'll see that none of the french titles are included before 1925. They list plenty of early champions with 5+ titles but the pre-1925 titles are not counted as slams. And what about the 10 sources I listed in the opening paragraph? You'll also note that I included them. RYoung included no sources in any of his page updates, only in the talk sections. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey if this is the case, we should delete the pre-1911 US Open champions with the exception of 82-83, and Wimbledon pre-1921 champions with the exception of the first one. This would be fair and adequate response to deal with this because like your statement it was not a true slam or major like the others! I think if we are going to exclude the French like this we have to do the same with the inadequate tournament from the other two slams. The reason it is excluded from this list is because CBS is an American publication, and is biased in terms of considering slams! See we have to look at the country of orgination for our sources and take it with a grain of salt. This source contradicts the CBSSports one ESPN Slam Winners and French Champions. So, are we to include them in error of the other two slams or not?_BLuE 22:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why delete the the pre-1911 US Champs? and why delete the pre-1921 wimbledon? And you are incorrect... it does not contradict French Champions since those are French Champions... not slam winners. But this is good because that same site you sourced also has slam winners and it does NOT include the pre-1925 French in it's totals . You know we have agreed most of the time here on wiki and I know you've done great work. This particular time I guess we just disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We should put them back into the table though, but put an asterisk by each one and a blue or yellowish background and define it as French National Championships, and not included in the slams or slam totals! How about this?_BLuE 03:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not my first choice (to put them back in the tables) considering it's a "slam" article... but.... I can agree to that and will work on it in the next 24 hours. Thanks for helping. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, and I am glad you opened my eyes to that as well! Take your time if you don't have the time to get to it, which means take a couple days to a week! Thank you and have a nice day...today and tommorrow_BLuE 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I did you one better, and put an nbsp;* on them as well!_BLuE 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And I like it more. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, Good DAY._BLuE 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to get it behind me, the Ladies are done now too. To be consistent with the men's required a pain in the bu++ chart flip. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FL Wimbledon, US, French, Australian?

I think the title is quit deceiving in that it say List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and pre-1968 it was the U.S. National Championships. Go look on tennis history, and see how imperative and important the change was to the open era to professionals was, which Don Lope and others' fail to realize. I understand it has an addendum, but it is quite inadequate because Open in tennis mens a different championship than does National Championship. This pages must be broken apart into two articles Pre-Open and say List of US National Men's Singles champions, and the List of US Open Men's Singles champions. This is not like golf where we can have them all called PGA Champions, U.S. Open Champions, Masters Champions, or Open Champions because Tennis has eras, and I don't think by making such connotations in the wikitable of champions is adequate at all for an electronic encyclopedia. Further, why did the feel the importance in making a separate Navbox for the National and the Open Years and Champions? Because they are separate and deserve to be unlinked and if you would not put them all in an open navbox why list them in the same article. So, I am to believe we must make each the men's singles and doubles, women's singles and doubles, mixed doubles of Wimbledon, US, French, Australian, and I left off open and championships for a reason. Go look at list of Open Era Champions in the navbox for the reason this must be split and not included together! I think in Don Lope and everyone else's haste and immediacy to get these done they forget the implications of eras are to tennis because tennis is not golf and cannot compare eras, which Bud Collins and many tennis authorities say. This means we should not put them in the same articles comparing them in an encyclopedia. In tennis eras matter more than people and editors think. I was just gnawing on this concern for the fact why is it separate in one place like navboxes and not in the articles, and that is why I am advocating them to be split-up like so the navboxes! This will be work on my behalf, but I am more than willing to get this done to accurately represent tennis eras and history._BLuE 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess from others points of view putting them all together, since all the journalists do, makes sense. Everyone on tv and in the paper says Bill Tilden won 7 US titles and Roger Federer won 5 US Titles... all in the same sentence/breath. In actuality Bill won 7 US National Championships and Roger won 5 US Opens. Wimbledon has it easy since open or not it's still called Wimbledon. If I were to do it I would either make two articles or more likely I would change the title (which I never liked) to "US Open and US National Championships." But I have to pick and choose my battles lest I get whomped on and then see my blood pressure go through the ceiling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, but I will try and work it out with the naming of the article and splitting up the tables of champions in the articles._BLuETn 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Got them done!_BLuE 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions/archive1

Go here and comment on it or give it your support! Thanks...BLUE_DOG 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Fyunck(click)! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Martha Davis (author) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Improvements at Global Warming

I see you have views on improving the GW articles. I'm concerned that there is one way to keep these articles the same and many ways to make improvements, so there is considerable division of effort, every editor concentrating on something slightly different, and this severely hampers progress.

Some active editors are prepared to publicly express their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. If you would like to encourage this effort then please consider adding your name to the parts you think most important. I have added my support to one of your ideas (seen at this diff) but avoided compressing the actual meaning into my own words, I'd prefer you did that. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. When you say "Multiple articles on GW, AGW, CC, etc. with conflicting definitions of the terms. Since this happens also in the media and among peers, it should at least be standardized here to help new readers" do you mean that GW articles are fundamentally different from AGW so it needs to be much clearer which is which? Or that references to GW/CC generally mean AGW (except in a few defined other cases)? Or something slightly different again? I thought I knew which one you meant, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. You might need to adjust what I've said in the "change wanted" column. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For instance. "Global Warming" states right up front 'Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.' Now that's is fine as it goes. "Climate Change" stats right up front 'In recent usage climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming." Now what that says to me is that anthropogenic climate change is commonly known as global warming. Those intros do not mesh! If Climate Change is change over decades to millennium that's all it should say so as not to confuse readers (who are confused enough these days on the subject). If global warming is simply warming from the mid 20th century then that's all it should say in the header and leave anthropogenic gw in it's own article with it's own header. If you want to combine global warming and anthropogenic global warming into one (as it is now) then be darned sure that whenever the term Global warming is used it is used with the proper definition in mind. Most newspapers I read use global warming as agw... i.e. no difference. Many other articles in magazines differentiate. It makes a simple question like "what are your thoughts on global warming" very different depending on what definition the question asker has in mind. Heck merriam-webster.com and dictionary.org have two completely different definitions by typing in "global warming". So it's bad if two different dictionaries confuse people, it's really bad if two articles in the same encyclopedia confuse people. So non-skeptic or skeptic alike should at least agree on the exact definitions so that those involved can just hammer each other relentlessly on the content. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Nothing as drastic as separating the two, but need clarity. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Flags?

Why did you delete the country descriptor on this article List of US Open Women's Singles champions?BLUE_DOG 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time the main reason was twofold. One, having the country abbreviation is unneeded because a mouseover using flagicon gives you the full country name and the article in my opinion looks bad seeing those silly country abbreviations over and over and over. Second, I asked about discussing it on the slam pages on January 31 after I noticed someone changed one of them on a slam article. I didn't revert it, I asked about discussing it. On Feb 1st another one or two were changed so those I reverted until we could discuss what, in my opinion, was a detriment to the slam articles. That was my reasoning. Since that time I was answered in the talk pages that according to wiki policy the "best" way those flags should be used in FL articles is that the first flag of its kind must have the country abbreviation and all subsequent flags of the same type should "not." As an alternative wiki says in certain instances all the flags can have a country abbreviation. After thinking about it I thought the first flag only rule would be even worse than it is now so I removed my complaints. I still think it looks worse this way but it's better than the alternative. Unfortunately I forgot to revert this one back so I'm glad you caught it. I hope that explains where I was coming from on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would like you to look at these articles of the golf majors to see what User:Don Lope took it off of to do these articles, which seems like tennis should follow suit in that they are two similar sports.BLUE_DOG 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing this as I'm looking. At the main site rank and totals are sort of the same thing so I would have dumped the rank column. Tennis might not work as well with amateurs/pros and the fact that different tourney's were more important in different decades. The flags are a mess on the in that England and Scotland should be UK not separate countries. I still dislike tall flags listed with names or abbreviations but it's better than strict wiki policy of only naming the first flag and leaving the rest blank. The Masters page looks nice and clean. The US Open suffers from the same flag issues as the British Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Go look how the tournament states the country not how you would like it to be Example.BLUE_DOG 03:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not Vardon and Ray are wrong because it is suppose to be England, which I will change later.BLUE_DOG 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

According to #Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations that is incorrect usage of flags. In wikipedia there have been endless debates on what flag to use so I guess they want to keep it simple. On their passports those winners have UK as the residence... not Scotland. I can live with the flags but it is incorrect for wikipedia usage just like me wanting no country names was incorrect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On another note, go and take a look at this page that I worked on List of US Open Women's Singles champions.BLUE_DOG 03:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you do the Men's # column for the U.S. National Championships. Please!BLUE_DOG 03:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The us women's page look nice and clean.... just like an encyclopedic entry should look. I didn't check for content as much as look and feel. Nice job. I'll look at the US NC's tonight if I have some time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.... tedious stuff adding columns! Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be getting on the List of Australian Open Women's Singles champions tomorrow if you want to help or not, just go ahead and help out and dig into it, but if not I will get it done!BLUE_DOG 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I mess-up, they are suppose to carry over!BLUE_DOG 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I got this one done, which go and take a look at it List of Wimbledon Ladies' Singles champions, and I would like the # column in the open era for a carry over to be like it is on that one for the men's, which I corrected the US Open one that you did greatly. I will get on the French Open in a couple of days of a week to make them all uniform.BLUE_DOG 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, can you go do the Wimbledon Gents # when you get the time in the AM era.BLUE_DOG 00:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ok doky...I just did it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank YOU, I really appreciate it! We don't have much to go, just the French Pages, and we can do them later.BLUE_DOG 02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are not official champions, and are not recorded as part of the men's during that time period as well, which you need to read the introduction to see why that is the fact.BLUE_DOG 23:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see it in there but they should be included in the chart or separate chart in-between just as we have included pre-1925 winners of the French in the Grand Slam charts even though the event was not recognized as a slam in that time period. There's no other place to put the winners since a separate article would be a bit too cumbersome and unneeded. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't because even the french open does not even count them ], just look at the men's and women's singles, which they have gaps from the 1939 champ and the 1946 champ in both charts.BLUE_DOG 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Men played but of course the French Open itself would omit them.... it was a bad period in its history. Just like the fact the French Open includes the pre-1925 players as slam winners when they are not. They are simply French winners. But there are books that do include those winners as french champions. There are ladies doubles results too and it was not limited to French players only...Luxemburg and Switzerland, etc... also participated. That's more than was allowed pre-1925. And the 1945 tourney was played "after" the occupation. It really needs at least a chart by itself on this page but i would put it in the main chart with an asterisk and meaning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and do it, but I am not! If you were going to do it the denotes better be different than the pre-1925!BLUE_DOG 00:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed... I'll sleep on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is okay to put them in the table, but don't reword the introduction because they are never counted not usually, which is a big distinction. I corrected the introductionBLUE_DOG 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot, but wikipedia stuff must be verifiable and without a source that includes them, I will have to delete them, period WP:V.BLUE_DOG 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to sortname the Australian Open Women's Singles Open Era. If you want to you can do it or I will get to it sometime in a couple of weeks.BLUE_DOG 00:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Question?

Hello Fyunck(click), I know now why you faught so hard to include the 1941-1945 winners in the table, which is because of this , , and I would love to know your original source for putting this information onto wikipedia? I think you need to find a more reputable source such a a slam or a sports source like ESPN or Tennis Magazine in order to add them back. I don't even know if these results are even true? I need an explaination, please?BLUE_DOG 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you did not even provide a source to begin with, WHY did you do this?BLUE_DOG 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I like your other editing by the way, but this is one mistake!BLUE_DOG 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I originally added those scores when talking to tennis experts in a live forum. Several were tennis authors and historians. I simply added things back then to make the charts complete. The men's have a source at http://mcubed.net/tennis/m2champ.shtml but the women's are from a book whose title I will retrieve in the next few days. All those tournies were played and the scores accurate. They actually split the French Championship into two sections (north and south France) to keep travel down during the war and then had the championship at Roland Garros. French player Simone Mathieu actually was sentenced to death by the Nazi's but escaped to England. I'll find the source and re-add it back later. You'll notice in the women's link you supplied that the pre-1925 French champions aren't even the French champions.... I had to correct that as well. So it's not a mistake... saying there was no tournament is a mistake. I just need to dig up the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If we site them we will be going against the slam website, and many others', which means wikipedia would be lying, and I am taking this conversation to WP:Tennis, so we can develop consensus for these two pages!BLUE_DOG 01:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would we be going against the slam website? We made it clear that they are not counted as slams and that 1941-1944 were under German occupation...in 1945 France was Free. That's why we listed them in a different color. The Roland Garros website is not the ultimate authority in everything French Open... most of the stuff written in wiki on the French Open come from a multitude of sources. I'll make sure I have the source(s) when I add it back in maybe a completely different chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, and if you do not think so you are not going by the most reputable source on the subject and the mcubed source you are taking of the roland garros one is quite inadequate at best. It needs to be substantiated by another more reputable source. It is like you are saying the slams cannot decide the nationality of a player competing in a tournament like with Navratilova or Kriek. So the AELTC and Wimbledon websites are not the ultimate authority on their champions, the USTA and USOpen are not the ultimate authority on their champions, the TennisAustralia and the AustralianOpen are not the ultimate authority on their champions is rather absurd, which is in fact what you are saying when it comes to French Tennis Federationa and RolandGarros(French Open).02:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agreed that I want more sources also. I disagree on you thinking the Roland Garros site is omniscient on the subject. They also say the pre1925 winners are slam winners when no one else does. They cannot be considered objective when it comes to their own tourny. I'm sure they think their the best Major around... that doesn't make it true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Then, I guess by you own measure, we have to double count Navratilova wins for both the USA and Czechoslovakia on all the slam pages since they are not omniscient on the subjects? This does not hold water like your's on the winners does not hold water and the best major is just a rhetorical flourish. Pre-1925 their is multiple sources which calls it into dispute, which is WP:V.BLUE_DOG 03:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Com'n, I didn't say they were always wrong, I said we use multiple sources for these things because they are not always right. I think you know how I feel about Martina...she should be USA flagged. While we usually agree this just happens to be one of those times we don't. Heck...CBS can't agree with themselves on the subject. :-)Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Find me verifiable sources on everyting from champions to runners-up, and scores, and I will go include them into the men's and women's charts. But I will be putting major stipulations on them to keep them forever out of the statistics sections on these two articles, which by the way on all your sources except the mcubed source the women's is considered Not Held, which is what I was refering to! If you cannot verify the info we will only put the information you get by two sources besides the mcubed source.BLUE_DOG 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The men's I've shown several sources for you. I read it again just today in the latest NY Times Almanac that you can find at every bookstore. It's the ladies that are tougher and I'm in the process of digging through. You had me convinced that maybe a separate chart would be better so no one even thinks about adding them to some statistics later on. I wanted to do the same with the slam charts but got turned down on that, but maybe it would work here? We absolutely don't want it ostentatious...just a minor little chart. But if you think the main chart is now a better choice I'll go with whatever you want. I'll work on the ladies sources over the week. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Go look here List of French Open Men's Singles champions to see what I did! Tell me if you like it!BLUE_DOG 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry for the hard conversation that we had to have, but I guess we had to have it to get to the bottom of the problem.BLUE_DOG 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard conversations are good and are the backbone of wiki imho. As long as it's civil and stays away from sarcasm I'm always good with it. I like the grey since it makes it look unofficial and I also like your wording. I probably would have used the † or double †† symbol as opposed to the # sign since it looks more encyclopedia-like but I might have gone a little further to distinguish the "unofficial" nature of the winners by dropping the font size by one and italicizing also, just to make sure no one mistakes them as official. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another minor source with the womens and mens winners but no scores or losers bracket:]. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will fix the women's, or you can, after you approve of what I have done on the men's, which I fixed the symbols, and made them more encyclopedic. I just used # because I did not know of any others to choose from.BLUE_DOG 23:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the woman's article, but only with the champions names only not the runner's-up or the scores because you've not provided me with a source for that information. If you do provide me with a source, then I will include that in this article, and on the men's article, too. I think it would look much better if you are able to find me a source for that, but if you cannot it will still be okay.BLUE_DOG 02:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I took and transcluded this conversation on the Tennis Talk project page.BLUE_DOG 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

# Column, and Country Descriptor

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that me and Rambo's Revenge came to the conclusion to delete the # Columns because it was historically inaccurate to have them in the articles. Furthermore, we came to the conclusion that the USA tag descriptor after the flag is to be kept for users with visual problems. Just want to keep you abreast of the goings-on.BLUE_DOG 02:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that earlier. It was explained to me about the USA tag. I still think it looks worse but it's wiki policy to keep it so I give in. I still like the # column you made better than leaving it out... historically doesn't mean bumpkis to me if the article is better for it. However you made it and if you have agreed to remove it than I will abide by it also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

NWill made a mess for us that we are having to clean-up!BLUE_DOG 02:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1925 Wimbledon Article

Hello, tell me how you found the bracket i.e. instructions on how to get their, so I can see if I can't get others done! I will be working on the 1951 French Championship Men's in a week or so!BLUE_DOG 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1951 French Championships - Men's Singles

Bracket Source

Here it is if you want to work on it before I get to it.

Oh my goodness was it a lot of work! I didn't know if the original makers had some template made or not but I didn't. I simply took the coding from the bracket year before and replaced it with all the proper stuff from 1925. Lots of erasing and figuring out just how the coding worked. You'll note I only did the 1925 bracket because after doing it I really don't want to do anymore of those.... to much tedious effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not complaining about my time, but I just want to know the steps you used on the ITF website in order to obtain these drawsheets or brackets. So, I can work on them, when I get time to get to them.BLUE_DOG 06:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah now I understand. That's right, the itf website recently took those draws down and they had them listed for a long time. That's the place the info was located. I copied down several of them a year or so ago from the itf like everyone else did with the intention of adding them to wikipedia, but 1925 simply got put off till the other day. I'm not sure where to find them listed anymore and I wonder if wimbledon made them take the draws down? I'm glad we got most of them when we had the chance and I'll search for another site that has them now. Our wiki site at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject tennis/Grand Slam Project lists many links but most have been taken down except for 1967 onwards. As it says the best place to find the womens draws is at tennis forum... a sensational wealth of info can be found there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer career statistics

Go and look at the page on the bottom, and tell me if you think it is OVERKILL!BLUE_DOG 00:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL... I do think it makes the page way to long but I also recognize that some people may want those stats. I would have made a bar on the page bottom with the option to open it if you want that detailed info. The coding was actually so long that when I went to see it it crashed my browser window. And also if someone wants to edit something small on that page since all your coding is there it may crash their browsers as well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive3

I am working on the nomination of this article, just to let you know!BLUE_DOG 06:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn/Roger Federer in 2009

What do you think about this article, and the intro for 2009 on the main page will be the first paragraph of this article?BLUE_DOG 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thorough but overall it looks really good. It looks clean, it reads well, and appears to have the proper balance that gives it a encyclopedic feel. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rambo Discussion

Hello, go read my latest comment on their!BLUE_DOG 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer

This article is pretty much under control, so if anyone wants to undertake it they could probably make it into a FA now, with not much work involved!BLUE_DOG 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer GA Drive

Hello, Here is the one on Juan Martin del Potro that was approved to GA, and here is the link, if you want to help me or not! Because, I have it set-up on the Federer talk page.BLUE_DOG00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk)

I'm actually a little surprised it got a GA rating since it's almost 3x bigger than the wiki size standard limit of 32k. It looks good though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change exaggeration

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate change exaggeration, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)