User talk:Tennisedu

Welcome!

Hello, Tennisedu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with facts and sourcing

Adding new stuff to tennis articles is great. Many of these articles need more info. But they must be properly sourced, and when the US Pro and Cleveland Pro are one and the same thing 90% of the time you can't treat them as two different events when totaling wins. Be careful and all will be well. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tennisedu (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Fyunck, the history of the purported U.S. Pro in the 1950's is worthy of a novel. The only official approved U.S. Pro events sanctioned by the USPLTA were the 1950 Cleveland U.S. Pro and the 1954 L.A. U.S. Pro at the L.A. Tennis Club.[reply]

The Cleveland events from 1951, 1952, and 1953 were billed as the International Pro, and from 1954 to 1964 as the World Pro. I have not seen any contemporary accounts in the Cleveland press referring to them as the U.S. Pro, although outstanding researchers have been hunting intensively for them recently.

We have press accounts referring to L.A. 1954 as the official U.S. Pro, approved by the USPLTA and awarding the Benrus Cup, which was emblematic of the U.S. Pro. I have not changed the total of Gonzales' U.S. Pro wins from 8 because Gonzales himself apparently claimed 8, he referred to the Cleveland event as the "National Pro", not U.S. Pro. And tennis histories from about the mid-1960's have claimed 8 for him, but with inconsistent approaches to the Cleveland event. I could add some newspaper details to source these comments, perhaps that would strengthen these remarks. I have already given sources for newspaper accounts for the L.A. event.Tennisedu (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, Tennisedu, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See user User:Krosero. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry claim withdrawn moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate signatures

As mentioned previously do not use duplicate signatures to sign your posts on an article talk page such as Talk:Pancho Gonzales‎. Only a single signature should be used at the end of the post.--Wolbo (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing US Pro to Cleveland International

Please do not do some mass change of US Pro into Cleveland World pro or International events at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. This was heavily discussed (with you) previously. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Fyunck. We will go with the published history accounts, like them or not.Tennisedu (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Username in edit summary

Hello. You don't need to include your username in your edit summaries. The system automatically displays the username separately in the page history entries, as seen here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try doing that.Tennisedu (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1954 L.A. Times article

Hi, on the Pancho Gonzales article you added a reference to the L.A. Times article, 14 June 1954, p.4 as a source for the claim that "Segura (was) regarded as defending champion from 1951". Can you point me to the lcoation or sentences in the article where this is mentioned? --Wolbo (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was right the first time, there was nothing wrong with my initial citation, despite the protests...May 11 1954 L.A. Times, p.58 "Segura is the defending champion, having won the singles crown in 1951 when the tourney was last held."Tennisedu (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this same report from May 11, 1954, the "tourney" was identified as the U.S. Pro, "Kramer announced yesterday that he will move the national pro net tournament from its traditional site at Forest Hills" , "L.A. will go major league in professional tennis next month when the United States pro net championships will be decided on center court of the L.A. Tennis Club June 7-13."Tennisedu (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually May 11, 1954. Have corrected it above.Tennisedu (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lew Hoad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kooyong. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lew Hoad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forest Hills.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop removing valid sources from pages. This is vandalism. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hi Tennisedu! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at World number 1 ranked male tennis players that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Wolbo (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to World number 1 ranked male tennis players. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Wolbo (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolbo, the description of the USPLTA does not correspond to the organization. There is a confusion here with the PPAT, an entirely unrelated organization of touring pros, not teaching pros, which is basis for the USPLTA. I do not understand your reversing the edit here.Tennisedu (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In captions, use full names of people other than the subject.

I looked at at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and can find nothing about not using full names. It does get a little more specific with infobox images but even there it is talking about the article subject, not others in the photo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wembley Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tournament of Champions.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Lew Hoad page

On 11 October 2020, you wrote on the Lew Hoad talk page: "I am agreed that there is now enough information in this article, unless someone finds that some of it is wrong. I was thinking about minor edits such as spelling errors, or use of language which is not neutral (such as "destroyed", "outclassed", "victimized", instead of simply "defeated"). Otherwise I am satisfied with the current amount of information."

You and I had an agreement that we would not continue to edit this page. I am sorry that your word means so little to you. This page was a battleground due to your disruptive editing, but we had reached a point of compromise on this page in October. I am sorry that you have gone against your word and have resumed causing trouble on that page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the wording you have reproduced above, Tennishistory1877. I stated that I was satisfied with the amount of information, not that any further edits were not needed. Especially if factual corrections were necessary. Other editors did not agree with this, and they opened the article up to more information. Don't try to blame me for that. And please stop WIKIHOUNDING. Find out what WIKIHOUNDING is. And stop making personal attacks here. Confine yourself to content only. Thank you.Tennisedu (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you have gone against you word after I have wasted considerable time and effort to establish a compromise on the Lew Hoad page with you, I will now remove your edits on the Hoad page without reason if I feel they do not benefit the page. "The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Tennishistory1877 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out to you that editing was not ruled out by our agreement. You are now Wikihounding beyond reason. Tennisedu (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a long time when you and I battled each other on the Hoad page (and other editors battled you also), you and I reached a compromise on that page. I have left that page alone for months, but you have not only corrected minor errors, but you are also now adding material. This goes against what you agreed "I am agreed that there is now enough information in this article, unless someone finds that some of it is wrong", you said. Talk pages are there to establish consensus and resolve disputes. If you go against your own agreements made on talk pages, then there is nothing more to discuss with you. And be my guest and pursue your false claim of wikihounding by all means, because the bullying policy which mentions wikihounding states:

"What bullying is not A few things are often falsely identified as bullying:

A robust response to determined attempts to insert disputed content into an article. Taking actions against attempts to promote a POV. Sanctioning editors who do not take on board criticism. Sanctioning editors who will not accept consensus. If you complain of bullying, admins will look at your own edits and check to see that you have not been engaging in tendentious editing or stonewalling debate." Tennishistory1877 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, check the section on WIKIHOUNDING, which means following another editor to make counter-edits. Again, please stop from making personal attacks, confine yourself to content only. This is a good time for you to cease making entries on this page. Thank you.Tennisedu (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your repetition of the accusation of wikihounding is hot air. If you really believe I am wikihounding you, then you should pursue this. If you did pursue it, your long history of disruptive editing, point of view pushing, going against consensus and persistent violations of the bullying policy would be seen for what they are. How is your collection of straw men these days? You must have made enough scarecrows to supply props for an entire series of Worzel Gummidge by now! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently continuing with your WIKIHOUNDING behavior. Please avoid any personal attacks and confine yourself to content only. Thank you.Tennisedu (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably a nice enough human being away from the internet. The reason you repeatedly clash with other editors on wikipedia is that your editing is driven by your sick obsession with Lew Hoad. In some ways I pity you. It seems you are prepared to sacrifice your word to feed your obsession. That's very sad. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennishistory, you have been asked to not post on this page. This issue is not worth you getting upset. Try to enjoy the day. Thank you.Tennisedu (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not upset. I am merely tired of dealing with your relentless obsession. I have tried to persuade you to behave like a reasonable human being, but whenever the words Lew and Hoad are mentioned you behaving reasonably ceases. This is my last word on this, but my posts here and on the Hoad talk page show that I tried to get you to explain your actions and I tried to resolve the current editing war. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed the issue, that you believe I committed to not editing this page...that did not happen. Tennisedu (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Your recent editing history at Lew Hoad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

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

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wolbo (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor dispute must stop

This cannot keep going on. I've kept away for a bit in hopes things would dissipate in the Tennisedu/Tennishistory1877 disputes, but they have not. If I bring this ongoing multi-article dispute to administrative disputes (ANI) I can see a couple of possible outcomes. Maybe nothing would happen (unlikely). Maybe only something would happen to one of you (unlikely). Maybe two of you would both get blocked for a couple weeks (somewhat likely). Maybe you two would get a year-long interaction ban where you cannot revert, respond, or interact with each other in any way for a year (likely). Or maybe you both would wind up "topic banned" for a year from all tennis articles that deal with a time period from 1945 to 1967. No players that played in that time period or no article sections that deal with that time period could be edited (highly likely). I would bring up and lay out the dispute before the administrators but would have no say in any actions taken. You both would be able to respond of course at the ANI, but it's a roll of the dice as to what administrators decide. I have not done this because I'm slow on the trigger with these things... I hate to do it because it usually doesn't end well and Tennis Project potentially loses (for awhile) one or two great knowledgeable editors. But over the last year it's gone over the top imho. Please rein yourselves in before someone official takes a good hard look at the disruption that has gone on for far too long. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck, I am not a fan of disruptive editing, and the process involved in the Hoad article was a removal of vast amounts of material without consensus. I was agreeable to removing much of that material, but there are still a couple of outstanding disagreements about content, which had been there on a longstanding basis and was of significance to the article. Those two edits remain unresolved. That is why I asked for dispute resolution. I hope that I have made that clear. We still have an unresolved question, as is clear from the last remarks on the Talk page for the article. I have not tried to reverse the edit on these two statements, but rather to get a formal resolution process going.Tennisedu (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what I'm hearing from both of you is "I'm the good guy, and the other is the bad guy." That may have worked at one time in the distant past, but now I just want the editing and editing reversals stopped. It's gone far beyond a simple content dispute and I'm tired of seeing my morning watchlist filled with back and forth edits on the same batch of articles. Our readers deserve better from an encyclopedia that "summarizes" the highlights of a tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has reached a point where there is a continuous challenge to my edits, a continuous invitation to an edit war. This has got to stop. Just today another challenge to my edits, I have not done anything to challenge anyone else's edit...so why is this continuing today? There appears to be no end to it. How do we end it? I would like to know. Perhaps a report of edit warring is justified. At the very least, page protection for the Hoad article.Tennisedu (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page lock on the Hoad page (as suggested by tennisedu) is something I would be very much in favour of. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect marking of edits as minor

Several of your recent edits on the Frank Kovacs article have been incorrectly and misleadingly marked as minor. As mentioned before, see my message from 21 December 2020, a "minor edit" has a very specific definition and refers ONLY to superficial edits that could NEVER be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is NOT a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please make sure you comply with this. See Help:Minor edit for more information. --Wolbo (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolbo, most of these "m" changes regarded spaces, commas, which I assume are minor. Changing the title of the PPAT to PTPA is something which was insisted upon by Tennishistory1877, I was simply bringing the occurrences of this title into consistency, doing Tennishistory1877's work for him. I did not initiate this change, so please stop blaming me for something done by another editor. Thank you.Tennisedu (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my job to correct all of your errors, tennisedu. I "insisted" on PTPA because that is what the source said. If you put citations on your edits and correctly reported what the sources said, there would be no need for me to be involved at all. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please ensure you add citations to statements you put on to wikipedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we insist upon citations for every ranking here, many rankings will be eliminated.Tennisedu (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All rankings should be sourced. A lot on the rankings page are duplicate sources which are already listed in other years (Wallis Myers, McCauley, Bowers). I have listed sources for the rankings I put on there. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

use your sandbox

When fixing an entire article you should do it in your sandbox so we can review it before implementation. Otherwise you leave huge errors until it's fixed. If you don't know how I can move it for you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the Sandbox, will check it out.Tennisedu (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click) I don't think doing this in a sandbox is the way to go. It's way too long and messy of an article and when the article is "ready" will be another needless point of contention. We can just use put Template:Work in progress on the section while we work on the changes. Sod25 (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is the best way to do it. Otherwise it might be under construction for a month. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it might be, and given the huge issues we've recognized, it will still be better for our readers if we work on it in mainspace. Tennisedu's changes so far weren's even that "messy" anyway. Sod25 (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens now? Do we restore those edits which I made yesterday?Tennisedu (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

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

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wolbo (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're continued violations of WP:NPOV on the Lew Hoad, such as this edit, are disruptive and need to stop.--Wolbo (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolbo, apart from the edit which you have just reverted, which edits are you referring to?Tennisedu (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

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

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave supporting citations for the edits, so I think that what we have here is a disagreement over understanding. Please discuss your objections. You appear to be in conflict with the citations. You should start by discussing the issue on the Talk section for this article.Tennisedu (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well that sham amateurism is not the same as professionalism. The source does not say what you said it did. Stop this now! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, the term "sham amateurism" does not appear in the sources which I have seen, and certainly not in the contemporary statements of Emerson or other players. If you believe that "sham amateurism" is a commonly recognized technical term, support your claim with some references to the contemporary discussion. Use the Talk section for the Krishnan article, where I have set up a new section.Tennisedu (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very low behaviour, even by your standards. The term "shamateurism", which is an amalgamation of sham and amateurism is listed in the Glossary of tennis terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_tennis_terms You know full well that wikipedia does not list shamamateurs as professionals. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STOP posting here. If you wish to discuss the matter go to the Talk section of the Krishnan article.Tennisedu (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures regarding disagreements

I am an administrator who offered an opinion regarding tennis articles at a noticeboard. As a result, an editor made certain claims on my talk page. Please see User talk:Johnuniq#Tennis edits where you are mentioned. I have no idea who is right and who is wrong, but the advice at Editor dispute must stop above is correct. There is no need for you to respond at my talk. All that is needed is to be aware that I have been asked to have a look at an unsustainable situation and you should read my response. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Letcord (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letcord, your alleged "incidents" appear to be long ago resolved, and the many recent edits which I made on the tennis players bios, including the Hoad page, have not been challenged. What exactly is your problem?Tennisedu (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

I see that you made quite a few edits to Battle of Kapyong. I reviewed a few of the edits, some of which were innocuous, some of which were questionable, some of which appeared to be improvements but were not accompanied by reliable sources, something that ought to be standard when editing a good article.

However, I came to view this article because it popped up in our copyright tool. The biggest single edit in your sequence of edits was a straight copy and paste from the Canadian encyclopedia which is a violation of policy. You obviously have some experience, so please let's have a discussion disagree with my assessment. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will modify the edits to avoid the copyright problem. and provide more reliable sources. Would that correct the problem?Tennisedu (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Canadian Encyclopedia has been used as a source for a number of Wikipedia articles, it seems to have acquired status of reliability. Do you have an objection referring to the Kapyong article in Canadian Encyclopedia?Tennisedu (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a diversity of opinions in the sources as to the facts of the battle, then we should be mentioning that diversity and not deciding for ourselves which facts should be excluded. That would constitute original work and is outside the scope of editing for our concerns. Personal judgment constitutes original work.Tennisedu (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article, like many military articles, contains speculative statements and "what if" musings. Such material is not relevant to the article, which should be grounded on actual events and developments. The article should not be sidetracked on speculations about what might have occurred if something had happened. That is well beyond the scope of the editing boundaries.Tennisedu (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Your edit to Tommy Prince has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henri Rochon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brendan Macken.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clark Graebner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Lutz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alan Mills (tennis), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bobby Wilson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hal Surface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Hare.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cliff Sutter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenbrier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Clay Court Championships, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frank Parker, Frank Bowden and Robert Bédard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kovacs edits

In May 2022 myself and other editors brought your editing to the administrators noticeboard. Rather than proceed further, I proposed that you should not edit the following pages (in return, I agreed not to edit the pages too). These were the pages: Mal Anderson, Butch Buchholz, Don Budge, Ashley Cooper (tennis), Roy Emerson, Neale Fraser, Andrés Gimeno, Pancho Gonzales, Lew Hoad, Frank Kovacs, Jack Kramer, Ramanathan Krishnan, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Hans Nusslein, Alex Olmedo, Fred Perry, Bobby Riggs, Ken Rosewall, Manuel Santana, Frank Sedgman, Pancho Segura, Bill Tilden, Tony Trabert, Ellsworth Vines, World number 1 ranked male tennis players, Top ten ranked male tennis players (1912–1972), Top ten ranked male tennis players, Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era, Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series, Tournament of Champions (tennis), Australian Pro, Wembley Championships, French Pro Championship and U.S. Pro Tennis Championships. You replied with the following "I think that we may have reached a resolution above. I do not see a need for further editing of the articles mentioned by Tennishistory1877. I am willing to not edit these articles further." After that I left wikipedia and did not edit at all for over a year. You continued editing and for a while you honoured the agreement. Unfortunately this did not last.

We are now in August 2023 and in the past few days you have added an unsourced piece of bloat onto Kovacs' page, which I removed, then you attempted to re-add it with a source of a wikipedia mirror, which an administrator removed. Then you are adding more bloat and arguing on the talk page. It is no coincidence that for a time you edited fairly uncontroversially expanding pages of lower ranked players (there are still many players with very little information that would benefit from expansion). Then you are back editing Kovacs (a page you agreed not to edit) and there are problems. This is because the relevant things about Kovacs have already been said. Filling the Kovacs page with more bloat is not constructive editing (it just means less people end up reading the page because they havent got time to wade through all the nonsense) and it also goes against our agreement. If you continue to cause disruption, I may consider returning to the admin noticeboard. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, agree to leave the Kovacs page and the others listed above.Tennisedu (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Jacques Hétu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ronald Turini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Munch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Tennisedu!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennis male players statistics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ashley Cooper and Frank Parker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]