Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Stephane Huet - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by INeverCry. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Frederic Vitoux (tennis) → Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) – Two requests: (Request A) move to full spelling per consistent en.wp practice across 100,000s of articles, WP:FRMOS, WP:EN examples, WP:UE examples, WP:MOSBIO examples, WP:AT "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" with Frédéric Vitoux (writer). (Request B) removal of current duplication from lead first sentence per WP:OPENPARA examples [currently reads: Frédéric Vitoux (born Versailles, 30 October 1970) known professionally as Frederic Vitoux [dubious – discuss]"] per source Fédération française de tennis FFT website which shows Vitoux, a French citizen who has no dual nationality (played in 2 French Opens, appearing once at a US Open) is "professionally known" in France as Frédéric with French accents: "Frédéric Vitoux : Union nationale des joueurs professionnels de tennis (UNJPT)" where he is a coach and official. Per WT:TENNISNAMES RfC June 2012 and WP:BLP This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• comment - Let's at least not fabricate when we post these moves. Never played abroad is completely false: This guy has played on the continents of North America, Africa, Europe, South America, Asia and Indonesia. That's pretty "abroad" to me. Never played at the US Open... again another falsehood. One has only to look at the 1996 draw to see he not only played, he made it to round two. I have no problem in moving it away from English if that's the consensus these days, but the governing bodies of his sport (the reason he is listed here at all) and the English press, spell his name differently, and that must be noted in some way. I can tweak the wording to better fit the sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, please refrain from personal attacks. I clicked the footnote ref http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Vi/F/Frederic-Vitoux.aspx and read what was in the link. The link says "Qualified for the 1990 and '93 French Open, his only Grand Slam outings." There is no evidence in the footnoted link of any notable player activity abroad. If atpworldtour.com is unreliable about matches played then why is it even being used as a source? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see if one goes to the second tab and resets the year to 1996 http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Vi/F/Frederic-Vitoux.aspx?t=pa&y=1996&m=s&e=0# one can produce reference to a notable game in an English speaking country. I will amend RM to reflect this. The facing footnote still says however "Qualified for the 1990 and '93 French Open, his only Grand Slam outings." blame the website. Also the governing body of his sport in his country is Fédération française de tennis who do not have a ban on French names. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you've changed the lead sentence after the RM request to change the lead sentence. The request B stands, this "professionally known as" is the one that has been added to around 100x BLPs since last years RfC, so it makes sense to address that wording. All the best, nothing personal - would be requesting this if it was ["François Mitterrand.. also professionally known as Francois Mitterrand"] (the example used at WP:OPENPARA) it's the same principle. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support the RM, and the removal of the pedantic "professionally known as." If this person's name is Frédéric Vitoux, we have no business representing it otherwise. Just because the ITF or whoever doesn't use diacritics doesn't mean he has a "professional name" that just happens to be the same as his real name without diacritics. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support and agree with BDD. If we must list the name w/o diacritics, something like "listed by the ITF as..." would make more sense; but it's transparent enough to be worth omitting. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as being in the interests of general encyclopaedic accuracy; the "professionally known as" qualifier to account for diacritical differences is laughable, and the practice should be expunged. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Not too fussed whether we use diacritics or not, but strongly support removing "professionally known as" or any name duplication from lead. I think it's pretty obvious what Frédéric Vitoux would be in English. Jevansen (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what is wanted, it's required by wiki policy that all significant spellings be present in the lead. We aren't talking about a smattering of hits. There are significant sources that spell it Frederic Vitoux. I had suggested alternate ways of writing it, and suggested that we could even go against policy and put it in a different section as a compromise, but total censorship of a spelling used more often than not isn't a viable option as it is easily sourced. Common names are shunned these days as titles, as are English spellings... not my choice but those !voting have spoken and that issue is really an either or. But consensus is not supposed to be an either or... if possible. It's supposed to be the art of compromise so all parties have some satisfaction, though the majority may have more satisfaction. That was the wiki community I originally was part of at least. Maybe that's changed too. It's one thing to change the initial view of a name, it's quite another to outright ban a sourced version when it's used almost exclusively by the press, Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, Davis Cup, ITF, ATP, Fed Cup, television, their tennis registration id's, their personal English websites, etc. Sorry, per administrative advice I avoid some editors here, so this response is sort of an all-encompassing answer to all of the above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support; more accurate spelling. bobrayner (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per encyclopedic accuracy, and support removal of the "known professionally as" stuff. He's not exactly travelling incognito under "Frédéric Vitoux", and then unmasking himself in the tennis stadia as "Frederic Vitoux". Btw, he's "professionally known" in France as himself. The English-speaking world and the world of professional tennis do overlap, but are not the same; the French have pros too (needless to say). For this nonsense to be correct, it would have to be "professionally known in the English-speaking world as", making it even more nonsensical. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Closing Comment - it appears there is clear consensus to remove the diacritics use the diacritics (corrected on 06:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC) since clearly I was in support of using diacritics since I G6'ed to enable the move to the diacritics version), and IMHO I believe a redirect from the non-diacritic form will suffice for end user searchability of this article. It also appears clearly supported to remove the redundent "aka" form on this page. I will request a CDG#G6 to make way for the move, and will go ahead and edit the OPENPARA now. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  "... to remove the diacritics"? The consensus favours a move to the diacriticized version – and a removal of the a.k.a. form. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This is a "request to move", not an "rfc on policy" which would go against alternate spellings, or in use English. Mention of the most common English spelling is important and sourced. You overstepped your authority in this move request as we do not censor here at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can implement a clear consensus reached on the talkpage. Why would a closing admin be disqualified from doing that? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One, he's not an administrator. Two, this is a request for move. And three, consensus does not trump policy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Continued WP:TENNISNAME edits

Despite 8:1 against the duplicate name, we now have a footnote currently Spelled as Frederic Vitoux in some English press of the 1990s[4][5][6] and governing bodies of tennis.[7][8][9]. The English press is less relevant, since we can see NYTimes in 1993 didn't have French accents, today it does, so what. It seems the issue is "the governing bodies of tennis" (meaning a couple of FREDERIC VITOUX player listings on sports listings websites?). If not, how is this any different from Zoë Eliot Baird (English: Zoe Eliot Baird; born June 20, 1952) ? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I BOLDLY removed it per BRD. Now we can discuss. I believe that we have already made it clear that it would be irrelevant and commonsense that other countries might drop accent marks. Additionally, if we are concerned about people being able to find this article, we already have an appropriate redirect form the non-accented form. Tiggerjay (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I boldly moved it back to it's original place. Plus the edit was broken and is now fixed. It is not irrelevant at all when almost all English sources spell it a certain way. We acknowledge that this spelling exists in some fashion. As Encyclopedia Britannica does with Ilie Nastase. They find it important enough not to censor it. As for newspapers.... when someone plays in the early 1990s one would expect the articles to be from the 1990s. Goodness. If we look at French players from today like Alizé Cornet or Michaël Llodra of course their newspaper articles would be more up to date with the same results. Alize Cornet NY Times, Michael Llodra NY Times. Im sure Zoë Baird has her name registered with the State bar. How is it spelled there? At the Markle Foundation (where she's president) they spell it Zoë Baird. That's not the case here as the governing bodies, the individual events and the English press spell it Frederic Vitoux. It would be strange indeed if the the English press wasn't relevant in an English wikipedia. If there are suggestions on how best to place this info I'm listening and willing to bend. But forbidding or banning it is not the answer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, cut it out. There's bold, and there's foolhardy. You know full well that you are outnumbered on this, and have been so several times over, on several tennis player articles. Keep in mind that you have already been warned, and might be reported for edit-warring or disruptive editing any moment now. You're walking on thin ice. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also to add to that, while WP:BRD isn't the absolute authority, it is inappropriate to contest a proper BRD revert, with another revert instead of FIRST talking about the issue, which was (1) already covered in the RM discussion above, and was also, specifically brought up here. Instead it appears you are simply trying to force your perspective without consensus. With regards to your Ilie Nastase comment, that would be the reverse of the situation - it is one thing to remove accent marks (that is an obvious move), however Britancia's comment was about the alternate name with the addition of acent mark s- one cannot easily presume what and where accident marks would be, so it would make sense that they included it on their article. However we're not Britancia, and our consensus as it relates to policy, was that the article would have the accented form, not the other way around. If the consensus was to have plain english, then I would agree that we would likely want to follow Britancia with their "aka with accent" form -- but that is not the case. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This was a move request, not a RfC. This has been discussed many times and a compromise was reached by an administrator that no new additions would take place as long as no censorship happened on the existing articles. I have held to that completely. And Handsomefellow has already be questioned about harassing me in the past. Stop it with these attacks on me already as they don't help the situation. I'm not sure you know the history of this issue Tiggerjay but you are welcome to discuss it on my talkpage at your leisure. I have offered many ways this information can be kept. I have asked many times for other ideas. I have sourced it whenever asked. I have changed it whenever asked. I have tried over and over to find a compromise and follow what I was taught here about the policy "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections." There is room for compromise, but complete censorship on all tennis articles (which is being advocated here) of "well sourced" English spellings, would be a terrible choice. There is also no Policy here I know of that says we must use the accented name. We are however, supposed to have all name variations (spelling included) in the lead paragraph, and if there are more than three there can be a section encompassing all variations. I have not advocated that and have even gone against wiki in simply throwing it into a footnote even though the English alphabetic sourcing usually far outweighs the Latin alphabetic version. I had started with a simple (EN: John Doe) as the least obtrusive and tried a dozen combos and other long time editors have tried "rendered as." It seems I'm doing all the bending here and few are willing to compromise a single millimeter. That's not the way wiki is supposed to work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, you still need to demonstrate where it says that an RM excludes discussion and decision of any other issue. As I said on your talkpage, citation needed. All editors above, except one, addressed the additional proposal by IIO. That gives a basis that is significant enough to implement the discussed change.

"Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections", you quote. Ideally is the keyword. Well, situations are not always ideal. It does not mean that any editor has veto rights.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nor does it mean that a group of editors can completely excise information over every article without some policy change. If this is one single instance of chopping out sourced information that would be one thing, but that's not the case here. We should be trying to work out things "ideally", but you're not even trying. This editor tried to help. That solution was far from my first choice in how it should be worded, but that editor listened and came up with a compromise that fit within wiki guidelines and policies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

But User:Ohconfucius gave his view now above, "laughable". In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm unsure as to what "information" was excised. The human mind is such that the simple acute-e accent is parsed with no brain interrupt; its absence, OTOH, would be just a plain inaccuracy/error. There has not been any censorship to speak of, and I fail to see how the use of "professionally known as Frederic Vitoux" is anything other than eccentric, for want of a better word. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

off-track discussion by/with sock of blocked user

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnowIG/Archive @ In ictu oculi Huge difference where Zoë is written like this in English but commonly accepted as Zoe (no idea why brackets saying English Zoe is needed, but never mind). Per English, name and diacritics names must be written in English and must appear in the opening line in English and any alternative name (by this I mean their name in their native language otherwise it gets stupid); so if anything on this page it should look like Frederic Vitoux (French:Frédéric Vitoux) or if you insist Frédéric Vitoux (English: Frederic Vitoux). You have no reason according to policy to remove this and because you bully and insist instead of reading the policy Fyunck has put a footnote in which I don't agree with as it should be in the opening line. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC) @Socialhistorian, Please read WP:Personal attacks. Have you had an account before 19:45, 31 March 2013? I ask because your language "bully" and "lie" (to someone else, came up at ANI) sounds vaguely familiar. If you are a new account perhaps you would like to look at en.wp, look how articles are titled, pick 100 at random from Category:French people for example, look at WP:OPENPARA at other guidelines, look at the RM above, look at the RfC, and then come and tell every editor on en.wp except for Fyunck that everyone else is wrong and Fyunck is right and every guideline and policy example (an example is an example, we use examples such as François Mitterrand - if you believe the example is wrong the propose it be changed at WT:MOSBIO. Good luck). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC) I've got nothing to say to you and your snide comments. Be selective by all means but even open paragraph states what I've stated so basically, Just quit it and respect the guidelines (several of them and they are not supportive of your argument) instead of using them for your own means. An RM DOES NOT have any implications on how an article should be laid out which is what the argument you're implying here. So sorry but you're wrong. Oh and you're implying that I attack you and another user. That was someone just like you throwing a wobblier because they couldn't get their own way and just like you tried deceive me when the guidelines say other wise. So basically quit it and stop stalking (cause going back in history to cause trouble like you just did is imo). Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC) But since your in no mood to compromise I suggest you don't respond to me cause I won't be commenting again on here. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Socialhistorian, you are repeating the same claim as Fyunck; that nothing else can be discussed and decided in an RM than the move itself. I have asked him several times, and I now ask you: citation needed. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Which is what he has put in so what are you complaining about. Respect the rules which Note do not say that it needs to be sourced. If you're going to insist on a source for English names then I want an English Language source for names with diacritics, since without it that is OR for the use diacritic name. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC) You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not doubting that "some English press of the 1990s" spelled his name without the diacritics. Obviously that is in his added sources. What I am doubting, is your and Fyunck's claim that nothing but the move itself can be discussed in an RM. Which wiki guideline says that? You still owe the answer. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Right got ya. From reading RM, it states nothing about content apart from titles so it is correct that what is being discussed is separate from the RM move. One can not assume that because a move was successful that the whole page needs to be changed to that style as that is not what it says and would be wrong to suggest that in either direction and in any case that's not the argument here. The argument here is the correct usage of showing both names in the opening paragraph as per English, Opening paragraph, diacritics and name opposed to some users claiming otherwise. So in fairness even if RM did subsequently change the content (playing devils advocate) it is of no use in this argument as it is about some different entirely. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Wow this appears to have gotten really out of hand since I last edited. Just for clarity, I close 100's of RMs, and I was the one who moved this specific RM to closure. INeverCry was the admin who actually performed the move because it required the other page to be deleted, and then BDD just did the procedural close of the discussion because the admin did the move, per my request. As noted in my Closing Comment, it was clear that the consensus was to use the diacritics which is also consistent with many French named articles. There is also no specific precedent in policy or in practice for alternative names to listed for diacritic variations. It is one thing when the variations also change the characters themselves like it does in some Russian forms, but not in French. The question isn't can we find reliable sources in English which use both accented and non accident forms, nor is the discussion on the history of this one specific article. But rather, what creates the most consistent, usable experience for the end user. I would also suggest that since the discussion was that using the non-diacritic form in the lead was unnecessary via the RM process, it would also apply to the rest of the document. That is to say, we agreed, through consensus that there was no need for diacritics, and the only place it was used during the RM was in the lead. To simply move that data elsewhere, would be in violation of the RM discussion and consensus. Certainly you can understand how you are trying to technically dodge the RM discussion by simply moving it somewhere else, and then claim it isn't the same thing. What does confuse me is the passion that has been taken to see this non-diacritic alternative introduced. What purpose do you believe it serves for the reader? If the concern was purely for searchability, that is already covered via the disambiguation page which exists in both the diacritic and non-diacritic form. Can you help me understand why there is such a strong effort by one or two people to include this? Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) No RM does not specifically state that. This is not the same argument. This is stating just the once not the whole article Tiggerjay, thanks you're just behaving normally and in line with the majority consensus expressed again and again, it's nice of you to explain yourself but it's not needed. Fyunck and this "new" editor are not going to listen so bytes are probably better expended elsewhere. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC) here is a lesson for you if you can open your eyes for once In ictu listen and compromise which I suggest you look up the meaning of since you obviously can't compromise. WP Enlgish:"The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. (in this case it is not identical) Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage (not true in this example but oh well), the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title" "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." Again I don't see a reliable source for his name and since In ictu oculi started this move and nonsense it's up to him to provide a Reliable English language source showing that the diacritics version is used in the English Language. Opening paragraph states that all names the person is known by should be in the opening paragraog and one would have to say, English Spelling/native spelling. Name states that "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage," Basically In ictu has to provide sources that show that the local spelling is used in the English Language rather than censoring the Anglicized name which is sourced. At the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, including transcriptions where necessary: Cologne (German: Köln, IPA: [kœln]) is the … Mount Fuji (富士山 Fuji-san, IPA: [ɸuʥisaɴ]) is the … Anymore and I will report you for blatant violation of these concepts. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I suggest we do like this: we keep the sources Fyunck put in, but remove the way WP:UNDUE alternative spelling, which is anything but mentionworthy. If people look in Fyunck's sources, fine, they'll undoubtedly find the alternative spelling (at least if they have 20-20 vision). HandsomeFella (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Look I'm first to admit that I do not like the footnote. However we have to be careful as I think most people don't look at the sources and just the article, so I think that it would be best if you did a test edit so we can see exactly what you propose. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Now we're getting constructive. Great. A test edit, do you mean in the real article? Asking just to be sure. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, but probably best to revert straight afterwards, I can see in the diffs what you've done. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Fyunck, may I suggest that you should perhaps notify User talk:Ohconfucius User talk:BDD User talk:Jevansen User talk:Dicklyon User talk:Bobrayner since they expressed support for removal of the duplicate name. Also if you object to WP:OPENPARA then the example should be François Mitterrand (the example used at WP:OPENPARA) and discussion should be at WP:OPENPARA. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Learn to compromise In ictu oculi, that post above is just dragging it out. This is not a battle ground. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC) No, on one thing you're right this isn't the place for Fyunck or yourself to battle the consensus of en.wp's editorship, or for you to battle with WP:OPENPARA. What would be more appropriate is for you to raise an RfC about François Mitterrand, the example in the guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Stop! Stop spoiling for a fight! You are in breach of several guidelines. Have a look at yourself before flying accusations around. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC) WP:OPENPARA. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC) WP:ENGLISH, WP:NAME, WP:DIACRITICS Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Socialhistorian2013, you must have been around a long time to know WP:NAME. It was redirected in 2010 and isn't displayed any more. As for the others the difference is that WP:OPENPARA actually has an example, François Mitterrand of a foreign-name opening paragraph, wheras the example in WP:ENGLISH Tomás Ó Fiaich, is a title not a lead. If you want to change the guideline on leads, it is the guideline on leads which you need to change. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Confirmed as sock of previously disruptive editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnowIG/Archive. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(break for convenience)

See article history - continued Wikipedia:Edit warring counter the overwhelming RfC closure, and counter RM above. What is it going to take? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Tried leaving this message on User Fyunck(Click)'s own Talk page but he just deleted it. So will place it here instead:

• this edit bears out exactly the comment "WP:TENNISNAMES has 1 editor warring the RfC result." The RfC: asked Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?, the overwhelming answer was No. And yet you are still doing it, no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule (when it is not even proven that it is a rule) or commonness in English press. WP:TENNISNAMES has 1 editor warring the RfC result, that editor is you. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat sorry to say that, but a year after RfC closed, 16 months after the ITF/ATP Names business started with this addition to WP Tennis Article guidelines (19 February 2012) there doesn't seem to be any indication of accepting the RfC conclusion. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the harassment and lies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In what way is asking an editor to stop adding these leads "harassment"? You do not WP:OWN these articles most of which you haven't even edited other than add these leads. If there's any "harassment" one might wonder if your edits count as "harassing" the living persons who are subjects of these articles.

No one is making you add "Björn Borg known in basic-ASCII websites as Bjorn Borg"-type leads, footnotes or whatever other variants you come up with, you are doing this on your own. Likewise no one makes you always edit-war to have your "ridiculous" "laughable" "bullshit" (comments by other editors not my own) leads on top no matter how many different editors revert you, this is you doing it on your own.

So, I don't see where "lie" comes in. The consensus of the RfC isn't a "lie", it's copypasted above. That your edits are against that RfC result also aren't a "lie."

What will it take to get you to take notice of the RfC result and dozens of other editors' comments? Seriously? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Continual lies against another editor IS harassment. Posting these personal attacks in multiple groups is harassment. You've been doing this to me for a long time where I have ignored it. Stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Continual lies" against another editor IS harassment, yes. Posting "personal attacks" is harassment. What you need to do however is indicate what you think is a "lie", and coherently demonstrate that a "lie" (wikt:lie) has been told even once, let alone continually. Likewise evidence of "personal attacks" (see WP:PA for what constitutes a personal attack).

The "lie" I assume is the "lie" that WP:Edit warring is taking place. you inserted "and known professionally as Frederic Vitoux" here. It is removed by Tiggerjay here, per consensus above, you insert a variant as a footnote, removed again by Tiggerjay per consensus discussion, you put it back. This is not WP:3RR but it is slow burn WP:Edit warring across approx 100 (or 110) BLPs where you have inserted various variants of duplicate names.

Now the second question, is it a "lie" to say that the edit is counter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names RfC question and closure. This was a large-scale well attended RfC held in WikiProject Tennis name space with broad participation from both WP Tennis and non-WP Tennis editors, not as a personal essay.

Question: "Is it appropriate for a wikiproject to insist on no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English-language press?"

Close: Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no".

Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular. Sandstein 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

One may differ in interpretation I suppose (note that the question is not restricted to titles, it therefore includes leads and article body and footnotes and titles) but there is no need to introduce the term "lie" to a the view that the "and known professionally as Frederic Vitoux" edit is counter to the intention of question or the substance of close. All throwing the word "lie" in does is raise the temperature, except that my own temperature is not raised by it.

When all is said and done the edit "Spelled as Frederic Vitoux in some English press of the 1990s[4][5][6] and governing bodies of tennis.[3][7][8]" is still counter the Talk page consensus above.In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

the three-edit bright line re edit warring says:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

(emphasis mine) -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, thanks for dropping back in, and thanks for the note/reminder. The page only shows WP:2RR, which is one reason why I used the qualifier "slow burn" above. However the guideline also notes "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." - and yet many of these 100BLPs have had the formula, or variants repeatedly inserted.

Incidentally one I noticed which hasn't is Renée Richards. Is the lack of the "Renée Richards ( ) known professionally as Renee Richards" formula or variant here because she is an American tennis player? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are fewer and fewer excuses for opposing diacritics as people in the US know that Beyoncé Knowles is spelt with an e-acute. And there's no distinction between professionally and officially known there, although I have my suspicions as to what is on her birth certificate. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 11:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we do like this: see what's in the sources Fyunck added, and maybe there's something that can contribute to the article. There's no need to discard the sources just because the lack the e-acute. In that case, we keep that source for the added statement made. The ITF source can be kept as a general source. Then we remove the spelling note. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything of value in the sources. But left them, have however removed again per WP:BRD insertion "Spelled as Frederic Vitoux in some English press of the 1990s and governing bodies of tennis." In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(break for convenience)

We come back to the belief that the "governing bodies of tennis." - which means International Tennis Federation, Women's Tennis Association, Association of Tennis Professionals are against accents on not only foreigners but also Americans' names. No evidence was provided for this and Lajbi in an earlier RM noticed WTA website actually using French accents for some French players. But if there is a policy, and it can be proved it should be added to International Tennis Federation, Women's Tennis Association, Association of Tennis Professionals not targeted to specific BLPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

the problem doesn't seem to be with the sources themselves and the information they contribute, but rather that Fyunck is using these to cite a non e-acute spelling of the name. However the references simply use the name and does not address the spelling or styleistic differences. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing is it doesn't matter why something is done. What matters is what you can source. Does it matter that the ITF since 1924 must record everything in English... not really. Does it matter why pretty much every tennis player in the English press is spelled using the English alphabet? No it doesn't. Does it matter why in their hall of records that you walk through at Wimbledon, that the players names are spelled sans diacritic marks? It doesn't matter. This doesn't happen with authors and composers. There isn't any governing body of the literary guild that spells things differently that I know of. When I go to the Music Center to watch André Previn conduct, that's also how it's spelled in my program. But in the world of Tennis we have the governing bodies (ITF/WTA/ATP), the venues, the English press, the tv news... all telling us they recognize a different spelling. I believe the players even register their names using the English alphabet.

It's one thing to name an article with their birth spelling rather than how it's spelled in common English, it's quite another to actually ban the use permanently on every tennis article, no matter how many sources pile up. We would need an Rfc that asks that very question... "should wikipedia permanently ban all use of the English alphabet, anywhere in an article, for any person's name that originally was spelled with diacritics, no matter how many sources can be found?" Because this is not about one article... it's about every article on wikipedia. Some here have even advocated the diacritic spelling for the article title even if the person on their own personal English websites and signature usage, use non-diacritic spellings. My point is simply that to censure every article in that way is not the wiki way. I see the most trivial things in wiki articles these days that are let be, but a spelling that is used far and away more often in English can't be mentioned at all, ever?... even in a note? Something is wrong. It's why consensus isn't supposed to be either/or unless it's a title, since we can only have one title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, nobody is questioning what you say about the ITF player registry. However, most editors do not think that it is significant enough for mentioning in player pages. If readers open the sources, many will no doubt find that a player's name in some cases is spelled without the diacritics, others will not reflect on it, or even notice it.

The spelling "deviation" in the ITF registry might be worth mentioning in the ITF article, maybe in a section about the player registry, but inserting it into every player article throughout Wikipedia is ridiculous, pointy, and frankly (to most editors) an obvious in-the-face remark, added by editors who for some reason are against critics.

If this was really such a significant thing to mention, howcome it is not mentioned in player articles in other wikis? I mean, the ITF is the ITF, regardless of language of the wiki. And if such a fact would be significant, it would be significant in any language, wouldn't it? Yet, I have not seen it elsewhere. Examples of what I haven't seen:

• in es.wiki: "Facundo Argüello, conocido profesionalmente como Facundo Arguello",
• in sv.wiki: "Jörgen Windahl, känd professionellt som Jorgen Windahl".

Now, why is that, do you think?

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, you say "The thing is it doesn't matter why something is done" - but that is exactly the point, it does matter if you intend to add an material that says (in any way) "tennis" - such as "professionally" or "and governing bodies of tennis." If you assert that there is something especially "tennis" about this then you are required to provide sourced evidence. No one else, as far as 18 months of this idea has shown, shares your conviction that the ITF ATP and WTA websites are deliberately creating distinct names as your edits "professionally" or "and governing bodies of tennis." would indicate.

What evidence do you have that ITF, ATP and WTA websites are not simply ASCII websites like for example latimes.com ? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, don't just keep adding it to new tennis BLPs, please provide some evidence that "spelled by governing bodies of tennis" is not your own interpretation. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under my own promise to administrator Decker only so long as censuring wasn't taking place on existing articles as per the last RfC on the issue. It appears that is suddenly being blown out the window by two of you. I feel no constraint at all as long as they are sourced. Those governing bodies (ATP,ITF,WTA) can be sourced very easily. And they are only part of the sources since we also have the events themselves plus the English press. We don't use one thing, we use every source at our disposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, we've just had 3 Talk page discussions in 3 RMs about these edits. Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) Talk:Stéphane Grenier (tennis), Talk:Frédéric Fontang. Do you see any editor supporting your duplicate names in leads or footnotes? Partly as a result of finding new variants for inserting duplicate names there's now Talk:Stephane Sansoni → Stéphane Sansoni.

Anyway, back to the question of WP:OR. You say the governing bodies (ATP,ITF,WTA) can be sourced very easily, okay, then please source the statement, please source your claim that the "governing bodies" (ATP, ITF, WTA as you define them) have taken a formal decision to create "tennis names," even for Americans like Renée Richards. We can see http://www.atpworldtour.com/ www.itftennis.com/ www.wtatennis.com/ use a basic ASCII character set. Okay. Now where is your evidence that the "governing bodies" (ATP, ITF, WTA) have taken a formal decision to create "tennis names" ? Do you understand the difference? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this No.107? Really as a courtesy you should probably have discussed that with User:Gabinho as he has already expressed his view on TENNISNAMES. Can you please address the issue of properly sourced evidence that "governing bodies" (ATP, ITF, WTA) have taken a formal decision to create "tennis names" ? Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following me everywhere. You make it sound like people who create pages own them and need to be informed about changes. When did that happen at wikipedia? I can't even count how many articles you've moved without discussion (probably thousands?). All I do is follow the sources wherever they take me. I don't look for specific foreign language sources as you do. I look for all of them. I made sure there was a foreign spelling present in the article before you started editing these tennis articles. I thought it was important to show it all and I'll be darned if I watch censoring happen to the common English version. While I may !vote differently than you on most players, I haven't reverted any of your moves of late. Only if you start banning sourced spelling have I stepped in. I see another one of your multi-move requests that bury the individual move request from tennis project sight. I guess we could call it move/move-request number 4753? And putting countless restrictions on RM's is really going out of bounds. As I look now, I see administrator Jafeluv even warned you about it. Like I said, I check as many press reports on these players as I can, and I check the ATP/WTA/ITF websites. I check news outside of the US and UK in case they all spell a particular player's name differently. I found some that actually had a lot of English press using the foreign spelling. I left those be. I believe you stated you want to use a players passport for proof. Good luck sourcing that. So stop fixating on one type of source and look at everything. If there is a preponderance of variance then it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck, the relevant guideline would be:

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.

Interact includes informing. You are correct that there is no WP:OWN issue here, but given that User:Gabinho was one of the first tennis editors to disagree with your leads, why did you pick this BLP? In any case your edit to Mervana Jugić-Salkić's lead stands, just as your TENNISNAME leads or footnotes stand on the other 106-or-so BLPs affected, as User:Jevansen said earlier that other editors do not keep reverting your edits a second or third time does not mean they have consensus. Back to the question here, what evidence do you have that this is an official decision by the "governing bodies of tennis" and is any more significant that latimes.com spelling of Zoë Baird? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction, in fact Diāna Marcinkēviča was created by User:Gabinho, Mervana Jugić-Salkić was created by User:Joy, but seeing as User:Joy expressed the same view as other article creators both additions seem somewhat WP:POINTy. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Interact includes informing" - I read it and don't see or read that at all. Our comprehension is different I guess. There is no way we are supposed to inform page creators of edits we make. They don't own anything about the article. Even if they have a page in their sandbox we can edit it. However you should really read the section yourself. I still don't see any removal from my last request of you. And remember, TENNISNAMES is really more your essay than mine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, I am sorry but as I said I do not consider my description above of your edits as slow burn WP:edit warring counter Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names RfC close to be either inaccurate or incivil. Nor am I the only one who has referenced the WP:edit warring guideline in relation to your edits on these 106 (or 107, 108?) BLPs. I don't know any other way to describe those edit histories.

As relates to the idea of "Tennis names" your edits go back at least as early as this edit summary February 2012, participation by other editors in the RfC on "tennis names" disagreeing with it does not make it "more [their] essay than [yours]." If someone else other than yourself was pushing for tennis names prior to February 2012, then they did not do so as visibly as yourself.

Now, would you please address the question.

Best regards In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "tennis names" are. You edited the essay more than me, so it's really your tennis names. I use sourced names, English preferably. If you won't remove the incivility, then I have no reason to answer any of your requests either. I am not the only one to be hit by your incivility, and your continued wrong interpretation of a minor personal essay rfc will never make it read differently. I have no idea anymore how to make you understand these things. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, you discussed "tennis names" at length in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive_10#Player_names_have_no_diacritics 11-12 March 2012, leading directly into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names RfC in which you took part. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications told me I was mentioned here. All I can say is - egad, these discussions are still going on? :) The new listref is at the Jugić-Salkić article is much less annoying than before, but it still projects a sense of {{Kosovo-note}}, yet the diacritics aren't actually a particularly contentious issue in the real world - sources either include them or strip them en masse without any sort of pontificating about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Joy, yes of course this is still going on, why would anyone think an RfC would stop this? Not only is it going on, see penultimate edit [1] to 2010 Serbia earthquake.

User:Tiggerjay, FYI your comments above are born out by the discovery today that WTA does in fact use diacritics Martina Müller Weds & Announces Retirement which confirms that "spelled by official bodies of tennis" is OR unless only the Mens Association ATP counts. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And now I see that a "tennis lead" was added to Ana Ivanovic (Ana Ivanović) with this edit. I have raised WP:MOSBIO there. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was done a year and a half ago, right after the administrator moved the page to the common English usage. The administrator saw that edit, tweaked it a tiny bit, and moved on. Of course it was made sure that the foreign spelling was retained in the lead and not censored in any way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck,

Greetings, please, what's your reaction to WTA using "Müller"? Given that you've been claiming for 18 months that WTA has official policy against such names, you should at least coment.

Re your Ana Ivanovic... (Ana Ivanović) lead I'm afraid that all I see is User:Courcelles fixing a link you broke by removing ć from the jpg file name, I can't see where Courcelles says he saw saw that part of the edit and approved/backed/sanctioned a lead with a duplicate name which goes against the WP:MOSBIO Mitterand example.

In any case, permit me please to ask again the same question as before: How many editors have clearly asked you not to make Frédéric Vitoux... Frederic Vitoux type leads? I'm counting 40, but how many do you count? How many many editors have asked you to stop, and how many have urged you to continue? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your sugar-coated frowardness is not something I care to discuss given your repeated history towards me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck,

I have no history to you, show me a link, but even so, who do you want to discuss your lead edits with? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL... goodness gracious. We had an RfC on your censoring that info already...no consensus. I'll wait till someone who has no history with me starts asking me questions because I don't believe you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IIO, it's clear that the only way Fyunck wants to interact with you (or me) is by saying that he doesn't want to interact with you (me). That's his way of building consensus: only listen to those that agree with him. He's going to sit back on his throne and reply only to those that find favor with him. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)