User talk:Neprotivo1
Defending vs. Reigning Champion
[edit]Firstly, I am a native English speaker and so, I have a full and comprehensive grasp of the vocabulary and how it should be used to form a sentence.
While most edits on Wikipedia are beneficial to the community, yours have not been. In tennis articles the term defending champion is usually used in the opening paragraph rather than reigning champion. This is never usually a problem, until the previous champion decides not to defend their title and so they are referred to as the "reigning champion". Take for example the men's doubles draw at the Olympics. Before the withdrawal of the Bryans the article referred to them as the defending champions because that was what they were. They were going to defend their title. However, as soon as they withdrew, they became the reigning champions. They could not be defending champions since they were not defending their title.
Moving on to seemingly your biggest issue, the women's doubles. It is all a fairly simple process that you have massively over complicated. Serena and Venus were the defending champions up until their first round loss and so the article read:
"Serena and Venus Williams are the defending champions"
Once they lost the 'are' changed to 'were'. The sentence could no longer read in the present tense because they could no longer defend their title.
The article does not suddenly start referring to them as the 'reigning champions', they remain as 'defending champions' in the past tense. Yes, they still are the reigning champions, but you do not seem to realise that the article tends not to refer to 'reigning champions'. It is implied that they are still the reigning champions (if the tournament is still ongoing).
You can question me and disagree with me all you like but you are going to get nowhere. This format is used from the Grand Slams, all the way down to the smallest satellite tournaments. Even if you feel as if something is 'wrong' here on Wikipedia, you do not start an edit war just because you think something is correct/incorrect. Also the edit warning was placed on your talk page for a reason, so it should not be blanked. If you are going to treat your editing in such a juvenile fashion then go find something better to waste your time on.
F1lover22 talk 23:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I saw "reigning" champion in the Cambridge dictionary and it said "most recent winner of a competition". "Defending" champion would suggest that the person would have to be defending their title. So the Bryans have to be "reigning" champions in this case ? Because the article says "defending" champions right now. And maybe the mixed doubles champions as well, since one of them withdrew ? So to summarize, if the person plays in the tournament, they are defending champions. And if the person doesn't play in the tournament, they are reigning champions. If they play and lose they become "past winners". This is only a tennis "rule" ? Regards Neprotivo1 (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictures
[edit]I am reverting all of your edits, and, to be honest, I am considering blocking you as a vandalism-only account. We do have pictureds of competitors in all articles on sporting competitions where these are available. If you do not like it, open a discussion, for example, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. Removing the illustrations will not take you anywhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see, you deleted the previous warning. I will give you a chance to start a discussion. However, if you resume edit-warring or removal of images, I will block your account.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Why should I be the one starting the discussion, and not the person who randomly starts adding images who aren't even relevant, and are totally unnecessary ? The place for those images isn't there. They have to be somewhere at the end. Neprotivo1 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is not up to a user with less than 50 edits to decide where is the place for pictures. We have more experienced users who are not at the edge of being blocked for an indefinite duration. If you have been reverted by multiple users in good standing than you are doing smth wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Nobody reverts my edits, nobody, except the person who added the images. It means he is the only one who wants the images. So why should I be blocked for something that the rest of the people agree with me ? Neprotivo1 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is no, absolutely zero evidence that anybody agrees with you. As I have written above (and you preferred not to notice), most of our sporting competition articles have images in the infoboxes.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just because your edits aren't reverted doesn't mean that everybody else agrees with you. Anybody who has been on Wikipedia for a significant period of time knows not to start edit warring. You were lucky to get away with your edits on the tennis section without being blocked, so you're really pushing it again after being warned.
F1lover22 talk 13:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just because your edits aren't reverted doesn't mean that everybody else agrees with you. Anybody who has been on Wikipedia for a significant period of time knows not to start edit warring. You were lucky to get away with your edits on the tennis section without being blocked, so you're really pushing it again after being warned.