User talk:Tennishistory1877

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tennishistory1877. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Bobherry Talk Edits 10:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis Bobherry Talk Edits 10:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennishistory1877, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tennishistory1877! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Toler Garvey) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Toler Garvey, Tennishistory1877!

Wikipedia editor Lineslarge just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Lineslarge's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lineslarge (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Open era players and tournaments

Hi I just wanted to thank you for creating new articles and updating others I can now add those players to early tours I have been putting together here: Template:Mens tennis seasons.--Navops47 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tennishistory1877. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tennishistory1877. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Professional Tennis Archive

Hi, in regard to adding the book The Professional Tennis Archive as a source to several articles please note that this book seems to be self-published according to the info on Amazon. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH works that are self-published are largely not acceptable as a source ("Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources."). This means that unless we can establish that the exception ("an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.") applies this source can not be added to any articles.--Wolbo (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Hoad article references

Hi, just a heads up, if you add references / citations to an article like you did here it is best to make them properly formatted references / citations instead of just raw url links. The easiest way to do that is to use cite templates on the toolbar of your editor, see Wikipedia:RefToolbar for an explanation.--Wolbo (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry about that, pure laziness on my part not to use the longer method. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and references

Nice work on the expansion of the Sedgman article and the adding of references to the Gonzales article. The Sedgman expansion has no issues with bias which sets a good example. I would like to repeat my request above to use proper citations. The reason we add citations is to allow editors and readers to verify the content or to go to the source to read more about it. Ergo, we should make it as easy as possible for editors / readers to do so. Adding citations without a page number and without a link (if available) makes this unnecessarily difficult. Did the newspaper references come from newspapers.com? If so, you can easily copy another newspaper.com citation and adapt it.--Wolbo (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper is published both in written form and (in some cases) online. Newspapers.com is a good source for newspapers and a site I use regularly. However, when I am adding many references to a page, adding a long link to newspapers.com for each one takes longer than a simple reference to the newspaper and date (even when copying and pasting the template). I will go over some of the references again and add some of the longer references with links to newspapers.com when I have the time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pancho Segura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashley Cooper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:21, 3 June 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) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Thank you. Wolbo (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall quote your remarks Wolbo and let others decide if they were said in good faith and will also point out that Ray Bowers' 1930s rankings made in 2005 are allowed as sources.

"No offence to anyone who has taken the effort to publish something but any idiot can self-publish (and it seems a lot of them have). Fyunck's view that "something is better than nothing" is simply wrong if it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:V, WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB (which are not static but evolve with community consensus). It is a minimum standard that cannot be compromised. If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877.--" Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Wolbo (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough, stop with your baseless accusations and personal attacks which are gross violations of the assume good faith behavioral guideline or else I will report you at WP:ANI.--Wolbo (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolbo, I have asked you repeatedly why certain sources are allowed on wikipedia tennis pages and not others. You have given no answer and no justification. I have asked for debate and transparency from you. Why is Ray Bowers allowed as a source? Why is Robert Geist allowed as a source? Why is tennisbase allowed as a source? I want a proper debate on this with justifications given and a consensus reached. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 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) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to resolve the edit war and have posted on the article talk page and on the user's talk page. Unfortunately I feel that the editor I am involved in the edit war with refuses to engage in talk because he knows he can not justify going against the agreement he made with me in October last year (I have quoted his remarks back to him). The editor in question has repeatedly violated multiple wikipedia policies and I can list many examples of him doing so. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed out that there was no agreement on my part to not edit this article further, which is apparently what Tennishistory1877 believes. He will not accept this, end of argument as far as he is concerned. I pointed out the material to him, but he will not agree. Now he is apparently determined to block any edits, even if there is consensus by the other editors. I think that he should accept that other editors have agreed on this particular edit which he has continuously reverted, and accept the information. If he has an objection to the information in the edit, he should tell us what that objection is, so that discussion can proceed. At this point I do not know what his objection is to this particular edit.Tennisedu (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are prepared to discuss this at last? We'll do it here if you like, rather than on your own warning. You were involved in many battles on the Hoad page over many months. Although you added some useful material to the page (none of which I reverted), all the while you were trying to push your point of view on the page. In October it had got to the point where you were no longer making useful edits (you had run out of anything useful to say) and your editing needed to be addressed. I agreed to leave the article alone if you did. You stated "I am agreed that there is now enough information in this article, unless someone finds that some of it is wrong." Now you are adding more information. I had reached a compromise with you on the page. Would you care to explain why that you now feel the need to add information, whereas before you did not? I do not like what you are adding because I dont feel it is an accurate reflection of Hoad's service in relation to other players of the era. The human eye can not measure how fast a serve is, only equipment can do that. I consider this edit POV pushing. If you are unable to accept compromise, then I could start removing what I dont like from the page, but I thought wikipedia was about establishing consensus. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I'm Fyunck(click). I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 12 May 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]

This response from you is absolutely outrageous fyunck. The changes made to the Hoad page were agreed by consensus on the talk page by myself and krosero. Only tennisedu objected. Both krosero and myself (not just me) prevented tennisedu's disruptive behaviour on this page by reverting his edits. Discussing anything with tennisedu has become impossible. He has been warned many times for biased and/or disruptive editing by many editors, including today by Wolbo. You should be thanking krosero and I, not pursuing a personal vendetta against me by warning me. You did nothing to intervene two days ago and I had to give up several hours of my time dealing with this vile behaviour. You should be ashamed of yourself. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been witnessing these problems for years and I saw no escalation by tennishistory since I returned to regular editing last month. There's been a recent escalation, but that began because I was away for a few months and tennisedu attempted to remove all my financial information from the Hoad page, which was one of the most disruptive things that he has ever attempted. I reverted him and then returned to regular editing. What he did with the financial information in the last few months is an all-time low for him in dishonest, inaccurate editing. I merely restored all my material, without doing anything to his. Then you said that there was a lot of bloat on the Hoad page, and you mentioned financial information particularly. Only then did tennishistory1877 began to take out some of tennisedu's bloated/incorrect/biased information (his pruning was supported entirely by Wolbo), and then I joined the pruning, which resulted in a heated debate the last two weeks or so which is bringing everything to a head. But tennishistory1877 by himself did not escalate things, that began when tennisedu unilaterally removed all of my edits. Even then tennishistory1877 didn't do anything to escalate, until you spoke about bloat, and he then began removing some of tennisedu's bias material, an effort which I joined, and which wolbo has since joined a little bit (he's added some pruning without reversing any pruning that we've done).

That is the sequence of events as I can attest and anyone can check it against the history of posts.

I am centrally involved in this fracas and cannot be left out. It has long been my observation that tennisedu's obsessive and biased editing is the central issue causing all this consternation, and I as a longtime student of tennis history I can attest that tennishistory1877's edits have all been knowledgeable and no more biased than any normal editor, including myself; tennisedu's bias is not even comparable and I will attest to that in any arbitration.

If tennishistory1877 is called to an arbitration then I should be too -- I've tried to restrain myself but you will notice that I did a lot of revert-warring myself in the recent dispute.Krosero (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing with a troll I think

The conversation you are having at Why is Djokovic undisputed #1 for 2020? with editor Krmohan is likely fruitless. You are arguing with someone who seems to have some sort of agenda. They are a new editor with many Wikipedia aliases posting the same thing over and over. I have had to remove post after post of the same thing several times already, made by multiple IP clones. Just letting you know. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will argue my point with him as long as he continues to put relevant points. As for having multiple IDs, that should of course be clamped down on if he is using this as a voting tactic to imply he has a consensus. Having spent several years arguing with someone who displays many troll-like characteristics (I am not talking about you), I am used to it. Most people have an agenda of some kind or other. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. It was just an FYI. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen you had removed stuff he had written on the page under other ids before I replied to him. Probably just trying to gain leverage for his views. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment

Hi, I removed your recent comment on the Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players which were regarding another editor. I do not normally remove other people's posts from talk pages (one normally shouldn't) and I do not disagree with you assessment, however, it clearly violated talk page guidelines, specifically WP:TALKNO. As mentioned there that is a no-no and could lead to a block or ban. Remember, discuss the topic, not the editor (play the ball, not the man). For the rest, keep up the good work. Cheers. --Wolbo (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it would have been better not to remove your post but to request you to remove it instead (also per talk page guidelines). Tried to self-revert the removal but it could not be undone.--Wolbo (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand why you removed the comment. Its hard to explain to every new editor the motivations of a long established editor with such a notorious and well documented editing history who may appear plausible to someone who doesnt know him. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1913-1967

Hi, probably best to add your changes for the 1913-1967 period at my sandbox, otherwise we're just duplicating efforts which would be a waste.--Wolbo (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennisedu is still making changes to his sandbox. This is where it becomes confusing working on more than one sandbox. I will add 1953 to your sandbox this time, but for my next revision I hope only one sandbox already yesterday will be being worked on. Pre-1913 is done on tennisedu's sandbox but 1913-67 is active on both at the moment. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an issue to work with different sandboxes as long as the division is clear. I thought that was the case. Pre-1913 on tennisedu's sandbox and since I published the 1913-67 overview on my sandbox yesterday and announced it on the talk page (twice) it is logical for that one to be used and if the green light is given I will publish it. At that time no work had yet been done on tennisedu sandbox on the 1913-67 period. No idea why he is doing double work but it is obviously not very efficient.--Wolbo (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell him not me! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that we don not have to make the sandboxes perfect. They are just there to showcase the new setup before it is published. Nothing more. Any remaining work on ranking and sourcing, and there will still be a lot of it, can be done after the sandboxes are published.--Wolbo (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennishistory1877, did you not transfer Wolbo's sandbox draft to my sandbox, and in the process you deleted my citations, which I have just restored? What are you doing? Feel free to transfer the restored citations back to Wolbo's sandbox. Did you forget our early conversations where I was asked by others to start this period in my own sandbox? The main reason being to add citations to the left columns, and to reconstruct the lead, and to work on the pre-1913 era.Tennisedu (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see the above statement from Wolbo, @Tennisedu ? Wolbo is just as puzzled as I am. Why are you working on a separate draft? Please stop now. The two drafts should be the same. If you want to avoid losing some of your edits, then make them to the same draft we are all using. Transferring each edit of yours bit by bit to the other article takes too long and is pointless, simply use the draft we are using. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 columns

Hi, could you please tell me who is still against the removal of the No. 1 columns for 1913-1967? That last time I checked a few days ago it seemed the majority were supporting their removal and I can agree Krosero that removing them is the best option to reduce subjectivity in debates, what has changed?

Wolbo and Sod25 voted for their removal and I think maybe fyunck also. Maybe Ricardo the IP too. Myself, krosero and tennisedu all wish for them to be removed in addition to yourself. Your vote makes things fairly even. I see no point in them personally, they greatly lengthen the page for no purpose. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1 strongly opposed the inclusion of those columns before 1973 and I don't think he changed his mind, that's why I though it was the majority at the time but still I might be wrong. ForzaUV (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but could any further conversation on this subject take place on the article talk page please. Thanks. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to edit your comment lol. Obviously you weren't aware it was against the rule and that's fine. I had no intention to contact Tvx1 and I don't think it's that much of a big deal. Removing the columns is still the best option in my opinion but we can make it work even with the columns. You made a good point, there are now too many players listed. Let's continue the discussion on the article talk page. :) ForzaUV (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there are editors behaving unconstructively on the main talk thread, I dont want to get involved in private conversations about an article lots of people are working on. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tommasi rankings

Hi, you added the Tommasi rankings. Would it be possible for you to upload pictures of the pages where the rankings are listed for men & women in Almanacco illustrato del tennis 1989 to imgur.com or similar, so I can see them? Sod25 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sod2500 Here they are: https://imgur.com/a/OsxpEjX, https://imgur.com/a/7ufuoNO, https://imgur.com/a/xQPMgvr

It is stated the rankings 1968-1987 are by Rino Tommasi. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thanks. Does it happen to say who made the ~~65-67 and~~ 88 rankingss? Sod25 (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would ask that. It doesnt say who made 1988. I suspect it was Tommasi, but I cant be sure. These were annuals and the 1988 section would have been added on for the 1989 almanack, but maybe they forgot to readjust the paragraph at the start of the rankings which said Tommasi's rankings were 1968-1987. There are several books that contain rankings. All use Myers, Tingay etc. for amateur era. Collins uses his own rankings for open era. Italian Panini Almanaccos use Tommasi for open era. World of Tennis annuals continue with Tingay. Its possible there were French annuals that Carlo mentioned that use Judith Elian for open era. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info, I made the same assumption about them having forgotten to increment the date from the previous edition. Have published Tommasi's rankings (and others') in a new article, Top ten ranked female tennis players. Men's version coming soon. Sod25 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that looks good. Its Alan Trengove, not Tengove. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. If you have Tingay's Open Era rankings in World of Tennis Yearbook, or Geist's in his book, would you able to upload photos of them (for men and women again), so I can add them? Sod25 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geist's arent top 10 rankings. I used to have a couple of World of Tennis yearbooks, not sure if I still have them though. I have all the US Pro (USPLTA) and Jack March top 10 rankings in the pre-open era that are listed on the ranking page. I have all Collins' rankings from 1968 until 1993 published in his encyclopedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If there are any rankings (including pre-Open Era pros) not available online that you have I'd appreciate seeing them. Sod25 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a collection of tennis books, but mainly I have a large archive of newspaper reports (both those available online and those available offline). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, pictures of any pro rankings you have would be great, particularly in Mccauley's book as it is cited many times on the No. 1 page. Sod25 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not photographing every McCauley page with rankings on, but I can certainly add them. I am liking these new pages a lot. I like the design (although I notice if there are ties, the section for the ranking is shrunk, I dislike this, it should be the same text spacing as the other sections). Ned Potter made a lot of top 10 amateur rankings up until 1965, most of which are accessible. I dont know when Tommasi stopped making rankings (maybe he still makes them). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, there are more separate pages cited than I had thought, looking at it now. Perhaps you could upload just p. 97 so I can see how the book is set out? You'll have to fill out the rest as you said. I'm questioning whether the pro rankings should be a separate page altogether.

Yes, Potter's rankings should be quite findable, and there would be hundreds more out there. Now that I've started the pages, I'm sure the gaps will be slowly filled in. Sod25 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 players

Hi. Regarding the consensus we had on the stats, it was about the tables and tallying up the numbers per Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies.. I don't see what's wrong with the addition which was made a few hours ago. Re-read the section and you will see there is nothing really controversial in there. No tables, no numbers, no tallying up, nothing but one important note. You need to understand that we have to leave a clue for future editors why counting every player's mention in the article is wrong. Isn't this the whole point of removing the longstanding table which was there before? I've said it to another editor before, if we leave it the way it is now, I guarantee you that some editors in the future will count everything and add a records or stats section thinking it's an improvement and we won't be there to stop them or to tell them why it's not possible or why it wasn't implemented by us. Readers will be making the same mistake as well. I really hope you can see where I'm coming from and self-revert your edit. Thanks. ForzaUV (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this issue twice now. Whilst I am sure your addition of the galleries was made in good faith, the majority of editors do not want them. I see this as a back door entry of statistics, which we agreed not to have. I dont go along with your "some editors in the future" argument either. Some editors are more likely to alter the existing section to make it a full blown stats section if they see the page as it is (I believe Sod25 said as much and I agree with him). And if editors do this we can tackle them about it and refer them to past debates. One of my main motivation in putting so much effort into this page is so these endless (sometimes nasty) debates over arbitrary judgements on the ranking of players can end. The addition of these tables have caused these tensions to resurface. As I said, the removal of these tables isnt just my view, but the view of several other editors too. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the content of the section or just decided to remove it the moment you saw the header? Because there were no tables, nothing at all and it's not about galleries anymore. It's all about the note of DO NOT COUNT because of this, this and that. So I'd like to ask you what's the issue with the removed content. ForzaUV (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think what was there earlier today is worse than what you first put on there. I can not see any point in having it there and we agreed first not to have tables and then not to have galleries. Writing statements that players are generally considered to be the best players is also not what is required. It looks like a back door watered down version of what we agreed not to have. But if you are genuinely worried about some editor arriving in the future and adding stats when there is no section, you have my word that I will be around to help deal with the issue. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Just checking in after I welcomed you 4 years ago. Happy to see you are still active with the project! Bobherry Talk Edits 16:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bobherry. Nice to feel welcomed! I am not sure how much longer I will be as active as I am at present, but thanks anyway. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follower

I appreciate your interest in my edits, Tennishistory, but it is not necessary for you to assign yourself as someone who follows me around. That is actually against Wikipedia rules. Please try to control your editing habits.Tennisedu (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ensure that wikipedia tennis articles contain correct information and do not fall victim to a certain editor's biased agenda. When dubious unsourced material is placed on a page I remove it. I have removed a vast quantity of your inaccurate information on wikipedia during the past two years. Spending time removing this is not something I enjoy doing, but is necessary to maintain the standard of wikipedia tennis pages. Your continued violations of WP:NPOV, as pointed out by another editor on your talk page, are "disruptive and need to stop". I would echo those sentiments. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

In this edit, you copied the link to my talk page as part of your signature. If you are typing your signatures by hand, which that would suggest, you don't have to. You can just type four tildes (~~~~) instead, and wikipedia will automatically replace that with your signature when you save your comment. Letcord (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the web version it is necessary to manually insert a signature. I copied and pasted your signature and then altered it to my name, I realised I had left one of the names unaltered, but I quickly spotted this and altered it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to copy and paste and then manually alter signatures on any version. The following signature is produced with the mobile web version by typing four tildes, which are automatically replaced by my full signature after saving (this page explains it fully): Letcord (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Page 172 of your book has "H. Hinckley" defeating Feret 6-3 6-2 on 23/01/1927 in the C. C. Pyle tour. This newspaper has it as "Howard Kinsley", which I presume is a typo for Howard Kinsey, who was part of the tour. Is that an error? Letcord (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are occasionally local players that stand in for one match only on tours (and Richards was absent that night), however, I think looking at it again there may be a misprint, although the final tally I have for this tour shows Kinsey winning 4 matches, so a win for Kinsey here would be incorrect according to that tally. Tennis Base is incomplete and very inaccurate for this tour (I used none of their data for this tour, it was all my own). Most sources state Lenglen was undefeated on this tour, which is incorrect (which you will see if you find the newspaper reports for the two matches she lost). Retiring from a match means you have lost it and she did so twice.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found more sources. A later reprint of the same article has "Howard Kinsey" spelt correctly [1], and he was in the advertisement for the event [2], so I think it's confirmed and your tally should be updated. Agree about Lenglen, fortunately her article has it correct. Letcord (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the intervening three hours since my last reply, I have updated my book which now shows no Hinckley and with Kinsey now on five wins. One reason that final tallies can be useful as a guide, but should never be regarded as final proof (there are some people who see a final tally on a tour and think it is set in stone. It is important to get every individual match report to be sure). That is good to see the Lenglen article is correct. Probably the worst misinformation for pre-open era pro tennis, spread by many sources for many decades is that Lenglen was undefeated on that tour. With my book I have done my best to right this wrong and its good to see the Lenglen wikipedia page also has the two losses. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures

Sorry but I have removed your edit at User talk:Tennisedu. As you know (having raised the issue at my talk), there is a long-lasting feud between some tennis editors. That cannot be resolved by dropping pompous templates and inflammatory wording on a talk page. You may well be correct and my intention is not to annoy you but to provide guidance about how to achieve a good outcome. Please try again with no template and no accusations of any kind. The place to start is Talk:Pancho Gonzales. Use a neutral heading such as "Recent edits" or "Top money winner". In the comment do not mention any editors. Just focus on the content. Give a diff or just state the time/date of the edit that you are questioning. Outline the content of the edit (top money winner). Then mention that the edit appears to be speculation without sourcing. Ask if there is a source. If there is no satisfactory response, ping me to the talk page for an independent opinion on what should happen. The problem with your current procedure is that it looks like a feud between editors and Wikipedia has a hundred of them every day. Other editors and administrators are not going to get involved when two people are feuding. However, if you focus on content and express the problems without emotion, other editors will be able and willing to engage. If one side behaves well and focuses on content and the other side has no satisfactory response, it is relatively easy to get a good outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Firstly, this "pompous template" is a standard template used not only by myself, but also by other respected wikipedia tennis editors to warn editors when they have overstepped the mark (there are other examples of this template on his talk page posted by other editors). "You may well be correct". No, I am correct and the citation proves it. You have already shown yourself completely incapable of managing this situation I raised on your talk page, because of your refusal to look at the facts that I spent some time laying out and that editor krosero confirmed. And this after you had waded into a debate on the administrators board, giving strong opinions on editor Dicklyon saying he should be banned when he was changing the sentence case of articles and also giving strong sympathy to another editor that had to put up with this!!!! This editor that I discussed at length on your talk page needs "constant monitoring" (not my words, but another editor's), introducing wrong information into articles based on nothing more than wild speculation, as in this instance. Your statement "However, if you focus on content" is so ridiculous I struggle to even find the words to reply to it. The whole issue with this editor is about content! Incorrect content that he is continually putting onto pages and I spend time correcting. I wrote on your page not only a list of errors made by the editor in question, but a list of sources proving they were errors and you refused to look at them. It is about time you started caring about the content on wikipedia pages and stopped this editor's wrong information from entering pages, instead of chastising me when I take the time and effort to do so. I am not impressed at all. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq If you have not seen it before, here is the old anonymous account for tennisedu, the user in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.229.32.48

I link to it to reiterate that this is a very longstanding issue and not a matter of two bickering editors. Already on that page you can see back in July 2019 that another editor had warned the user and said that the situation was "unsustainable". Some time later tennishistory1877 began tangling with the user in question, but the issues were already present with this user, from the time that he began editing here. Nothing that's been tried in the intervening three years has worked -- not interventions by other users, or by admins, not Tennishistory1877's involvement, or mine. The bias and NPOV, misinformation and outright falsehoods keep coming up in the pages for Lew Hoad and anything related to him.

I'm at a loss what to do with your suggestions because they've been tried (for a long time I focused on content in my posts without getting personal, but my approach did not work any better than anyone else's in improving these issues). And as I cannot repeat enough, the issues were there before tennishistory1877 and I even got involved with the user in question.

I do sense in your post that you have some willingness to help with the problem and I appreciate that, and I'm listening, but I'm at a loss because we've been down this road before. Krosero (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krosero: Please review my comments at User talk:Johnuniq#Tennis edits and try to see how it looks to someone like me with no clue about the topic. I understand that perpetual disputes are exasperating but I have spelled out how to proceed and all that is needed is to follow what I took quite a bit of time to write. In particular, examine my final comment with "let me know about any new problems ...". Look at the final sentence in my opening post above. The difference between now and the past is that I am willing to look at what is going on if it is focused on content based on reliable sources. I am not interested (in fact, no one is interested) in investigating another feud. By the way, I was pinged in each of the comments above, but neither of them worked. See WP:PINGFIX. Unfortunately that page is excessively lengthy. What it is trying to say is that editing a comment will not issue a notification. A notification occurs only in a new comment with a new signature.

@Tennishistory1877: I'm hoping Krosero will try my advice. You might ask yourself how much progress your standard templates have provided in the past. Thinking about that should indicate that it's time to try something new, even if that means trying ridiculous suggestions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq I have already said in this thread that these templates are not my templates. I use them because they are widely used regularly by other users. You continually say "if it is focused on content". Exactly what do you think these issues are about?! THEY ARE ALL ISSUES ABOUT CONTENT!!!!!!!!!!!! Wrong content inserted continually by one user. What you seem to be suggesting is that the issue should be raised on talk threads and then the user should gain consensus for his edits and action can be taken if he doesn't. What has been continually happening for a long while now, is that the editor will put wrong information on pages. I then remove the information, sometimes he posts the information again and I remove the information again, sometimes he posts on talk, gains no consensus for his comments, then he moves onto the next issue. Day after day after day after day. But each time it requires me to spend time stopping him. This issue of the past couple of days is a classic case in point. The editor posts wrong information on the Pancho Gonzales page, I remove it, he then persists with his argument about it. I spend time finding proof he is wrong. And he is still arguing about it on the 1965 money list talk thread, which again I respond to with the facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pancho_Gonzales . I do not think he will re-insert this information onto the page, but just look at how much time I have spent disproving his nonsense. His edit is not backed up by any citation, and is merely speculation that is false speculation. And if it wasn't for me, this false speculation would still be on the page. How dare you lecture me about my handling of the situation, when it shouldn't be down to me to handle at all, it should be handled by admins such as yourself. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Just look at this ridiculous response just now from the editor on the Pancho Gonzales talk thread in the 1965 money list section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pancho_Gonzales . You are the one suggesting going down the talk thread route, so I would like to know how anyone is supposed to respond to this utter shite! An editor puts lies onto a page without any citation to back up what they were saying, then they are exposed as a liar and they continue with this utter garbage. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Yes this has been the pattern, exactly as described by tennishistory1877, and it's going on now at the Pancho Gonzales talk thread. Your suggestion was followed: we posted the correct content, with a citation, when, remember, he had posted only a speculation, without citation. So already we rewarded, I think, unfounded speculation with research, attention, and information. Unfounded, unsourced speculation should instead be removed as such, no further steps needed. But the pattern has been that the user posts unsourced claims, either to the talk pages or the articles themselves (it was the latter in this case: he posted on "Pancho Gonzales" that Gonzales probably led the tour in prize money in 1965, without a citation), we tell him why it's wrong, he demands to see the actual citation, he finds something in it to prolong the argument. Now that he's seen the actual evidence, he objects, as you can see on the thread, about what Gonzalez must have made in Europe. I guess you're not a tennis fan so you may not know how ridiculous that objection is: it's common knowledge that Gonzalez won nothing in Europe that year and I know the user in question is very familiar with this post showing that Gonzalez didn't even play in Europe that year:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/pancho-gonzalez-career-stats.563013/page-9#post-10885973

Given all this, you should see why there is so much suspicion that his misinformation consists of deliberate lies. It is, at any rate, misinformation, and of the obvious kind. You see the prize money figures for all the players, as listed by Tennishistory1877. There is no plausible argument here from the user in question; it's just disruptiveness and misinformation for their own sake.

For a non-student of tennis history it may be difficult to see but I have to impress on you that this is not an issue of two users having a falling-out because they can't see eye-to-eye on debatable matters and they should just learn to agree to disagree. What we have here is tennishistory1877, who never posts misinformation (and nor do I, nor the few remaining other users still involved on these pages), and on the other side, a poster who constantly posts misinformation.

All of that is surely a matter for admin concern, and yet the only steps taken by admins so far have been to remove the warning about misinformation from the talk page of the user in question. Is that going to encourage or discourage further misinformation? Krosero (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a person knows nothing about tennis history, anyone who can add up can see the -$7,000 claim he made on the talk thread is complete baloney. I struggled to respond to such an aggressive delusional post such as he posted, so I merely listed the facts. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Here's another very recent example of misinformation. It's very long and you're not asked to read the whole thing, but you may note, first of all, how prolonged it is; how the user who argued with tennisedu there (not myself or tennishistory1877) noted several times that no one else agreed with him, etc, and that he should let it go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_number_1_ranked_male_tennis_players#UPI_poll

The user then took his interpretation and put in on Lew Hoad's page, where it remains today -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Hoad#cite_note-344

Again if you're not familiar with tennis it's difficult for me to get across what a gross error this is, but he's claiming that 37 sports editors voted for Pancho Segura as the top tennis player of 1962, and that 24 voted for Alex Olmedo. These were minor players that year, and this is far beyond plausible argument; these are claims that in all my years of studying tennis history I could never even have imagined (I don't say this to get personal about it but merely to impress on a non-tennis student what the situation is). Tennisedu's interpretation of the 1962 poll is clearly wrong, and he was told he was going against all consensus, and yet he took his interpretation and put it directly onto Lew Hoad's page.

He chose to interpret the poll that way, as he said himself in the long discussion I linked to, as a way to restore the UPI poll, because it ultimately votes for Lew Hoad as #1 for 1962 (we removed that UPI poll from the relevant page months ago, by consensus, because of all the problems with it). As you noted in our previous meeting about all this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnuniq#Tennis_edits), "repeatedly promoting Lew Hoad would be a misuse of Wikipedia and the time of other editors."

And in this case, he's not merely promoting Hoad; he went against consensus to post his particular interpretation of the poll, which has produced this misinformation about Pancho Segura and Alex Olmedo, namely that dozens of sports editors directly voted for them as #1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Letcord pinging Letcord should he wish to add anything, since he was involved in that long discussion I linked to directly above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this discussion. While I haven't got extensive personal experience with the user in question, I have read back many old discussions, and noticed that their edits almost all revolve around Lew Hoad, be they directly to his article/talk page (where a full 1/4 of their 7228 edits have been made), to statistics articles featuring Hoad, or to the articles of Hoad's contemporaries. This isn't in and of itself problematic (we all have our favorite players), but from what I've seen, many of the user's edits violate WP:NEUTRAL, serving to either inflate Hoad's achievements as a player, or diminish those of his contemporaries (thereby indirectly doing the former), often in nuanced ways that require in-depth knowledge to counter. To me this indicates that the user is acting as a single-purpose account, being not here to build an encyclopedia for the most part, but to promote Hoad.

Looking at discussion on the user's IP talk page, current talk page and particularly the archives of Talk:Lew Hoad, it's abundantly clear that numerous editors have had to spend inordinate amount of time combating this biased editing by closely monitoring the user's edits and engaging in many extended, circuitous discussions. The dispute I was involved in on the world number 1 talk page (which was actually a re-litigation of another long discussion on the same topic) outlined by @Krosero above appears to be just a recent example of this. This is the real tragedy for me, as some of these editors are expert tennis researchers who could be spending that time making significant contributions to tennis articles on Wikipedia.

I think the best outcome would be a topic ban from articles relating to Lew Hoad, broadly construed. It's just a matter of what evidence you need @Johnuniq to get us there. Letcord (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Letcord for your input and post. I think it's a good jumping off point for our further discussion on this. Krosero (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to get a topic ban would be to raise the issue at WP:ANI. However, posting a mess at ANI will not get the result that you want. What is needed is for people to seriously read what I have taken a lot of time to write. Then action needs to be taken to follow that advice. If that were done, and if it could be shown that new edits contained original research (WP:OR = conclusions not in the sources), and if a discussion failed to have everyone agree that that was a problem that would not be repeated, then I could ask questions that should lead to a useful outcome. My most recent comment was at User talk:Krosero#Tennis problems. Please do not respond there, or here for that matter. Just digest the advice and decide what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post Letcord which I very much agree with. It is the huge amount of my time that this editor has wasted that I most resent. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I read what you wrote and appreciate the effort you put into writing it, but the issue isn't any single dispute which you could help with in a WP:DR-style manner, as the long discussions always conclude in favor of reality from what I've seen. It's the relentless promotion of a particular player requiring constant monitoring and spawning those discussions that is the problem. Editors shouldn't feel that they have to check Wikipedia in perpetuity or else have all articles in their subject-area of interest "go down the drain" due to tendentious editing.

If topic-banning is not within your remit, and "posting a mess" at ANI won't get the desired outcome, then making a concise post at ANI with numerous clear-cut examples seems to be the only option to resolve this situation Letcord (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem "relentless promotion" or is there a "list of errors"? It is hard to show that promotion is a problem, although it can be done. However, if there is a list of errors, it should be easy to focus on a couple of recent examples and follow what I said at User talk:Krosero#Tennis problems. If there are no new errors and the problem is promotion, the issue needs to be addressed with consensus discussion focused on a couple of simple issues. For example, it may be that someone thinks that recent edits at a particular article are not necessary and they might propose on article talk that all edits be reverted back to a specified time/date with the claim that changes since then are unsatisfactory due to [reasons go here]. Relevant links might be WP:RS and WP:DUE. If consensus supports such a revert, it should happen. If there is edit warring in opposition to consensus, an admin can intervene. Someone objecting to local consensus can start an WP:RFC, but that is their only option since edit warring against multiple other editors will fail. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Letcord pointed very concisely just now at what I felt myself, namely that the situation is a longstanding one with recurrent patterns and therefore needs to be judged as a whole, rather than as isolated incidents. Every incident is different, but observing them as a whole over the years you can begin to see what they have in common.

@Johnuniq outlined the following at my talk page:

"Find a couple of examples of recent and simple-to-understand problematic edits to an article. Show that there was a good-faith discussion at article talk with no criticism of other editors. Show that the discussion concluded that the edits in question were wrong and should have been known to be wrong. Show that the editor has not clearly retracted their claims."

Taking this advice, tennishistory1877 and I decided we should start with the incident concerning 1965 prize money, on the Pancho Gonzales page.

I think what I outline below can be used as an example -- but just one example -- of relentless promotion, among other things (which should become clear as you read what I've outlined).

Tennisedu edited Gonzales’ page to state that Pancho had made $26,945 by July 20, but the source he gave (Boston Globe) stated only $18,945; Tennisedu’s original-research claim here is that the source must have been excluding $8,000 from a certain earlier tournament in Dallas: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=1083242494&oldid=1081985932

Tennisedu edited Gonzales' page, claiming without citation that Pancho was probably the top money winner for the year, a piece of original research, and one that contradicts the well-documented and well-known (among even casual students of tennis history) that Rod Laver was the top money winner in 1965 and in these years generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=1083316178&oldid=1083315297

Tennisedu then edited Gonzales’ page, removing a longstanding noncontroversial statement of fact, namely that by 1965 Gonzales was no longer number one; tennisedu stated in his edit summary that this fact was no longer necessarily true, if Gonzalez was the top money-earner of the year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=1083320777&oldid=1083320351

Tennishistory1877 then removed the unsourced claim about Gonzales being probably top-money earner of the year, and he restored the figure of $18,945, using the correct figure actually stated by the Boston Globe citation; he noted in his edit summary that Rod Laver, as is widely known and easily verified even on Wikipedia alone, won the big events that took place in the remainder of the year, after the Boston Globe made its report on July 20, thus ruling out that Gonzales could have finished first in prize money by the end of the year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=1083335712&oldid=1083334632

Tennisedu repeated, in his next edit summary, the claim that Pancho was probably the top money earner of the year, making an edit to Pancho's page that restored his original research about $8,000 being missing from the Boston Globe's figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=1083442778&oldid=1083335712

At that point, Tennishistory1877 added to the Gonzales page the full list of prize-money leaders, showing Gonzales down in fifth place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Gonzales&diff=1083461084&oldid=1083442778

Tennisedu then opened up a new topic on the Gonzales talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pancho_Gonzales#1965_Money_List), and you can read the progress of that discussion without further links. Tennisedu again repeated the claim that the Dallas prize money was missing from documented figures, and that the full figures needed to be seen. But when tennishistory1877 provided the figures – and I think this is a very important point, getting right to the heart of the problems we’ve had over the years – tennisedu found ways to dismiss the evidence, calling it off the cuff remarks made by an ex-promoter (yet you can see that the figures given were exact, down to the dollar, clearly not taken by memory or given casually).

At that point, you will no longer find one thing you asked for, namely, a discussion “with no criticism of other editors”, because at that point frustration boiled over, given that a very old pattern had repeated: one user made claims without citations, and casually dismissed actual citations/evidence given to him in rebuttal.

I mention this not to inject a personal element but to make one objection that I must make to what you’ve asked for: there are hardly any discussions where frustration has not boiled over and criticisms of the user have not been made; this kind of cavalier treatment of evidence produces anger and frustration. You mentioned a good-faith discussion. We do provide evidence in good faith, expecting it to be treated seriously; we make no controversial claims ourselves without citation, and expect in good faith the same from all users.

You said to show “the edits in question were wrong and should have been known to be wrong”: there are a number of links that show that any student of basic pro tennis history would know these claims to be wrong. The Boston Globe prize-money figure that tennisedu inflated is from mid-season – July 20; the Boston Globe showed Gonzales with a slight lead in prize money over Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, at that point in time. It’s commonly known among students of pro tennis history (tennisedu can confirm this) that the remainder of the season was mostly in Europe. The big events in Europe were not won by Gonzales, but by none other than his two-closest rivals in prize money, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall: see Wembley at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Championships, and French Pro at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Pro_Championship.

The full draws for these events are listed on Wiki, and they show that Gonzales was not even entered: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Professional_Championships_draws#1965 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Pro_Championship_draws#1965.

The user in question participated heavily on a message board thread (he can confirm this) where it was shown that Gonzales didn’t even play in Europe in 1965: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/pancho-gonzalez-career-stats.563013/#post-10291422.

Worst of all, even Joe McCauley's detailed compilation of pro tennis activity, which all of us including tennisedu own copies of and have used for years, shows virtually no activity for Pancho Gonzales in 1965 after July 20, while showing prodigious amounts of activity, and victories, by Laver and Rosewall.

There is so very, very much that anyone could easily have looked up (and that anyone who has studied pro tennis history should know from memory).

These basic facts were mentioned by tennishistory1877 on the Gonzales wiki talk page in the new section started by tennisedu to debate 1965 prize money; yet he did not clearly retract his claims, not only about Gonzales leading in prize money, but also the argument that Gonzales must have made money in Europe (!), and the claim that the full prize-money list we provided was merely off-the-cuff hearsay and a “joke” list (to use his word). None of that was clearly retracted.

I stop here for now before going onto to any other incidents, because I've set down a lot to digest and in order to hear from @Johnuniq what can be done with this, or what more is needed, particularly along the lines suggested by Letcord, to judge the situation as a whole, made up of a longstanding patterns that have never had resolution.Krosero (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime there's been another couple of posts on my talk page, but we don't really need this discussion in two places. Here is enough.Krosero (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great play-by-play of that particular dispute. If we were to start an ANI discussion, it would need to be reduced down to a concise single dot point, like so:

Added the false statement that Gonzales was the top pro earner in mid-1965 [3], misrepresenting the source by adding $8000 to the figure listed by falsely assuming it excluded prize money from the Dallas tournament (proof the source lists $18,945 not $26,945). Also added false, unverified speculation that Gonzales was the top earner for the year [4] (proof he wasn't), and used this as justification to remove the true statement that Gonzales wasn't the top pro from 1965-1967 [5].

If we have say 10-15 clear-cut examples like this, it might be enough to get an outcome at WP:ANI, which is for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" i.e. what we are dealing with here. Just one or two examples wouldn't be enough. Tennishistory1877 already listed many examples at Johnuniq's talk page, so such a list could be built very quickly. Letcord (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's a terrific summary. For someone as loquacious as myself, it's very useful! One minor point: the statement that Gonzales was top pro money earner by mid-1965 was true; he had a slight lead at that time over Rosewall and Laver, according to the Boston Globe, with his total of $18,945. Other than that, major points are covered.

Now, it took me about 2-3 hours to put my play-by-play together. I found that it was not the writing of it that took up the time, but rather scouring through the diffs and discussions for the stuff worth highlighting. That would be time-consuming no matter how short you intend to make your final summary. It has to be done carefully, and if I had not taken my time with this one, I would have missed the first part, about the misrepresentation of the $18,945 figure given in July (I had intended to start with the claim about Gonzales topping the entire calendar year in prize money).

So, putting together 10 or more of these, going back into archived discussions, could take me weeks (and I simply can't post with the frequency that some of you guys have been able to do).

But, it's worth doing, and I will put together as much as I can, if in fact it would help an ANI. I've never been entirely clear on administrative procedures and my understanding has been that an ANI can only look at personal behavior, and that no one will be interested in reviewing tennis content. But the entire dispute here is about tennis content. But if you're confident that an ANI might judge our evidence as a behavior pattern, then I'm for it.

One practical question: how far back can we go, in listing incidents? Is there some point at which ANI will say, "This is going too far back"? Krosero (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that Dallas prize money exclusion was speculation, Letcord (probably correct speculation in this case, but speculation nonetheless). The key thing I have queried to this same admin on krosero's talk page is the remark he made "You need to get others involved by asking for opinions at WT:WikiProject Tennis." It is the problem editor that needs to get consensus from wikiproject tennis, because he is the one who wants to alter the page. You seem very clued up on procedural matters, Letcord, so if we do launch an ANI I would gladly leave it in your very capable hands and I will contribute anything required. I seriously need a break from this editor. It has been two years now and he seems to be editing more now than ever and every edit needs to be checked. There are unintentional errors scattered all over the place and then there are the deliberate errors and the endless promotion of Lew Hoad. Virtually every talk thread he starts, he tries to justify his opinion based on nothing more than hot air and argues and argues despite all the evidence presented against his argument (giving him the last word is something I do nearly every time, after I have posted the facts). The editor hasn't added anything worthwhile to the Lew Hoad page for a long time now. This editor keeps me from better things and takes a toll on my mood. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@All: A good way to respond if you see me comment in a way that doesn't seem right or that seems inadequate would be to ask a question. I'm not complaining, I'm just concerned that an ANI report might do no more than waste time and increase frustration. A key point is my "a couple of recent examples and follow what I said at User talk:Krosero#Tennis problems" above. I did not say that was all that would be needed—I'm saying that if you haven't got a couple of recent examples then a report ANI would very likely go nowhere. That's because a fundamental of Wikipedia is WP:NOTPUNISH—the purpose of a sanction is to prevent disruption and if there is no recent disruption it follows that there is nothing to prevent. I strongly advise studying what I wrote at Krosero's talk. After doing that, read the comment at the bottom of that page, signed 11:34, 25 April 2022. Imagine you were someone with no knowledge of the history of tennis from sixty years ago—could you see a reason in that comment to issue a sanction? For one thing, the two diffs show edits by Tennishistory1877. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded giving you the information you wanted on krosero's talk thread and alerted you to it, which you ignored, johnuniq. The difference example showing both my edits shows the edit I undid of the problem editor and the information removed. Also, I pointed out your error when you said I should start a thread on wikiproject tennis to look for consensus. As I said, I am not the person who wants to add the information, so it would be absurd for me to start a talk thread asking for consensus on information that another editor wants to add and I do not. I am sure you are basically a well meaning person, johnuniq, but you have wasted a lot of my time and your manner is beginning to irritate me considerably, so please do not be offended if I do not respond to you anymore. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you should ask a question. You have been editing since August 2017 and have under 5400 edits, none of them at an admin noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, I've started a draft for an ANI report at User:Tennishistory1877/ANI draft, what do you think? @Tennishistory1877 @Krosero we need proof that Rosewall holds the total doubles majors record, 1 more key example of diminishing Hoad's rivals' achievements and 1 more key example of adding other false info to non-Hoad articles. Also, in the "other examples of editors correcting false info or removing bloat added by this user from Hoad-related pages in the past ~12 months" section if there are articles that have had problematic editing that I've missed please tell me them so I can add them to that section. Letcord (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is great Letcord. Exactly what we need, brief and to the point, listing many examples of his bad editing. Regarding the pro major doubles record of Rosewall, the results of pro major doubles are listed in the back of McCauley's book, The history of Professional tennis, Joe McCauley, (2000), pages 256-257. I should point out that he did not query my correction of his error in this case, but again it required me to make the correction and without my intervention his false information would still be on the page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Letcord: As you wish. However, such pages are only temporarily permitted in order to prepare a report (WP:POLEMIC), and the page must be deleted after a short period, say two weeks. It is never permissible to reveal personal information (which includes an IP address) unless there is a diff of the editor concerned confirming that edits made by the IP are theirs. After setting the scene with links to users/articles, the first three links must show recent sanctionable behavior. The best and most easily understood points need to be in those three links. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent, Letcord. I wonder if something could be said about currently false information that we have yet to remove from Lew Hoad's page. I gave up editing these pages and never got to tackling one particularly egregious stat. He wrote on Hoad's page, at the end of the 1957 section, that Hoad led all his rivals by the end of the year, but his stats come from sources that are dated late November or early December, when Hoad was still in the lead; in the remainder of the season the stats changed, of course (and Hoad did poorly in December). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Hoad#Professional_career:_1957%E2%80%931973

I leave it your judgment how, or even whether to include that. Maybe an ANI can only look at things for which you have a diff to point to.

But it's a candidate for inclusion because it doesn't require any tennis knowledge. He's represented mid-year stats as full-year stats, and that's enough.

I'm still looking at the stuff you compiled. I added one revert to your list, one that was very key. Krosero (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think tennis knowledge is necessary if an arbiter is looking at an ANI anyway (lack of tennis knowledge is used as an excuse by those who do not wish to act anyway). Let me explain what I mean. From my understanding, wikipedia pages are built on reliable sources. Everything I write on wikipedia can be sourced, and the same should be the case for all editors on all subjects. If an editor is trying to insert information onto a page that does not say what the source says it does this can be easily checked and verified by someone without any knowledge of the subject by simply reading the source. If the information the editor adds isn't sourced at all and someone has questioned that information and a counter-source is produced that contradicts the unsourced information, then the editor's unsourced information should be removed from the page. There are many of this problem editor's edits that have no sources for what he is saying (there is no source that says Gonzales was top money winner for 1965, for example). Added to that there is no consensus from anyone for these edits, consensus being another important factor in wikipedia editing. I will look into the issue you raise about 1957, krosero. I am impressed with your ANI draft Letcord. You have listed a lot of examples there and laid it out very clearly and concisely. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied the ANI draft in detail @Letcord and there is very little to fault there. The only thing that is missing is examples of the monstrously argumentative nature of the editor in question (and monstrously is not a word I use often). He seems to delight in beginning an argument from an unwinnable position, one of the most frustrating aspects to his personality. I could understand if an editor arrives at an argument with some sort of evidence to support their case (even if I don't agree with them), but many times he comes to the argument knowing there are sources that directly contradict what he is saying and he has no sources himself. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that point; if something could be stated succinctly and effectively about his argumentativeness, then good; but if not, I think that point will come out regardless, in the course of the ANI, and I'd be fine proceeding with what we have right now.

On the matter of the 1957 H2H figures, I've been studying the numbers and the sources again, and I now think the problem there is probably one of original research (in this case, using several sources to state a conclusion not expressed by any single source), but since I'm not yet 100% certain with this one, I'd say let's not include it.

We might be a little short on listing more major episodes, and I've looked for more such episodes in the archives, but I think we've got the important ones now. For me the issue here is as much about everyday behavior as it is about major incidents, and I think the long lists of small and large reverts, compiled by Letcord, really show the extent to which we've had to put in relentless monitoring just to keep these pages from going down the tube. Krosero (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 was an arbitrary number, so if we've already listed all the best examples then that's fine. A sentence about argumentativeness could be added. We need to add a couple more examples of edits changing the US pro to Cleveland pro to that dot point to prove that it was "repeated". Other than that I think we're ready. Please add your wiki signature under "signed" on that page. The last question is whether we want to ask other users who have been involved with the user to co-sign the report. I'll leave that one to you guys. Letcord (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed the ANI draft. I think we have enough with the three of us to proceed. I am quite keen to get this done as soon as we can. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signing on Wikipedia includes the timestamp, e.g. mine is: "Letcord (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)", which you can produce with four tildes ("~~~~"). Please go back and change yours accordingly. I wrote the report but am not particularly interested in participating in the discussion that it will generate. My advice if you do is to criticize only the behavior of the user, not the user himself. Also put all links in square brackets [] so they are shortened (https://www.example.com vs [6]). I don't know if we will be successful, but I believe more than enough evidence is there to demonstrate a "chronic, intractable behavior problem". I think 12PM GMT tomorrow (Friday) would be a good time to post if we are ready.[reply]

I don't dislike the editor in question, I dislike the way he uses wikipedia. He has never done anything personal against me in all the time I have known him. Everything is about the content and protecting the accuracy and neutrality of wikipedia tennis history pages. Yes 12PM GMT is fine with me. Could you post it please, Letcord, I don't mind if you don't participate in the discussion. Frankly I have little to add myself, the facts speak for themselves, but will answer questions if necessary. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine by me, and thank you again for doing this and for your advice, I'll be keeping my language impersonal. Staying cautiously optimistic. Krosero (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krosero, @Tennishistory1877: Now posted at WP:ANI#User:Tennisedu. Tennishistory1877, please replace the content of the draft page with {{db-user}} to mark it for deletion. Letcord (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Letcord. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro major doubles champions

I'm looking to add the pro major doubles champions and finalists to the articles of each of the tournaments. Does McCauley have them listed, and if so, could you please post a picture of the relevant pages somewhere so I can type them up? Thanks. Letcord (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Letcord https://imgur.com/a/sMCGEIM I should point out that pre-open era pro major doubles titles were not such a big deal, with very small draws (they struggled to get enough players together for a match sometimes!) But here is the list in McCauley. I should also mention that 1936 and 1938 Wembley events have since been proven not to have taken place. 1953 French Pro was just a four man event in Paris (McCauley admits on the page that he is unsure of its status). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added those results, thanks. I wasn't sure whether in the years for which only a singles result is listed no doubles was held or McCauley just couldn't find the results if there was, so I've left those blank for now (e.g. 1931 in French Pro Championship#Doubles). They should be replaced with "Not held" if there wasn't any doubles in those years. I'll do that if you can confirm that McCauley has all the doubles results.

Also if you could add the second 1951 and 1954 US Pro doubles results to match the singles for those years that would be helpful. Letcord (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubles and particularly pro tour doubles doesn't interest me very much. The reports are probably on newspapers.com for 1951 and 1954 US Pros and La Gallica for 1931-32 and 1934 French Pros (the 1933 French Pro event listed by McCauley was the France v USA team match) if you want to look them up. I recall reading in one of the player's autobiographies (I think it was Perry's) that they only played the first set of doubles matches on world series tours full out and whoever won it, the losers would concede the second set, as they had a train to catch or a long journey by car before the next match the following night. I also read a match report in the 1930s that said Tilden was trying full out in a doubles match, but the other three players didn't care too much who won. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. None of what you have provided is proof that Janis Paige was alive on her 100th birthday, it merely implies that she is alive. Where is the "Here is Janis celebrating her birthday" or "Janis' friend and family celebrated her birthday with her at...on.."??? And btw, I ran out of patience with you several edits ago because you appear to lack basic English comprehension skills. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone has a photographer present at their 100th birthday. That is your personal benchmark, it has nothing to do with wikipedia's policy of providing reliable sources. TCM would not celebrate Janis Paige's 100th birthday if she was not 100. You being verbally abusive does not change any of the facts. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Australian Open broadcasters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Australian Open broadcasters, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Open broadcasters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Simon Reed (broadcaster)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Simon Reed (broadcaster) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your start of Frank T. Anderson (note revised article title). Thanks for your work on this forgotten youth tennis star of a century ago. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got a death date for Frank T. Anderson — January 20, 1979. Only found one shortish obit for him. Also have a photo up. Saw mention that he was a Christian Scientist and that his career was cut short by illness. Best regards, —tim ///// Carrite (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite. Thanks. That is good work to find an obituary for such a common surname as Anderson (and it is clearly the correct person), well done. I am very experienced in family tree research and know the pitfalls of having two people with the same name. I spent a long time yesterday on ancestry looking up Walter Senior (a Canadian championships winner in 1937). There was one born in March 1906 in England that died in Los Angeles in December 1977. The tennis player Walter Senior was from San Francisco, however, and the Walter on ancestry seems a little old. A tennis match report states his age as being a few years younger, which seems more plausible. Always important to go with the information that clearly states the person is a tennis player. I see people make the mistake on other websites (including other countries' wikipedia sites) of just finding a name on ancestry or findagrave and assuming it is the same person they are writing an article on, which is not always the case. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]