User talk:JamesAndersoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

JamesAndersoon, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi JamesAndersoon! 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 Jtmorgan (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2018 J&T Banka Prague Open – Doubles[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. JamesAndersoon, thanks for creating 2018 J&T Banka Prague Open – Doubles!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

non-consensus charts[edit]

I noticed you changing many tennis related "career charts." Those chart requirements are in the Tennis Project Guidelines and they have certain requirements/parameters that you were mistakenly removing or adding to. Have a look to make sure your later additions conform to consensus. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Tennis Project thanks[edit]

It's not easy trying to bring articles up to proper formatting. It's grunt-work and pretty thankless, and there are so many tennis articles that need it. Thanks for helping out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Tennis Barnstar Hires.png The Tennis Barnstar
To editor JamesAndersoon: For continued excellence in maintaining the quality of tennis related articles or to those giving great assistance and time to WikiProject Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It's my pleasure. :D – JamesAndersoon 11:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, JamesAndersoon. 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)

Sofia Kenin career statistics moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Sofia Kenin career statistics, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey man[edit]

Sorry man for writting some offensive things, my bad, we should discuss it from the beginning. Hope we can be friends. OVVL (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
It's ok :) 17:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I saw you were asking about web-site, where you can watch statistic numbers. There's nothing like ATP site, but tennisabstract.com is pretty good, if you choose right filters on the left side of the screen you can get w-l stats (hold ctrl for multiply choices), for example it is for danilovic: http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer-classic.cgi?p=OlgaDanilovic&f=ACareerqqC2E0i1i2i3i4i5i6 . if you have questions about it - i cn help you OVVL (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For example if you want all w-l tour stats - in filter you have to pick: "All results", then "Level" -> check "All Tours", but it brings you also qualification stats that you don't need, so then you have to do multiply choose: "Round" -> and hold CTRL by choosing all rounds (except "All"), so it will delete all qualification results. one problem - it counts 150K there as WTA tour, don't know how to filter it.
@OVVL: Thank you so much! This is what I need :)

Timeline tournaments - Pan Pacific and Qatar[edit]

Please stop changing Qatar to Doha and Pan Pacific to Tokyo in our tennis timelines. I have to keep changing them back to the guideline event names instead of simply the cities. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sorana Cîrstea career statistics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estoril Open (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) 08:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaqueline Cristian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Careful on the guideline tables regarding countries[edit]

Per consensus and guidelines, tennis career tables include only countries. The cities were deemed trivial and can be found by the link. Please don't change them as it takes a lot of us to undo the damage. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh my goodness... how many of these charts have you wrecked? I'm seeing so many now. Please be careful here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semifinal - semi-final[edit]

Just wondering... what criteria do you use when you change the spelling of semifinal/semi-final in tennis articles? It's tricky I know. US players are easy... always semifinal. British players also easy... always semi-final. The same with events in those countries. The rest of the world is not so easy. Of the four majors, Wimbledon is the only one that uses semi-final in the draws. In checking the Australian Open, French Open, and US Open, they all use semifinal. Either term is correct depending on the setting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me this? :) Did you ask only for opinion, cuz I don't remember I made changes like this, neither pay so much attention. But if you ask me for oppinion, maybe it's better semifinals, if brittish and us players use this, and it's wikipedia on english language :) JamesAndersoon) (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I saw you reverted a couple articles that had semifinal to semi-final. I think the player was Polish. But I was actually just asking an opinion, since I don't know myself. British tend to use semi-final, US uses semifinals. I think I always use the term preferable to the player in question, but many countries I have no idea what to do. But no problem... I was just curious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): It's possible that I reverted some edits that was right, but there are some users, like "188.105.94.86" that do on purpose bad things, that he was said no to do, like name of tournaments e.g Australian Open, Melbourne instead of Australian Open, Australia and other stuffs. I told him so many times, but he really, If you understand me. I also saw that U said to him so many times, about consesus and guidliness, and he always ignore. I saw edits that he made some good edits by him, because I really don't have so much time to always correct some bad things he done. You probably talk about Iga Swiatek, because I reversed his edits today on this page, probably with semi-final/semifinal, I didn't saw it.
Congratulation! Slimiest talk ever: "... and unfortunatelly I am forced to also undo" ... because "he wants to be a "bad" guy..." - and the day before, JamesAndersoon seemed to agree with me about those silly guidelines (Australian Open - where? AUSTRALIA!!!) 188.105.94.86 (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@188.105.94.86: Hey, where are you dude!? xD Don't know what to do, and go to my page? What a king hahahhahahha xD
@JamesAndersoon: You say you "follow things that are made in guidlines..." (or "guidliness" ?!?) but you are just pissing in every corner you can reach... So keep going! - 188.105.94.86 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@188.105.94.86: Yes, I follow guidliness, you should follow too, instead of ruining pages. Note: guidlines or guidliness, everybody understand, so pointless from you to correct me that. Pissing in every corner?? xD Dude, there are rules how these pages should look like, it seems you are the one pissing in every corner and on purpose do things that should not do. You go to my page and watch what I've done, and what pages I edited and then you edited them too. You have serious problems, pissing in every corner you can reach.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kimberley Zimmermann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malibu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2020 ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong I – Singles[edit]

Notice

The article 2020 ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong I – Singles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable tennis tournament. Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2020 ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong I[edit]

Notice

The article 2020 ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong I has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable tennis tournament which fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Daria Lopatetska[edit]

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 Daria Lopatetska requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daria Lopatetska. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Daria Lopatetska, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

NTENNIS reminder[edit]

Just a quick reminder from me that for a tennis player to meet WP:NTENNIS, they either have to play on the ATP/WTA tour or the Davis/Fed cup, or to have won an ATP challenger/ITF $50k+ tournament. If you're going to create articles about players who don't meet NTENNIS, you should add reliable sources that show that the player is notable despite not meeting the listed criteria. Thanks! IffyChat -- 09:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop with the non-guideline charts[edit]

I have had to do reworking and reverting of charts you made non-consensus, non-guideline. These include high profile Ashleigh Barty career statistics charts. I'm not even sure "Tennis Abstract" is a good source but I put it in the notes section instead of a column by column addition. Please refresh yourself on the current guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines before making changes. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh my goodness I see you have changed many many articles with non-discussed non-guideline alterations. Please stop with collapsing legends and extra reference columns and rows. Usually a single note below the chart will suffice with a reference as to where the info came from. I'm not sure how reliable Tennis Abstract is but I'm not going to quibble about that unless others start bringing it up. But do not change longstanding consensus guidelines on performance charts. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with collapsible legends as far as I am concerned, in fact long overdue, but I have removed references to tennisabstract.com as there is no indication that this qualifies as a reliable source. Anyone can make a website on tennis statistics, but that does not make it a reliable source that we can use.--Wolbo (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Collapsible legends are not per guidelines and I think the first use at least should be required. But that would be for discussion at Tennis Project, not just done to every article because we can. Also, if you look into past discussion here, Mr Andersoon has been warned for other non-guideline changes, and he never seems to respond. He just goes on doing the same thing with no discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click):
  • 17 Feb 2019 - user Wolbo made collapsible legend-table on Ivana Jorovic's page. It past almost a year, and it still remains collapsible on that page, but you reverted my edits, but others are right. Interesting.
  • You said on Justina Mikulskytė's page that I made non-guidline edits, but previous one was against guidline, and you still reverted.
  • Tiers are called: $15,000, $25,000, W25, W60 etc. not 25,000, and you also reverted it.
  • Few days ago someone again made non-guidline edits about tournament's name on Caroline Wozniacki's page and you ofcourse didn't see it.
  • Almost 90% of WTA player's pages have something against guidline, or miss a lot of things, but you don't care.
  • Everytime I try to follow guidliness, I meet someone that want to do against guidliness, and you always don't care.
  • Yeah, tennis abstract is probably not the most realiable source, but it's not my (ours) fault that WTA is so unproffesional and cannot make a good discent website, just like ATP. Everyone can post any numbers in that performance timeline table's as they want, without proof how they know it. It's wikipedia, and as I know, we need sources, we need references. If anyone have better source, great! But then, let posted it.
  • Screwed tables: there is no screwed tables if you add extra row with reference. Funny how the width of columns of performance timeline's table don't made table "screwed" with wrapped-words and wrapped-numbers.

So I think it's pointless to talk about some guidliness, when they don't exist, otherwise, almost all pages will be at least 90% similar to guidliness, but they are not. You only take care about my edits, but afraid to tell it to others. I will continue to do it on the way that I did it before, until you "guys" decide to take care about WTA pages, rather than taking care about maybe 5 of them only. I know you will reported me for vandalism or something like that, but I really don't care. You probably don't respect for my credits that I made for these pages, but don't care. Have a nice day ...

Wow.... finally some answers. Tiers are never w25 and w60... no idea where that was ever discussed. Usually it is 10,000, 25,000, etc.. with no dollar sign. But you won't listen. And baloney on not caring... that's just a lie of yours. When I see something wrong I call it out as have others about you in the last few days. If you are having trouble with someone going against guidelines all you have to do is ask for some help... most of us will take a looksee. It's wrapped words and numbers only if you have a broken or non-english browser. The simple thing is we aksed for you to bring it to talk and all you have done is edit war.... so I'll let administration handle things now as you don't seem to want to work with the team. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): If there are guidliness, why so many pages are messy?? Where are you then?? You are the one that starting the war. And never was able to say something to anyone else. Just like a baby reporting. Go cry, little baby. And it's not violence, it's revolt cuz you don't follow guidliness.
@Fyunck(click): and where are you when I nicely asked you about simona halep pending on her page??? you ignore. sure. and thanks for forgetting how I protected page against violence. Wish you good life!
@Fyunck(click): And if you are blind, let me show you categories for ITF 2020 ITF Women's World Tennis Tour (January–March).
If there are guidelines???? I've told you about them many times, you just seem to ignore a lot of it. When someone make a single wrong edit to an article it easily gets missed... there are thousands of players out there, and new ones that aren't on anyone's watch list yet. When you make a dozen edits it gets noticed, and yours were noticed. And once we see a wrong edit by someone we revert them and let them know why. If you happen to see a problem article we hope you would fix it and if someone gives you static we hope you bring it to our attention so we can help. But if you don't let us know there's nothing we can do.
You'll note the discussion above on your talk page about collapsible legends. Well that is actually being discussed on the Tennis Project talk page, and we welcome you to join in. That is how it's supposed to work. You boldly try something and it gets reverted as being against consensus. You bring it up on the project talk page to see if perhaps we can make some tweaks to the code. The performance charts we want to look identical on each players article. No muss no fuss, just the same chart for all our readers. It's a complicated chart so we don't want any surprises for our readers. You added an extra row (and in some cases simply crammed in sourcing). You were told by another editor that the source is suspect. That source says nothing about where he gets his details and the author is not known in tennis circles. No one knows anything about tennisabstract.com. The other editor removed your sources on the spot. I did not however. I took them out of the main chart where it didn't belong anyway, and left it as a note that some of the sourcing for win/loss records were gathered by tennisabstract.com, and linked it to the player's bio at tennisabstract.com. It seemed like a reasonable compromise to me. You reverted that and wouldn't talk about it and left no summary as to why. That and all your other changes and reverts are why we are at this point. Your message on my talk page was not appreciated. We want to discuss with you, we are slow but we do make tweaks to guidelines, but we won't be bludgeoned into changes when an editor only wants it one way and won't talk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
And not everyone agrees with each other at Tennis Project. Editor Wolbo and I have had some knock-down battles where we still do not totally agree. But we keep dialog open... we keep offering compromises... we get other tennis editors inputs to help us form new guideline tweaks. Sometimes we are bold and try to help explain guidelines better by tweaking our guidelines, but we leave a summary of what and why and also usually on the tennis project talk page. No secrets. If one person is not pleased it'll get reverted and we'll bring it to full discussion to work out kinks, not force its way through. Some editors are better at coding, others at updating infoboxes to the current date, still others at creating new articles from scratch. Some are better at handling vandalism and making sure our guidelines are met and current. Some editors are great at digging up public domain photos to add to our articles. Some like to do the tedious line by line fixing of bad html. It really is a team effort to keep all these article from turning into a tangled zoo. Some of the guidelines took months of haggling and compromise to gain Project consensus. But you have want to be part of the team for it to work. I hope you'll be part of the team because you are correct when you say that you have done good and helpful work here. I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have been told not to do this in summaries and on your talk page. You have been asked to bring it to Tennis Project talk before replacing or doing any more damage. Your edits are not guideline approved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anna Blinkova. The number of editors you are reverting is getting long Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JamesAndersoon reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: ). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulation! I know you don't want to answer questions, it hurts, i know. So pathetic ...

January 2020[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Anna Blinkova. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rankings date for Hayley Carter[edit]

Not sure why this is the hill you choose to die on. The vast majority of articles spell out the month in the infobox, I see almost no articles that shorten it. Why do you feel this is needed? Michfan2123 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michfan2123: No need to say September instead of Sep when everybody know that we talk about February. Also in WTA final's table we used Feb (not February). Somewhere I said it, but then people change it without explanation. Sometimes words are wrapped when you said ex. 30 September 2019, so better to say 30 Sep 2019.

p.s. I didn't it was defined anywhere. Cheers. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The WTA Finals Table is not the same as an infobox. I have no issue with a finals table shortening the month. I have never seen an infobox in tennis or golf shorten the month, except when you edit it. 99% of infoboxes do not shorten the month. Why do you feel the need to change this? Michfan2123 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Michfan2123: Agree it's not the same thing. I really don't problems with full names, but really think it's better to say it as short form, but if you understand me, I really hate the fact that we don't have proper example how tennis player's page should look like. Yes, there are guidliness, but I don't see everything was defined there ... JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
You've been invited to a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Infobox guidelines. michfan2123 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Michfan2123 (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Performance tables are interchangeable[edit]

Those performance tables are interchangeable for all players. You said it should say so.... IT Does! Right up top....

  • "For singles performance timelines, the following tables are acceptable for both ATP and WTA players. There are complex and simplified versions depending on the player."

They are all acceptable within reason, and it's up to the editors to use the one that is the best fit for a particular player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) @Fyunck(click): Don't get it what I have to do with that? Yeah, there are two types of tables, I didn't say anything about that??

We offer a choice of tables to use. We don't have lots of flexibility with these tables, but the date row is one of the options. By you putting it in both major tables you are taking away that extra option for editors. Creating a table without the date row is acceptable. Creating a table with the date row is acceptable. By showing both choices we let editors know they can use them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
That's totally ok. But why it says on ATP it should stay, but on WTA don't. Don't get it??
It's at the top of the header for all the tables. It is meant for all performance tables. Perhaps it could be clearer so I tried to word the tables as examples... but they are switchable. The larger a table gets, the more need for an extra row of dates. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Dude, you guys made these guidliness so confuzing (unclear) ... No wonder why 90% of users ignore it.
Most of it was written before I came onboard. I agree that it can be confusing at times. It used to be even more confusing but we try to make it clearer whenever someone is confused about something. You can be sure that if you are having an issue on understanding a particular item, that others have felt the exact same way as you. When it is brought to our attention we try and explain and make the wording a bit clearer. I'm doing the best I can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, that is actually a problem, that only you take care about guidliness. I don't understand why no more people are involved in that. Then tennis pages will be more organized ....

singlestitles in tennis player infobox[edit]

Why are you removing ITF titles (and the mention of WTA)? Nowhere in the infobox is mentioned which titles it presents. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: Only WTA/ATP titles are important; ITF are minor. If someone won WTA/ATP title (singles or doubles) no need for mentioning ITF/Challenger/125K titles.
@Pelmeen10: See ex. ATP players, no mention of ATP, but if you want to add lower-category titles, then you could add ITF/Challenger/125K etc., but really no need for that. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Pliskova, Osaka, Barty etc. don't have it.
The importance matter is about point of view. But it's not clear that if the infobox says 0 titles, it means 0 WTA titles. Title is title unless mentioned which title it talks about. Now @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
As I already said, ATP player don't have "ATP" after number of titles, so WTA also doesn't need it. WTA Tour\ATP Tour are major.

No need to change chart format[edit]

A simple mention at the top (or bottom) of a tennis players career stats should suffice as far as sourcing. That way it doesn't have to be entered in every singles or doubles chart. Just a *Sourced per WTA<ref name=wta-profile/> will do. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): It's not about chart format, it's reference! You know, people need to know where you "find" that information!
I have no problem with a general reference given for our charts. In fact I encourage it. However, that info is found on the WTA or ATP website and that is probably good enough for all our charts. And even if you want to get more specific about the exact page form the WTA or ATP, it should not go into a non-guideline column or row. It looks awful! A simple note at the top or bottom of the charts, that encompasses all the charts is more than enough. It could even be phrased at the top of the Career stats section as "Unless noted, all stats are referenced from the WTA website." And then link in that note to the player bio at the WTA. We do not require a separate ugly row for every chart. That would need conversation at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again, the performance tables are interchangeable[edit]

There is no reason to include and extra row for year on articles like Kamilla Rakhimova. Charts without the extra row of dates are guideline approved and with small charts rarely needed. It's easy to add when a player starts adding many years to their resume so that it's easier to see records. When it's placed on a small chart it actually looks strange. And for years we have put number of titles on on a single row. There seems to be no need to do two rows and make the infobox even longer than it is. Maybe I'm missing something but Where are you seeing long-term two row entries for titles? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): On every ATP page. 0
5 Challenger for example
@Fyunck(click): And about row with years, you already said it can be, so let it be, don't understand the problem with that?
It is guideline acceptable to include an extra row for years. It is also guideline acceptable not to include an extra year for years. We tend to use the extra row for larger charts. You don't go around changing all charts to the style you like best just because you can... that is disruptive. And where are the hundreds of ATP articles that have two lines for titles? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Or maybe it's style YOU like? How "extra" row can bother you? - Non-sense. Please take more care about more important stuffs. And there are a lot of them.
Don't change any old charts just because you can without discussion on the talk page. They would have longstanding consensus to not include the row. And you still have not shown me all the hundreds of players with two rows in the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

How to not include the row, when it is on guidlines?????? JamesAndersoon (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): As you already said it's defined in guidlines but it's not nessecary to have it. Then, why you don't let me include it, when it is already part of guidlines?? Just to tell me your personal thought about that, I want you yo be objective. For me it's more easier when I edited career statistics to have it right above it. JamesAndersoon (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you let me not include it? That's a circular argument that gets nowhere. Right now you are replacing perfectly good charts. The main reason the extra row is in a chart is so that with larger charts it's easier to follow the columns. You have charts that stretch across the entire screen width-wise, and have added rows for grass, clay, etc, in can make it easier to follow. When you have a player with 3 years under their belt there is no real reason for the extra row of dates. In fact it looks a little silly. There is no hard and fast rule that we maintain at the project for charts, but generally the extra row of dates is for larger charts. Our readers don't need it for a player who's been on the tour for two seasons and doesn't have rows like hardcourt w-l, clay w-l, grass w-l, outdoor w-l, indoor w-l, olympics sections, year end championship sections, Davis Cup sections, Fed Cup sections, etc.. When they start piling up all those extras, it's a good time to consider adding that extra row of dates to make navigation a bit better. That's all I'm trying to say... be reasonable in when we add the date row. And when we find it deem-able to add, please do it without the "!" headers. That is poor html now at wikipedia. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Verónica Cepede Royg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roland Garros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Runner-ups is correct[edit]

The correct spelling is runner-ups when you are tallying the number of runner-up titles. There are not multiple runners in this case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit Zarina Diyas?[edit]

Hi JamesAndersoon, would you like me to copyedit the Zarina Diyas article before it's reviewed? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Yes, thank you for that! :) JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

JamesAndersoon, I copyedited the article. I think you should be able to take care of anything else a reviewer brings up, but let me know if there are any issues. One common mistake that I fixed was instead of "losing from", it should be "losing to". Also, most tournaments are preceded by "the" (for example, "at the US Open" is correct, not "at US Open"). One of the only exceptions to that is Wimbledon ("at Wimbledon" is correct, not "at the Wimbledon"). One thing that you will still need to fix is that references shouldn't contain titles in ALL CAPS unless it is an abbreviation (so "WTA" would be fine, but "WTA TOUR" should be written as "WTA Tour"). There were a decent number of references with that problem, but it's easy to find and fix. Hope that helps! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sportsfan77777: Thank you so much! You were really helpfull! I'm not native english speaker, so I'm trying to learn some new stuffs, so you helped me fix some grammar errors, and also way the formal english should be written. Talking about references, honestly, I though it shouldn't be in ALL CAPS, but I didn't know it for sure, but I will fix it now. Thanks again! JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dayana Yastremska; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Thank you for the warning. Thing is that user whose edits I keep reverted, was warned several times on many other pages in the past. He/she always decide to ignore it, and do it on his/her own. So, I think it's kind of pointless to tell him the same story on every single pages where he done disruptive edit. I also used to warned him on his talk page, but still nothing. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Camila Giorgi - removal of content[edit]

Hiya, I just noticed that you removed quite a lot of information from Camila Giorgi without leaving an edit summary - did you intend to do this? Just telling you in case it was an accident. Thanks, Ainlina(box)?

@Ainlina: Hey! I made career statistics page Camila Giorgi career statistics just like so many other fellow tennis players have. You even have a link pointing to that subpage. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tennis Barnstar Hires2.svg Another Tennis Barnstar
For your excellent work, JamesAndersoon, on the career statistics of women tennis players from around the world.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)