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).
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
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)[reply]
Tennis Project thanks
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello, 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.
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)[reply]
Hey man
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)[reply]
It's ok :) 17:24, 13 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.
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)[reply]
Careful on the guideline tables regarding countries
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
January 2020
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)[reply]
NTENNIS reminder
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! Iffy★Chat -- 09:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
January 2020
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.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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??[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ....
@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.
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
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Once again, the performance tables are interchangeable
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I beg to differ. Compound words which consist of a noun and another part of speech pluralise the noun, not the descriptor (see Dictionary.com as an example. The reference I've seen cited most often in English is Governor-General, where the plural is Governors-General, not Governor-Generals. Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[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.
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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@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)[reply]
Camila Giorgi - removal of content
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)?
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Rogers career statistics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CiCi Bellis career statistics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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.
Those events are hugely significant and it's why they are in performance timelines. Someone now has to go add back all your deletions. The performance timelines are the pinnacle of our articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the way it would normally work. As a player article progresses the performance timeline gets bigger and bigger, with more and more info. If the player article gets too unwieldy to handle all the charts and prose we split off the article into a "Career statistics" page as well. When that happens we shorten the performance chart on the main article to the Grand Slam tournaments only, but include the original full chart on page two, the Career statistics page. When to spilt the article is subjective timing issue. My opinion is it should stay one page as long as possible because more people find it, but I think many editors split it off when a player starts playing in all the ATP/WTA events regularly, and starts advancing past the first round. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished reviewing the article and left a list of changes that need to be addressed. It might look long, but it's mostly minor grammar issues. Very nice start; let me know once you've addressed these! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Zarina Diyas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zarina Diyas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sanfranciscogiants17 -- Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished reviewing the article and left a list of changes that need to be addressed - mostly grammar issues. It's a very nice start. This is my first GA review so if I've not been clear enough or if there is anything you don't understand, just ask and let me know when you've addressed these. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you. I noticed you said you were unsure if you'd made all the changes regarding the use of the definitive article so I have gone through the article and I think I've got all the ones you missed now. I think, from the way I've structured the review, there's been a couple of changes I'd suggested that you've missed. I'll learn from that for future reviews. To help you with that, I've added the English variety and date style tags, I've assumed it's British English from the comments you'd made in the review and I've set all the dates to dmy as that's what's in the infobox. For ease, I'll add at the bottom of the review a final areas to address section and I'll list the other things that you'd missed because of the way I've structured it originally. Fix them and the article will pass. If anything doesn't make sense just let me know and I'll explain. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Viktória Kužmová you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viktória Kužmová for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stevie fae Scotland -- Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to US$
Hi there! Could you help me understand why you are making edits that link to US$? Is there a policy or guideline that recommends this or a reason to think those links will help our readers? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Hi! A lot of things on article has link when it is first mentioned. In this case there is no such rules, and there are a lot different cases on so many tennis related pages. One of case is only ($), another one is (US$), third one has link to US$. My goal is to make consesus for all tennis related pages to have the same. Unfortunately, there is no consesus about that, so I picked link to US$ as best result. What is your opinion about that? JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Federica Di Sarra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carolina Alves.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nao Hibino you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JamesAndersoon, it has been nearly three weeks and you have yet to respond to the review or address any of the issues raised in it. If you wish to pursue your nomination of this article, you need to give this your attention right away. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pablo Carreño Busta. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
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.
The article Nao Hibino you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nao Hibino for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
An article you recently created, Anzhelika Isaeva, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs 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. John B123 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
James, I made the updates last night (2022-03-15+16) by IP ending 254c. (But I'm not the multiple-IP guy you're fighting over tournament names with today.) One of the updates I made was to the year 2020 in the career table. It listed a 1-3 record but only 1 tournament, which is obviously impossible. I looked it up and corrected it to 2-3 in 3 tournaments. I see today you reduced the record to 1-3 (and the corresponding career wins number from 14 to 13). Please clarify why. We agree she entered the main draw of 3 tournaments that are included in this table (1 GS and 2 WTA), but her record in the main draw of those tournaments is 1-1, 1-1, 0-1, which is 2-3. --2600:8805:3103:4900:902B:B480:AE36:573 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:8805:3103:4900:902B:B480:AE36:573: Hi! I actually forgot to warn you about that, but thanks for reminding me! Point is that she played only one WTA Tour tournament in main-draw and that is Australian Open (1 win, 1 loss). Other two losses are from Billie Jean King Cup(Fed Cup). BJKC/Fed Cup is not counted as a tournaments, but matches do. The reason why I left 3 tournaments was mistake, now I noticed it. JamesAndersoon (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: When some user done so many errors, I must use old version in order to fix it. It can be that I undo some of your edit by mistake. It will be fixed. I already fixed it on Raluca Olaru page. JamesAndersoon (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, if you don't want those redlinks to wait for the bot fixing, so ahead and do the constructive fix of creating the missing redirects. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, I'm Fyunck(click). I noticed that you recently removed content from Barbora Krejčíková career statistics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You are removing content from table that has consensus from Wikiproject tennis. This has been explained to you and you yourself have shown the WTA lists the titles in sources.Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Flags
Hi! I noticed you have added Russian and Belarussian flags to post-March 2022 periods to player statistics. While the competitors didn't compete under their countries, the flags should not be used. -Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Record for top 10 players query
The new charts are fine. I can't see a reason for making every column sortable so I removed it on Belinda Bencic. Also "Rank" would probably be better for a standardized column... perhaps the use of "player rank at time of event" on mouse over would also be better than Belinda Bencic rank. I'm wondering if it would be good to incorporate another column showing the full head to head record of each player? Obviously we would only need to show it once on probably the first time they played each other, not each time they played as a top ten contest. I'm not sure on this which is why I'm spitballing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): Talking about sorting, I agree with you that not every column should be sortable but I still think that most of them are (except W-L and Score). If you use sortable for example opponent's ranking, you can see how many times player played and also won against specified ranking. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, List of career achievements by Petra Kvitová, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) 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. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969TT me12:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zarina Diyas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Format of ITF tournament finals
Please be reminded that the correct format for the ITF section of tennis player's profiles is:
In creating the new combined top 10 chart are you using any particular template or are you creating them all from scratch? We obviously have a lot to slowly update and I was going to try and give you a hand in the coming weeks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you come to one of the Wiki iRC or Discord Channels, please ?
Hi. I wanna ask you a couple of tennis-related questions in private, regarding Wikipedia pages. Tell me which channel and when you could join. ROTennisFan (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username FormalDude, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Tereza Valentová, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FormalDude}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and creating the Maria Kononova article! However, this article has been moved back into the draft space so you and others can continue working on it. Maria may be notable, but at present, the article does not reference any sources, meaning its notability cannot be verified. For information about proving notability for a tennis player, see WP:NTENNIS. Take care, Significa liberdade (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recently-created article
Hello! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and creating the Magdaléna Smékalová article! However, this article has been moved back into the draft space so you and others can continue working on it. Maria may be notable, but at present, the article does not reference any sources, meaning its notability cannot be verified. For information about proving notability for a tennis player, see WP:NTENNIS. Take care, Significa liberdade (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JamesAndersoon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of career achievements by Petra Kvitová, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
There was a color error made in the ITF charts awhile back that went unnoticed. That error got transposed into the current ITF charts but is now fixed. I assume it was an error though I suppose it could have been deliberate with no consultation with Wikiproject Tennis. Yeah there are some newer players that now have that bad color scheme but many more that have the correct colors. I will try and fix the players that now have the bad ITF colors but it will take time to find them all. When I see them I'll do my best to fix them. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tereza Martincová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon.
I just checked every rule of grammar I could find on the internet. Every one of them says Year-end Championship is a hyphen, not an ndash. Year-end being an adjective. Do you have some source that says otherwise that I'm missing because I've never seen it any other way? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we normally use hyphens but there are particular instances where we use ndashes. Between numerals like 17–34, to separate phrases, if there are spaces on either side, in place of using (versus, to, and) like the Sampras–Agassi match, and a couple complex adjectives like nouveau–riche/post–Communist era. I don't think year-end fits any of those. I'm not up on every time they change wikipedia MOS so I thought maybe I missed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karman Thandi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alana Smith.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Mary Pierce into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 10:25, 21 November 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.
Thanks for your contributions to Veronika Bokor. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and is only notable for a single event according to NTENNIS, so coverage is needed..
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Firstly, do not compare two articles, the existence of an article doesn't guarantee that the other has notability. Secondly, an article that fails GNG may be deleted, i.e. GNG supercedes SNG. SNG is only a reference for deletion discussions that provide a guidance to whether an article may have coverage. Thirdly, as it only barely passes 1 criterion of an SNG and fails GNG and BASIC, it can be considered as 1E. Moreover, the only reason I draftified the article instead of deleted it is because it passes NTENNIS barely. I think TOOSOON might been applicable here, so you can now include sources in the draft to establish notability.
P.S. 1. Criterion of GNG: Multiple published reliable sources that provide SIGCOV directly to the subject
2. Please do not create low-quality articles (non-notable) as it doesn't help Wikipedia. Barely passing NTENNIS without any coverage isn't enough for notability. Therefore, I would suggest you create articles based on coverage instead of achievements. Timothytyy (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothytyy: Please, analyze me Dasha Ivanova. And yes, I can compare two pages since they have so much in common. There is no reason Dasha Ivanova are so much more "notable" than e.g. Veronika Bokor. I have done this for more than 5 years, and there are so many 'unknown' players that have pages. You are not fair with this, but nothing new here ... JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that an article's existence doesn't mean that it is notable. See OTHERSTUFF. Comparison is useless; when you fail GNG, you fail it literally. If no one provided sources in the AfD, it would be deleted. You cannot create piles of no-ref articles and not add references. Wikipedia is based on coverage, not achievements. It doesn't help readers if the subject isn't covered in news. See BASIC. The guideline you provided is only a reference in XfDs, not a guideline that tells you what to create. The page also mentioned that coverage is needed. You also mentioned that there are a lot of articles about 'unknown' players. Would you prefer quality or quantity? Timothytyy (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothytyy: Ofcourse that I prefer quality. This is why I say that a lot of this players that have pages haven't even reached top 500, nor play any WTA Tour level tournament, etc., but they pass some of other required criteria. If they have page, I don't know what is the problem with Veronika Bokor. To be honest, I have never heard of her before, but I tried to find players that made their WTA Tour debut this year in order to make pages for them. Same thing is with ITF Circuit - if player won at least one $40k tournament or higher, it gets page. For this five years, I have always wanted to understand things, but it seems that some users are more subjective than objective. JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to create articles is to find enough coverage; the best way to help is to make articles more high-quality. Anyway, thanks for your contributions! Timothytyy (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What your response have to do with keeping or deleting this page? Whole point is that Veronika Bokor needs page just like anyone else that met the criteria, but because of you ... JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not need any low-quality articles with no coverage at all. If most people don't even know about the subject and no news talk about it there's no point it should exist. Timothytyy (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then do this for other 'low-quality' articles. But I guess you won't ... A lot of others are 'low-quality' but you will keep them???? This is hypocrate. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new article so I have the responsibility to review it. Also, if you can spot other GNG-failing articles, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the AfD discussion. Unsourced is not equal to no civerage. There are online coverage for other articles, but not for this one. Feel free to disprove this. Timothytyy (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JamesAndersoon, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Veronika Bokor, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronika Bokor.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Timothytyy}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
I just noticed that since 2021 you have removed some "required" bolding of Year-end ranking on tennis performance timelines. That is purposely built-in to our Project Guidelines. It's not the whole line, just the heading. It's a minor issue but in the future could you make sure it stays bolded? Thanks a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Tjandramulia 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.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Klaffner 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.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekaterina Yashina 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
