User talk:Wolbo

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


Hello, Wolbo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --Dark Falls talk 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)



Unspecified source for Image:Axios_XRF_Spectrometer.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Axios_XRF_Spectrometer.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mens Grand Slam Champions[edit]

Wolbo, the men's last names were converted into hidden formulas, not removed entirely:


Please consider fixing.Ryoung122 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wolbo, if you look at all the names on the page, such as 'Nadal', then you check what is written on the editing page, you'll find all the first names are included in hidden formulas such as Nadal (you can see the first name in the edit box but not in the main page). What this does is allow the front page to display just the last name, but when you click on the last name, you are wikilinked to an article on the person. Given that the goal is to write an eventual biography for everyone, wikilinks are needed. So, if you have time, could you restore the first names you deleted, just in hidden format? Thanks.Ryoung122 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I see what you mean. Actually I am aware of the hidden formulas but as far as I can tell my removal of the first names in the list only consisted of the pre 1925 French Open players and none of them were wikilinked. See Wolbo 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Grand Slam champions" fork[edit]

Mr. Wolbo, might I ask you to edit my version, not the Fyunclick 'fork' for the Grand Slam champions? I believe it is incredibly unfair to not count the pre-1925 French champions, but to count the others back to their initial inception. I have already shown that:

A. The French Open's first winner was an Englishman (a foreigner) while Wimbledon's first 29 winners were all UK natives. Hence, the argument of 'exclusion' or lack of 'internationalness' is a farce.

B. The early U.S. 'Open' only allowed members of the U.S. clubs, but we don't see any greying/blanking.

C. Champions like Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra clearly demonstrated their top-level ability post-1925 as pre-1925.

D. Not counting the pre-1925 titleholders would be like not counting Babe Ruth's home runs (because no black players were allowed). Except that non-French players WERE allowed.

Note that, to date, only one person, Fyunclick, has disrespectfully opposed my efforts at equity/fairness, calling me a 'nutball' and suggesting a was just a short-term person. Believe me, I am not in this for the short hall. I spent several hours adding and finishing the formatting. I am not opposed to third-party edits. However, Fyunclick is trying devious maneouvers to try to split my edits from everyone else's. Look at my track record. Look at my 'user page'. I have a lot more standing in reality than Fyunclick. However, I realize that, right or wrong, one person cannot win an argument...the key to victory is to persuade others to come around to one's position. Wikipedia IS about consensus-building. At the same time, Wikipedian principles include the concepts of pluralism (allowing room for multiple viewpoints). However, unilateral dictation by one person is not consensus-building, nor does it allow multiple viewpoints. Fyunclick resorted to scorched-Earth tactics (refusal to negotiate, name-calling, mass reversions, etc). This, despite the fact that I came up with top-notch citations: the Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Almanac, CNN, ESPN, etc.

I did suggest that, to placate Fyunclick's concern, we could use 'italics' for the pre-1925 French titleholders. Of course he didn't respond. Grey-out is simply too much, and it smacks of cultural imperialism.

So, I ask: what are your thoughts on this?Ryoung122 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On your dispute with Tennis Expert[edit]

Per your suggestion, I moved my entry on User:Tennis expert's talk page to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#The_question_of_putting_links_in_tennis_performance_timelines. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Official ATP tracking?[edit]

Can you show me where this? Thanks. —MC 21:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links on JC Ferrero for Recent Results, Ranking History[edit]

You removed links I had just re-entered on Ferrero's page following a lengthy discussion with HJensen.

Your stated reason was a violation of the Spam policy. Can you please elaborate?

How are these links Spam in any way?

The Recent Results link performs exactly as advertised, pulling up ALL of Ferrero's recent results.

If your issue is as HJensen's issue was when he first deleted the link, that the info is already covered at the ATP site, then this is simply not the case.

The ATP Site has a Player Results page. Among its glaring faults are:

  • it does not show Qualification matches (not much of an issue for Ferrero, the last time he had to qualify was the Hamburg Masters in 2005, but if his ranking drops below 30, he will again need to qualify for a few Masters events each year).
  • it does not show the most recent matches until the rankings-eligible results are updated. that is, right now, the link I entered shows his US Open results and is updated daily. the ATP site shows nothing until the entire 20-day tournament is over.
  • doubles matches are on a separate page, instead of showing up along side the singles results with each tournament -- again, not much of an issue with Ferrero, his last doubles match was US Open 2006, he seems to play just a few matches a year, if that. but i am guessing that if you encounter these links on other player bios, you may be tempted again to delete them, from players who do in fact play doubles as well as singles.

As for the Ranking History link, if you click the link wondering why it is there, you probably will not see the value. If you click the link because you actually want to know a player's ranking history, how he is trending very recently and more generally over the years, then the link does not disappoint. But you still might say, "well, the data is already on the ATP Site." Not really. The ATP Site has glaring faults here as well, compared to the SteveGHelper page:

  • SGH shows a telescoping view of the data, so in a single screen of data, you can get a general feel for how the player's career has gone recently and over time.
  • ATP gives you a garbage dump of data, with a few extra clicks showing every ranking week going back for years. It's 2007 now, do you really care to know his ranking in the first week of 2004 and the 2nd week, and the 3rd week ...? It's September, do you really care to know his ranking in the first week of January, the 2nd week, the 3rd week, ...?
  • ATP gives only the numeric ranking for each week.
  • SGH gives the player's ranking, points, # of tournaments played, and also a link to directly to the full ranking list for that ranking week, as well as points increased / decreased since Jan. 1. If you actually wanted to know a player's ranking history, the points and tournaments played would be extremely useful pieces of data. For instance, if you were looking at Nadal, you would see that while he has been #2 for 2 years now, his ranking points have continued to increase and he has continued to close the gap slightly vs. Federer. If you looked at Federer, you would see that he has slid a bit from his obscene ranking points over 8,000 from a year ago.

Anyway, aside from HJensen, other users I have explained this to (Epeefleche, Goran.Smith2) have immediately recognized the unique value these links deliver and have ceased to remove them.

Please let me know if the above explanation does not address your concerns. ShabbatSam 09:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tennis statistics" and "Tennis male players statistics" articles merge[edit]


You've suggested to merge those articles and I agree but some disapprove it because these articles treat different subjects. I've said in the talk page that "Tennis statistics" had an inadequate title because this article eludes all the great pro feats before the open era. "Tennis statistics" is a modern but wrong conception of tennis history because it mainly takes into account the Slam tournaments which became the main tennis sporting events only in the mid-1980s (when great players began to play the Australian Open). In the 70s, WCT Finals, Masters, US Pro, Los Angeles Pacific Southwest Open, Wembley Pro and so on had sometimes more importance than Roland Garros or the Australian Open. In the 60s all the great pro events were superior, in a sporting view, to any amateur Slam tournament. In the 50s the same can be said and furthermore the Davis Cup was much more important than the US amateur Chps or Wimbledon. In the 30s - 40s the best amateurs were as good as the best pros so it's hard to select the greatest events. In the 20s the best players were the amateurs and the Davis Cup was the Graal. Finally from 1877 to the 1910s several events were important : for instance the Irish Championships were as great (if not superior) as Wimbledon in the 1880s. The US amateur Chps (ancestor of the US Open) was worth "nothing". In 1881 the British Irish J. J. Cairnes, who wasn't ranked among the best British players,went to the USA and easily defeated Richard Dudley Sears, US Chps winner. Until circa 1900 no US player was in the same league as the best British players. Until 1902-1903 no "down under" player could rival with the best British players and before Froitzheim, Decugis and others arrived, no European player was a World Top player : therefore only the British events were great ones and the US and Australian Slams were very ordinary tournaments (the French Slam attracted for the first time all the top players in ... 1969 and for the second time in ... 1979).

Consequently to have "good" tennis statistics we should select the greatest events of each year since the beginning of tennis competition history and then merge those statistics which would be an horror because they are hardly comparable. Imagine that the greatest event in 1937-1938 was the Davis Cup and in 1939 the French Pro and in 1940 the US Pro : Donald Budge had won those events making him the best player in the world during that period but how can you synthesize those performances : he has won 4 "what? greatest events ?" in a row. Nowadays it's very simple : Wimbledon is the greatest competition so you can say that Federer has won 5 Wimbledon in a row and the statistics are simple and easy to understand. Budge at the end of the 30s was the Federer of his time but then the hierarchy of the events changed almost every year. In 1937-1938 as an amateur he could enter Wimbledon and won it but in 1939, though the best player in the world by far, he didn't won Wimbledon because he wasn't allowed to enter it as a pro : that year Riggs won the tournament where all the pros were absent (and amateur von Cramm too because he was rejected, though he had trounced Riggs the week before) but it was clear that Budge, Vines, Nüsslein and Perry all pros were superior to Riggs that year. Therefore to say that Budge has won the greatest tennis event four years in a row is not very easy to apprehend.

In conclusion merging both articles would be great but seems very difficult. So I don't oppose it but I don't push either to do it. Wait and see.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

13-year-old gravestone at Srebrenica[edit]

Hi there,

Please see the Srebrenica talk page for why a 13-year-old's gravestone is not appropriate at the top of an article about an event in which the vast majority of those killed were *over* the age of 13. There's a specific WP directive which I've cited, called 'undue weight', and it's an important part of NPOV. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, just to save you the trip over there...
[excerpt from talk page starts]
I've found the relevant Wikipedia guideline which I believe this photo clearly violates:
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. (my emphasis)
Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis[edit]

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table), and I'm notifying you as you identified yourself as a member of the project. The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnstone's article[edit]

Hi Wolbo

Please improve sentence in Srebrenice massacre rather than just deleting. I have opened a section on this on discussion pages. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Federer's GS record[edit]

Hey man its richard, i was just saying, this page will eventually be editited right? because its unreliable if it isnt. and by the way, i think federer had 176 before wimbledon, not 175, because i hand counted them or whatever. can you just respond back on this page? thanks

Hi Richard, I moved your comment to the discussion page. It's commonly accepted practice to only update the tennis results after the tournament has been ended or after the player's participation in it has ended. This to avoid confusion. So yes it will be updated soon. I believe it is actually 175 and not 176 and this is also based on Roger Federer's career statistics Wiki page at You can see in the 'Performance timeline' that Federer has 175 wins to his credit after the French Open. Of course if you have any information substantiating your claim it should be 176 I'm all ears. Cheers --Wolbo (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

hey its me again. it turned out i was right. i look at the time line, and his wimbledon record was one of. instead of 44 victories, it should be 45. in 1999-1r, 0 wins in 2000-1r, 0 wins in 2001-QF, 4 wins in 2002- 1r, 0 wins 2003-2007- W, 35 wins 2008- F, 6 wins 35 + 6 + 4= 45 you can check for yourself, but im positive the person who made it calculated incorrectly please respond back, thank you

nevermind it was a walkover, it doesnt count.


Hi Wolbo,

You have deleted the "including banned materials" wording several times from the lead of Gaza flotilla clash, in effect violating WP:3RR. Please do not do this again. Breein1007 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolbo, please consider taking a break from that page. Your revert rate is clearly excessive. There are more than enough people keeping an eye on that page currently. shellac (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thx for the concern. Just doing my bit to keep the article balanced and fair against obvious POV abuse--Wolbo (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't want to pile on here but warning you that if you continue edit-warring you will be reported and probably blocked per the three revert rule. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ATP world #1 rankings[edit]

Hello Wolbo. You have now twice attempted to delete referenced material which clearly demonstrates that Rafael Nadal has clinched the world number one ranking through the end of 2010. Please do not delete this information again unless you can add a reference supporting your viewpoint. Thank you. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

I've answered your question![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wolbo. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by -- Luke (Talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wolbo. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by heather walls (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Károly Mazák's book[edit]

Hello, I sent a message to Károly. He should contact you.

And thank you for the star Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo, contact Károly at mazakk(at) Please erase this e-mail address after use. Carlo Colussi (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, did you contact Károly ? Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons[edit]

Beyoncé Knowles GMA 2011 cropped.jpg Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mary Bevis Hawton[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Mary Bevis Hawton. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

added see also sections[edit]

I noticed you added a bunch of see also links to the List of French Open women's singles champions. Those had existed before but now instead they are at the page bottom in the collapsible boxes. I don't think we need the info twice but maybe you didn't notice the boxes? You may hve done the same on several other pages too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wolbo. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by NtheP (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 20:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Tennis_photo_from_Boston_Public_Library.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Louise Hammond Raymond[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 Louise Hammond Raymond requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


  • (cur | prev) 21:19, 11 May 2012‎ Wolbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,594 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 491982648 by In ictu oculi (talk)Revert possible vandalism. No support for name change, not even in the French sources.) (undo)

Following me around is one thing. Leaving edit summaries like this is something else. I appreciate that you're a dedicated tennis editor. I appreciate that you don't like it that many if not most of us think that accuracy with names is important. But that doesn't give you a blank cheque for this kind of edit summary. Take it down a peg please. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Article TENNIS[edit]

Why article tennis is locked? Greetings. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not locked but semi-protected which means it can be edited only by registered users. I was not involved in the protection so can't give you any background but the article mentions it was done in October 2011 because of excessive vandalism. --Wolbo (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why cant not I editing article? I am beginner on Wikipedia so I ask. Greetings! --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open[edit]

I am not sure why you left a message on my talk page about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open as I have not contributed to the article and I am not a member of any of the projects listed on the talk page. Although it is clearly canvassing, I personally do not think it inappropriate as you can not know my opinions on the issue, but if I were to express an opinion in favour of your position on this issue, then some may assume that your heads up was made in bad faith. I strongly suggest that in future you only directly canvas someone who has either edited the article or placed a comment on the article's talk page, and if you canvas one you must canvas all those editors in the group you approach whether or not they are sympathetic to your point of view. My advise here is only covers direct canvassing onto a users talk page and not general notification via project pages etc. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Laver article[edit]

The reason that information was added is because his tour records/achivements for the most part are excluded by lot's of tennis record articles such as ATP World Tour records which by the way does include consecutive title runs hence why it went on his main page. I see no reason for you to remove it I was merely following these guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability. where the section #2:The Lead "The Lead should be a brief summary of WHO the person is, WHY they are here (accomplishments), potentially WHAT they are doing now". It does not define what those accomplishments should be no reference is made to include or exclude information or if does I can't see it. So instead of just removing it I'd be interested for you to explain to me why those achievement's in your experience are not worthy in the first paragraph would you mind expanding your argument. --Navops47 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Mtking (edits) 03:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Template modification assistance[edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wolbo. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by -- Trevj (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Redirect blanking[edit]

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with 1887 U.S. National Championships - Men's Singles. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, was not aware of this procedure or the existence of this discussion board. There are a couple more similar redirect issues within the Tennis Grand Slam project and I will take these to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Thx for the heads-up. --Wolbo (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Svetlana Kuznetsova copyedit[edit]

I left you a note at Talk:Svetlana Kuznetsova/GA4.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

I would like to know what the "ongoing community decision, debate, or vote" is exactly? Am I am not allowed to Talk, or should I notify you when you are apparently following me anyway? Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Be that as it may.

I see you are Dutch. Some day you can explain to me why you don't nominate the Dutch names on en.wp such as André Rieu, André Kuipers, André van Duin for anglicizing. But in the meantime I have other things to do. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is the note, I prefer not to have it on my page, you may do with it as you please here:
You wrote: Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Diffs: 1 2 3 4. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Wolbo (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And I replied: And it appears you have been stalking me again. It is not "canvassing" to speak to 4 other editors whose views I already know about a discussion that is not a "decision, debate, or vote" . While we're on the subject, I see you have been following me and deleting a couple of [dubious ] tags as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Wolbo. You left this on my Talk: Hi IIO, I noticed you removed my canvassing notice from your talk page (Diff). It is your talk page so you are free to delete any message you want (including this one). To avoid possible confusion please be informed that deleting a canvassing notice does not mean it has not been given or that it no longer stands. I just want to make sure you are clear on that. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
All I can say is that you seem to have some experience with canvassing notices above. But I intend to continue conversations with those I am already communicating with, and I will not pay attention to you following me or your views on whether I can continue to communicate with editors I am already communicating with. Now if you want me to go through your contributions and check whom you have been talking to then I can, but I am really not that interested so I do not intend to. If you have anything further on the subject to say I will check back on your Talk page tomorrow. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


Tennis Barnstar Hires.png The Tennis Barnstar
For continued excellence in maintaining the quality of tennis related articles or to those giving great assistance and time to WikiProject Tennis. ~~~~

For doing so many things for tennis articles (that need to be done) that many of us would call tedious. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your copyedits and help on Svetlana Kuznetsova! :) GoPTCN 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Toni Androić[edit]


Please stop re-adding that nonsensical clause "or Toni Androic". You might not believe this, but people are actually not that stupid that they don't realize that Toni Androić is the person they were looking for when they entered "Toni Androic". "Androic" does not amount to a "significant other spelling"; we're not exactly talking about Muammar Gaddafi/Khadafi/Ghaddafi/Gadhafi here, so it need not be included. In fact, WP:OPENPARA (the Mitterrand example) indicates that it should not be included.

Here's a post by Filelakeshoe that I found rather amusing, and that I suggest you read.


HandsomeFella (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wolbo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added John of Reading (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
And again -- John of Reading (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
And again -- John of Reading (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war/close at Jelena Janković[edit]

As you have been a recent participant in a content dispute regarding diacritics at Jelena Janković, I would ask that you read the close I made earlier today at Talk:Jelena_Janković#Full_protection. The edit war on that particular question of the lead wording is, across a wide range of articles, as I previously stated, not acceptable, and violates WP:EW.

Any further reversions (of articles), in either direction on this question on talk and policy pages, will likely be seen as a continuation of that edit war. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: Apologies for the belated notice, related to this, I have started an RfC on the accent/lead question, which you may wish to participate in, at [1]. My previous note was very poorly worded, and was meant to stop reversions on the articles themselves, nothing else. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Federer article should be protected[edit]

Hello Wolbo, I predicted days ago that User 76 would continue to delete the "GOAT" line in the Federer article, and sure enough, he's continued to do so.

I would like to see an admin protect at least the first paragraph indefinitely, and the default wording should reflect the consesus view. What do you think? Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, what a surprise. TennisAnalyst going around again to people's talk pages crying about me and telling more of his lies. Haha. He's apparently obsessed with me. The fact of the matter is that I simply reverted back to what two administrators had reverted to temporarily, until a consensus was reached. Interesting how TA fails to mentions his own revert today of putting it back to the "widely considered" version, plus his history of edit-warring according to administrator Slakr. Those things just slipped his mind, I guess. ;) And he also fails to mention the 10 or so other reverts by other users over the past day. -- (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Misclicked there and ec'd with you undoing. --DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You had me confused there for a second but no worries --Wolbo (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider this a polite request[edit]

Wolbo. There's now a significant demonstrable edit history, several dozens of edits over 2 or 3 months, of you following me to articles and undoing completely mainstream edits following your own views.

You also do not get to delete large chunks of other editor's text from a Talk page. If you continue doing this to editors what do you think an appropriate response to your behaviour should be? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To which you respond by doing it again and adding an edit summary about Zimbabwe. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Flag removal?[edit]

I noticed you removed the Nazi flag from List of French Open men's singles champions‎ and i think a few others. From what I'm reading the Nazi flag became official on March 12, 1933. Germany at that time had two "official flags", but both equally official. On 15 September 1935 they officially scrapped the Black, White and Red flag but it was rarely used anyways. Nazi Flag in 1933 and Swastika_flag#Nazi_Germany. Even in a 1933 video. I didn't put it back but why would you remove the swastika flag? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think both flags are allowable but my reading of Flag_of_Germany is that the swastika flag was not internationally recognized, at least not by the US (see Bremen Incident), and as a result was declared the only official flag on 15 September 1935. The 1933 video shows it being used as the Nazi Party (NSDAP) flag and we cannot draw any conclusions from that regarding it's use as the national flag. What finally swayed me towards using the Germany flag for the 1933-1935 period is Template:Country data Germany which shows the flag variants and when they were used. It clearly mentions Germany for the 1933-1935 period and Germany for the 1935–1945 period.--Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that template is incorrect and will bring it up there right now. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My updates of ATP/WTA[edit]

Sorry if you take offense at my premature updates, but being a huge tennis fan myself, I keep a running log of statistics and ranking points, which are also documented on the WTA site, and they've also mentioned what the next week's ranks would be on TV and also on the ATP/WTA sites if certain results would turn out to happen, generally every week a big tournament is held. And while Azarenka did not play, neither did Sharapova, who was defending champion; Azarenka had no points to defend as well, skipping it last year. And Radwanska had to win the title to have any shot of overtaking the #1 ranking, and she just lost. Similarly, if Federer wins his semifinal tomorrow, he WILL retain #1 for another week, even if he loses to Djokovic, which was mentioned on TV and the ATP website. I could wait until the rankings are "official", though. GAThrawnIGF (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The RM also discussed the removal of that clause.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

wondering about see also[edit]

Just wondering....You added a link at Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles under see also to ATP World Tour records. I had removed it since it is listed just below with all the other important links. Do we really need doubling up on the links or did you simply miss the link below it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

turned pro[edit]

In regard to the 'turned pro' field on the tennis biog infobox, perhaps it would be better if changed to something like 'career began'? That way, we can add some useful, relevant and factually correct info for tonnes of players pre-1940s/1950s. Or perhaps a new 'career began' field could be added for these cases, coexisting alongside the 'turned pro' field, i.e. Rod Laver would have separate entries for both. Thoughts? Asmazif (talk) 19:26 September 9, 2012 (GMT)

Edit summary label[edit]

Since you previously commented on what to do with the thing, here's a heads up that I've opened a new discussion regarding it. Any input you may or may not have now would be appreciated, regardless of what you said previously. -— Isarra 06:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dutch photos[edit]

That Dutch repository of photos is pretty darned nice, and much needed. I was really bummed though that there were no Margaret Osborne photos since she passed away on Wednesday and it would have been nice to have at least one pic of her in the wiki article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence, was just about to post a message on your talk page to thank you for leading me to the Dutch Photo Archive tennis photos. I found the site via the Margaret Court photo you uploaded. As a Dutchie I should have known about this site and I recall having visited it a while ago (Dutch Archive site itself instead of but didn't bump into these photos. So I was very pleasantly surprised as I have been searching the last few months for good photos to add to the tennis project. The Bain collection at the Library of Congress is a great public domain source and the Leslie Jones Collection of the Boston Public Library has excellent tennis photos from the 1920s and 30s but sadly they are not CC-BY-SA / public domain. The Dutch collection has photos from the national championships, the Dutch Open and the Rotterdam tournament which means that most of the international photos are of male players. I think the women's tournament where you got the Margaret Court photo from only ran for a few years and that was after the days of Margaret Osborne. I'm sure we'll find a photo of her somewhere. Was just thinking the other day that quite a few 'old timers' from the 40s, 50s and 60s are still with us and Margaret was one of them. Darlene Hard, Louise Brough (played her first US final 70 years ago!), Shirley Fry, Doris Hart, Thelma Coyne Long, Frank Sedgman, Vic Seixas, Neale Fraser, Mervyn Rose and Tony Trabert are all still going strong ... or at least still going. Gardnar Mulloy is almost a centenarian. Tennis must be a healthy sport.--Wolbo (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I created an article on the Canadian player Robert Powell earlier this week and was looking for info on Max Decugis as they apparently played against each other in Vienna. Didn't find more info on that match yet but I noticed you uploaded a Decugis photo and that led me to the French Gallica site (+ portal). What an amazing treasure trove of historic tennis photos that is! And at first sight it looks like it's all public domain and available for Wikimedia (need to double check that as these copyright rules can be pretty complex and confusing). The Dutch collection is great but the Gallica collection, if indeed allowable for Wikimedia, is simply superb. There must be at least 100 photos on there that we could use.--Wolbo (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I forget who led me to the dutch archives, but a couple days before I uploaded the Court pics someone else had uploaded an obscure tennis photo from those same archives, and like you, I then did some searches there and found a whole bunch. I know we try to limit the number of total pics in an article to 10 but ALL our players could use at least 1 or 2 photos... especially in the infobox. And pre-80's pics are tough to come by in public domain. I don't know how long I've been searching for a single Margaret Court photo... I even had a multiple email correspondence with Ms Court to get her to send me some pics for wikipedia (which she did). Wiki basically demanded them be notarized and that was too much of a hassle for her, and I don't blame her. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


Thank you very much Face-grin.svg. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 ATP World Tour Infobox[edit]

Hi. I corrected the information in the infobox that you added to the 2012 ATP World Tour article. The player with the most titles is Ferrer and the player with the most finals is Djokovic. Also added the players who received the ATP Awards.

On a sidenote, I would also like to ask if the removal of the country flags next to each tournament is justified, since WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines only states that flag icons should not be used for Career and Player Performance articles. It does not reference ATP Tour/tennis seasons articles. Regards Cpfig (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


Firstly, you stop the edit war. Secondly, why do you think that my edit is vandalism? (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you do not provide the reasoning as to why the edit is vandalism, I will restore that edit. (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 kick-off[edit]

Wow, you've been on the roll lately. Congrats to all that. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx. Added a couple of articles but have mainly been working on the Tony Wilding article. Just finished his biography, very interesting character who was tragically killed in WWI. It's quite a challenge to find all the sources to complete his list of tournament wins. Made a lot of progress (added 100+ references) but there are still some open ends. Your upcoming article on H.C. is looking very promising.--Wolbo (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom request[edit]

Hello Wolbo, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed appeal of topic ban[edit]

Mentioned here. LittleBen (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A plea for advice about another editor[edit]

Hi Wolbo, you might not be the right person for this question but I had to start somewhere (being new to this). I am one of the editors of Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles. There is another editor, going only by IP, who makes exclusively partial, inconsistent, premature or incorrect updates. I had to undo almost every one of their edits, and all the others I had to expand or fix. I wrote them on their Talk, but no response. Their revisions are, of course, not commented. How can I block this person, who might be good-willed, but is totally incompetent to use Wikipedia? Thank you --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, had a quick look at the edits of this editor and in my view a block is not justified at this stage. The user has only made eleven edits in total and while some may be slightly disruptive (premature, incorrect updates) I don't see anything that amounts to vandalism and would require a block. I suggest the best course of action is to keep assuming good faith for now and, if required, revert edits with explanation and an additional message on his/her talk page. FYI in case of serious disruptive behavior / vandalism WP:AIV or WP:ANI are routes you can take.--Wolbo (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A plea for an additional page for the ATP World Tour Records[edit]

Hi, Wolbo, for your information, most of the stuff I added in are of important records. Olympics are held every 4 years, unlike Masters 1000 tournament which are held 9 times annually. Besides that, some records like consecutive titles per GS tournament, finals & consecutive finals per GS tournament are equally important as it is difficult to reach a GS final for 8 times. We should acknowledge these records.YYWALB (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Lendl[edit]

He represented USA during his last years as a tennisplayer and holds the citizenship now, during his last year as an active competitive player his former country Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist. Alexmcfire (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if he became a U.S. citizen and represented that country before retiring but he clearly did (between 1992 and 1994) so the infobox has been updated to reflect that.--Wolbo (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

List of WTA number 1 ranked players[edit]


While I agree with this edit, someone has asked about it on OTRS. "Players who were ranked world no. 5 or higher but never world no. 1" does not belong on a page titled "List of WTA number 1 ranked players", but it seems to have been used, so please find somewhere else to put it. I rarely edit here, and do not touch sports articles, so I will not be bold in this case. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilding at San Remo in 1910 ??[edit]

Hello Wolbo,

unfortunately I have no score or opponent, my source being Ayres' Lawn Tennis Almanack 1913 with the Riviera Championships (at San Remo) roll from 1908 to 1912 : Wilding apparently being the champion of this event in 1908, 1910, 1911. About 1908 and 1911 I found other details elsewhere but for 1910 I have nothing elseCarlo Colussi (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source contradicting Ayres' 1913 as indicated by Fyunck(click)

Hmmm... per the listed source here of "Lawn Tennis and Badminton" of 1910, the winner that year was Artimus Holmes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilding Web links and Richardsons' book[edit]


Wolbo you wrote “P.S.: The score for the Cannes Beau Site (Cannes Championship) match against Brookes in 1914 does in fact show 6–4, 6–2, 6–1” and in a way you’re right because it’s the case in Wilding’s tournament wins list but the error is indeed there, as I noted, close to the very end of the article in the Wilding-Brookes head-to-head list.

The Richardsons’ book has 451 pages.

The 1910 Paris win is suggested in the main part of the book p. 255 : “After a few days in Paris he (Wilding) was on the road again to Brussels and another tennis tournament” thus suggesting there was also, before the Brussels tournament, a tourney in Paris. And in page 392 in Wilding’s tournament wins list, the Paris tournament win is inserted between Évian-les-Bains (with an É and not an E as in many English speaking literature because earlier there weren’t accents in the Anglo-Saxon keyboards) and possibly Sapicourt (I left the book at home). Unfortunately there are no more details so this source is perhaps not more reliable as the Ayres’ Almanack 1913 so this win is doubtful but not impossible.

I will list you the errors I noticed 6 years ago in the book. I didn’t check them since and to gain time I will be very minimalist and just write the minimum of words so you will not be able to understand them until you will have your own book to hand.

p. 67 : F. H. Payn → probably F.W.

p. 98 Wimbledon. In the semifinals → quarterfinals

p. 100 The reigning American champion … B.C. Wright → future

Holcombe Ward … failed to get passed the second round → first

p. 120 1906 … English tennis … leading exponent, Reggie Doherty → Laurie

p. 121 Racing Club and Club Stade de Français → Racing Club de France, Stade Français

l’Ille de Puteaux → Île de Puteaux

p. 124 in 1906 added the Swiss open → it was a tournament held in Lucerne, Switzerland but I don’t think it was the Swiss Champs

p. 122 or p.132 or … ? I wrongly noted the page : Gore … was to play every championship until 1927 → perhaps he entered in Wimby doubles events until 1927 but he played his last singles match at Wimby in 1922

p. 136 In the first round C.C. Cox → rather a second round because there was a first (or a preliminary) round before with two players eliminated, the event has a 10-man draw and the match with Cox was a round of 8 (quarterfinals)

p. 138 French and German Championships → not really an error but here the French Championships don’t refer to the “almost close” French outdoor Champs held in May-June but to the French indoor international then considered as the true international French Champs.

p. 142-143 here the 1906 Monte Carlo tournament is wrongly inserted in the 1907 events.

p. 147 tournament in 1904 → apparently in 1903 if I believe p. 61-62 of the same book ?

p. 175 in this page they are talking about the London Grass Court Champs at Queen’s but I don’t understand because in 1907 Kenneth Powell won this tourney over Josiah George Ritchie

p. 185 international contest winning in three straight sets → four

p. 205 West Australian title → Not wrong but this event was also the Australian title (in the tournament wins list circa p. 390-1-2-3 this event is also listed as the West Australian title)

p. 208 6-2, 6-2 (about the beginning of the 1909 Victorian final) → 6-2, 6-3

p. 210 four matches to one → five matches to zero

p. 211 Clothier, the reigning US champion → wrong

p. 211 6-2, 6-2 → 6-2, 6-3

p. 236 began on the 25 May → probably 24

p. 240 just one set → just one game

p. 241 in 1910, before coming → after

p. 256 Wimbledon the following year → the same year

p. 271 the Queen’s covered court → in this book they made no differences between the British Covered Courts and the London Covered Courts both held at Queen’s, here it was the British CC

first loss on grass for three years → I would say 2 ½ years if we except a default to the same Wright in the June 1910 Kent Champs final

p. 275 there is no error but I precise that in the end Wilding did not play Manchester

p. 276 fourth round in 1909 → sixth

p. 293 he remained unbeaten → I don’t understand if it refers to the current year however Wilding remained unbeaten on grass since 1910

p. 294 in the final against André → challenge round

p. 295 the next three sets → two

victories over Ritchie, Lowe and Gobert → ??? I don’t know what they are talking about, probably wrong assertion

p. 301 le dernier en → perhaps they used the French expression “le dernier né”, né in French meaning born in English

p. 302 unbeaten → see my remark about p. 293

p. 303 the Queen’s covered → still the British CC

p. 304 despatched both Froitzheim and Decugis in three → No, a) Gobert, and not Wilding, defeated Froitzheim, b) Decugis was beaten in 5 and not 3, 60 63 36 46 63 (to be checked)

p. 316 André Germot → I think Maurice Germot (to be checked because there was a brother)

p. 329 the Onwentsia match between Wilding and Brookes, being probably a sort of private match is not listed in the head-to-head matches in this book

p. 340 22-year-old → 23

p. 384 1977 and 1980 → 1976 and 1980

p. 391 1904 … Buxton (Derbyshire) → ?? Wilding was possibly defeated by George Whiteside Hillyard whereas Wilberforce Vaughan Eaves won the event

1906 … Queen’s (Covered Court) → this time this is not the British CC but the London CC

p. 391-392 are probably missing the Marienbad, Franzenbad, Carlsbad and Baden-Baden tourneys in the 1907 list

p. 406 Oxford 5;5 → I think 6;4 according to Spalding’s annual

p. 435 Brookes … 237 … 308 → No pages … 238 … 309

p.437 Decugis … 240 → ?? I didn’t find any reference to Decugis p. 240

p. 444 → Ritchie … 95 …140-43 → 96 … 141-43 Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carlo, many thanks for posting your elaborate list of errors in Richardsons’ book. --Wolbo (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


Just a question where does is this "Removed flagicons for the tournament city / country per WP:TENNIS Article Guidelines' located? Dencod16 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See section #4:Career: .."Note that no flag icons are used for tournaments or cities."--Wolbo (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not the same, tournaments and careers are not the same, cause what you are looking makes the calendar look sloppy.Dencod16 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As i keep repeating you are referring to Career guidelines and not guidelines to calendar, there is a difference. Dencod16 (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Wolbo; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons[edit]

I have noticed one thing you edit everything but the recent year, and i think you know that it is not right that is why you are trying to sneak it in, Please do something more productive to tennis, like completing the other year calendars. Dencod16 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Bela von Kehrling.jpg[edit]

Wow, it must be the earliest known picture of him as of yet. Nice catch. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 16:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Was not aware of that at all, that would indeed be nice. It's from the BnF / Gallica selection which is a real treasure trove of tennis photos from the 1910s–1930s. I'm in the process of uploading some of the best ones. Might even get a higher resolution version of the Bela van Kehrling photo.--Wolbo (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Check out for more images. They mostly use BnF / Gallica sources as well, but they publish it under the commons copyright and wikipedia has a template for europeana uploads so it's one step easier to transfer them here. And really thanks for the Cochet pic, I definitely will use it in the near future Face-wink.svg. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
User JeanBono kindly uploaded a higher resolution photo which in turn allowed me to upload an improved version (cropped the frame and adjusted shadows and highlights). End result looks pretty good.--Wolbo (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Rolf Kinzl[edit]

Agree to DYK nominate it? I think an official match with a WWII leader worth it. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 17:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go for it.--Wolbo (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello Wolbo.

This is a friendly warning not to edit war away from the consensus version. If you want to add something similar to what you added, try to find consensus for it on the talk page first. Given the fact that there was a consensus to remove the "aka stuff", it is hard to assume good faith in your latest edit.

If you add it again without consensus, you may be reported to 3RR or ANI-


HandsomeFella (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Wolbo, as you can see from Fyunck's talk page, HandsomeFella has been intimidating other users as well. If he refuses to stop his false accusations and intimidation of other users, then let's document all this and take him to ANI. LittleBen (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

first one page then another?[edit]

First Frederic Vitoux and now Roberto Maytín‎. I don't know how many sources I should add to show his name is spelled more than one way? Even at his university. I figured it looks less obtrusive to put it in a note rather than the proper wiki way. I have no idea if the same thing will be tried at Stephane Grenier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A short note of thanks[edit]

for changing the Bobby Riggs section of French Open champions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closedthursday (talkcontribs) 17:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Bosnian tennis articles[edit]

First of all I am sorry for doing this on your page but I have never written to people on wikipedia. But please this is important to me.

Hello. For a long time now I have been expanding tennis sites on Wikipedia (mostly Bosnian tennis players both men and female). But my pages are being re-edited all the time for the past weeks. I dont understand why you cant just leave that alone. Without my text nobody is editing these pages! Do you understand this? For few years nobody re-edited the pages and then from nowhere there is a problem. I beg you please stop re-editing my pages:

Aldin Setkic, Damir Dzumhur, Mirza Basic, Mervana Jugic-Salkic, Jasmina Tinjic, Dea Herdzelas,

Bosnian Fed Cup Team, Bosnian Davis Cup Team Sajo10 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to Björn Borg[edit]

I came across WP:INFOBOXFLAG and didn't realize its application wasn't universal. I'll tread a little more cautiously next time.


Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Very Good Work[edit]

I just wanted to say well done for all the hard work you have done on the Grand Prix tennis circuit individual year by year articles recently. I'm not on as much as I would like to be too much work but at least I am getting paid for it. --Navops47 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx. It helps to have a couple of old 'World of Tennis' yearbooks lying around. The yearly Grand Prix articles are already pretty good but need a bit of work to make them more accessible and useful (i.e. infobox, links to individual tournaments). Still some way to go, but there's no hurry.--Wolbo (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You have done a grand job all round and I really like the style of the info boxes --Navops47 (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Rivalries discussion[edit]

See, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Rivalries.HotHat (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

any thoughts on this flag icon conversation?[edit]

An editor has expressed concern on our flag icons RIGHT HERE and I wondered if you had some thoughts on it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship GAN review[edit]

Hey. I've placed 1877 Wimbledon Championship on hold. I have a few comments, but don't think you'll have any trouble addressing them. - Shudde talk 11:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

I passed 1877 Wimbledon Championship. I was keeping an eye on the review page, but thanks for the reminder. The article looks great. Congratulations! - Shudde talk 10:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A-class reviews are (as far as I know) conducted at project level—so unless WP:TENNIS or WP:ENGLAND have a robust A-class review system, then the only further option is FA level. The criteria for FA status is a lot more comprehensive than GA status. I have taken a few articles through FAC, but that was several years ago, and it has no doubt gotten tougher since then. I've got something nominated at the moment (Thomas Ellison), but the review hasn't finished yet. I can give you a couple of pointers:
  • Make sure that it complies with all sections of the WP:MoS, rather than just the sections listed in the Good Article criteria.
  • The article may not be "comprehensive", which it needs to be to pass. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I can't say for sure.
  • The grammar and language will probably need a copy-edit; I don't think it'll get through as it is without significant improvement.
  • Have a read through WP:FAC and see what kind of comments/questions frequently pop up. Might help identify possible issues within the article.
I would take it to peer review, and try and get some experienced editors to give the article a thorough review. Make sure it's clear that you want to bring it to FA level—ask people to be as pedantic and picky as they can! Once you have done that, then take it to WP:FAC; the best way to learn what is necessary is to give it a go. Good luck! - Shudde talk 12:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for improving 1877 Wimbledon Championship, the very first championship and getting up to GA. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol thumbs up color.svg Congratulations and thanks for your good job done on 1877 Wimbledon Championship article. Keep up the good spirit.
Enjoy! Cheers!! - Ninney (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Fumiteru Nakano[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 10:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit[edit]

Wolbo. these aren't "unproductive pointy edits" This is trying to make available access to an RfC which expressed the view of the community. You have been working against the conclusion of that RfC and making edits reflecting your own view which was rejected in the RfC. The soft redirect gives people trying to find the RfC access to the close. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And there was talk by multiple admins and editors about completely deleting the page forever, and others who said it should never have left user space. With the original essay writer in semi-retirement, and worried it could disappear, I moved it back to his user space for safe-keeping. The editor then returned and edited it some more... thankful I had saved it for him. Your edit was pointy and unproductive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Wolbo, we don't delete RfCs, they are left there to keep a record of what editors have decided. Wolbo, do you recognise that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names RfC was a WikiProject Tennis RfC. Do you recognise that the decision is valid? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


No problem Face-smile.svg. I had to take a short wikibreak and restricting myself to small fixes but in a recent days I was thinking on getting back to it. It needs only a few finishing touches and of course every help is welcomed (even in my sandbox). As always my edits do require a post-copyedit so if you feel like have a read on it. Also I'd like to sort put the refs as I've already experienced edit difficulties with articles over 100 refs (1930, 1931 in tennis). So I'm planning to rearrange those as well to separate sources sections such as newspapers/books/online media and remove repetitive materials with that and save space. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 15:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To tell the truth I almost entirely gave up on this project so if you feel like taking control of it go on and reanimate it. I'd be glad to see it getting in the limelight again and being finalized. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 10:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. Sorry for not responding but I have a ton of work and don't have time for my usual Wikiedits. As I said earlier I gace up on this project (though I had bookmarked pages for his Playing Style), but I deleted every document I've stored for it. I only left the psage open for you (and others) to edit if one feels like. So feel free to publish it because I already forgot what were my plans on improving/revamping it and lost my interest in it. Though if published I might come back to haunt the page a bit but right now I'm busy for any major effort Sert - dead smile.svg. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Xmas Wolbo! I saw you working here during the holidays and I thought I'll share a birthday present with you for our project. Guess what I got my bookmars back thanks to my Google account. It had an archived version of my Chrome setting back from May. I haven't signed in until now. I was able to tweek it and summon my old bookmarks by singing in from another computer then export them and after sending it to my laptop importing them. Kinda tricky but worth it. Now I have those bokkmarks I haven't used for the article (I have a habit to delete those I've already used up so these are what left). I have various info on his playing style, his son, his move career, post WWII titles and so on. I just drop all the pages here so feel free to use them. I am thinking on getting reinvolved in the project as well. Maybe we could push it through a GA. What do you think?
The links are : [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (playing style in Hungarian), [8] (free photo series of Cochet's backhand, p.98), [9], [10] (playing style by Nigel Sharpe), [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (Stadium named after him in Lyon), [19], [20]
A belated Merry Christmas to you too! Glad to hear you were able to rediscover the lost bookmarks. They should certainly help to further develop the article and I'm happy it was published as it would have been a shame if your considerable efforts on this article had gone to waste. When I have time I'd like to help to improve and complete it over the next few months or so, a little bit at a time, and let's see if we can get it to GA status in the first half of 2014.--Wolbo (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Henner Henkel[edit]

Hi, have a look here. It reads "als er Anfang 1943 nach einer Schussverletzung in der Eiseskälte der Ostfront nahe Stalingrad erfror" ["as he froze to death after a bullet wound in the freezing cold of the Eastern Front near Stalingrad in early 1943"]. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ludwig von Salm-Hoogstraeten[edit]

Yes, he was probably a French tennis club member. It wasn't unusual as the French tennis scene was the most developed at the time and other foreign players chose to train there as well (e.g. Vladimir Landau, George Lyttleton-Rogers). The latter two thus has some sort of ranking, which leads me to my question and I'm curious if you can help me.

Considering those many finals focused on 1914 von Salm should have been ranked inside the world top ten by the end of the year. Do you own any tennis books or newspaper that could confirm that? I didn't find anythink on the net...

I'm also planning to add the early life section soon, so the article will be ready for a DYK. We could elaborate one together if you have ideas for it. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ludwig von Salm-Hoogstraeten[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to Vietnamese geo article titles[edit]

Since you participated in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2 you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Decorative and uninformative flag icons[edit]

Dear Wolbo, I noticed that you have inserted several dozen of these into a table here. I'm not sure what your tennis "project" says, but what we do know is that postage-stamp pretty things are widely regarded as purely decorative, especially when they either (i) contain many unfamiliar flags, without textual reference to the country they are purported to represent, or (ii) can easily be confused, such as the Australian and NZ flags, even at full size, let alone tiny size.

I look at those tables wondering why they're prettied up in this way when the information content is lacking. It goes against our service to readers. Please consider re-thinking this. Tony (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this post and figured I'd answer first. Actually, since you commented on the last discussion at tennis project you should know what the project says about these "pretty little things." They are in our guidelines by consensus and mouseovers tell you exactly what nationality our players play under in international events. It was also pointed out to you that the WTA, ATP, Olympics and ITF all use these items to convey important information. They help me at a glance to distinguish patterns at tournaments and I know they give the same help to writers at the ESPN staff. They are not used for countries, only player nationality, unless it's something like Davis Cup... but then we don't use them for the players. Many charts also add decorative colors throughout wikipedia... useless to some important to others. It is a service to our readers and a very important aspect in pro tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS guidelines[edit]

no, the discussion ended, if you want to reopen the discussions please do.. If you'd actually followed the discussions you would have known that they were closed on monday.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

me and Fyunck(click) agreed to monday, so we waited until monday.. Some people replied, the majority didn't (you being one of them)... If you want to restart the discussions, START THEM, don't revert legitimate edits because you disagree with them!--TIAYN (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - A Wallis Myers contributions[edit]

Just wanted to say a big thank you for your contributions to the page on A. Wallis Myers (my great grandfather). Creating the page was my first proper foray into Wikipedia and I've been delighted to see the entry not only survive its proposal for deletion, but expand. Thanks again. Hy6e (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Tennis stats[edit]

So what are your thoughts on simply leaving the coding 100% as-is, but simply adding an extra column for tournament type? It's gotta be the easiest solution for all the editors who are familiar with the current chart, yet satisfies FL by accommodating the visually challenged. That was the main concern all along. Shall I just do it and have done with this? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nell Truman[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Nell Truman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nell Truman[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

lol at Havoc[edit]

Were you the one who said i was creating havoc, i am the the only one creating Challenger Pages and trying to finish every page as possible with proper references. please. I don't give a crap about empty talk pages. Dencod16 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Keil[edit]

Hi Wolbo. I've looked at this article since it came to attention at WP:AIV. I'd like your advice since you have done some work on the article and have experience with tennis articles in general. It appears that an IP editor contends that the article is causing "national security" issues for Keil, due to incorrect information in the sections that IPs continue to blank. See this edit summary for example. Assuming for a moment that this is not just someone messing with us, perhaps we might remove some of the unsourced information in the "Playing history" and "Coaching history" sections...? Do you have any opinion as to what we might reasonable remove as being unsourced and challenged information? Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul, the IP editor in question claims to be Mark Keil, the subject of this article (see 1, 2). I have done some work on this article and have a fair amount of experience with tennis articles but have no prior experience with such repeated section blankings by someone claiming to be the article subject. What I have done so far is revert the section blankings made by the various IPs (and user Markkeil1) and at the same time tried to improve the article and add sources to the two sections in question, Playing history and Coaching history. Also added 'Refimprove' tags to both sections. Note that several other editors also reverted these section blankings. The reason I reverted the blanking edits is that initially no reason at all was given for removing this info or it just stated "not correct" without explaining why. Later on the edits summaries mentioned "too much information" or "wrong information " or "cluttered" and the one you refer to "national security". But again none of these explain what information specifically is "not correct", "wrong ", "cluttered" or "too much" or why it should be deleted because of "national security". To protect the article I warned the IPs several times and when this did not help reported the IPs at WP:AIV which resulted in two IP blockings.
So how should we proceed? I read up on WP:BLP to find some guidance and, if we assume that the IP is indeed Mark Keil, it seems that WP:BLPEDIT might apply. We could communicate to the IP and explain what actions he can take based on this, specifically 1) add the {{adminhelp}} tag and/or 2) post a notice on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I really don't know what to make of the "national security" claim, it sounds far-fetched, but we can explain that legal issues can be communicated to the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (OTRS) at In the meantime I will try and find reliable sources for the unsourced bullet points in the two sections and if I can't find any within a reasonable time will remove the unsourced info. I'm reluctant to remove any info right now as I don't think they have yet been validly challenged. Let me know what you think of this approach.--Wolbo (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, Wolbo. I too had thought about attempting to communicate to the user (noting WP:BLPSELF and such), but held off because of the frequent IP hopping: I was doubtful that he would get the messages, even if I left them at the talk page of User:Markkeil1. Perhaps it is worth a try, though. I'm not sure about "national security" but I could imagine a scenario in which Keil might be applying for a travel visa, is required to provide a list of places he has previously visited, and then a bureaucrat with a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's reliability challenges Keil about discrepancies between what he has provided and what his Wikipedia article says. Anyway, I think your approach to the sourcing issue is quite all right. Thanks! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Decorative flag icons[edit]

Hi, my attention has been drawn to this edit, among others, where you appear to be holding out to retain postage-stamp pretty flag icons. Please note that these icons are in most cases purely decorative and serve no informational purpose. In some cases (e.g. Australia/New Zealand) the flag icon is downright ambiguous.

Many editors would be pleased if you toned down your advocacy of these flash of bright colour in contexts where colour is best confined to images. Your efforts would be much appreciated in that area.

Thank you. Tony (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

World number 1 male tennis player rankings[edit]

Hello Wolbo, from what objective source or from which accepted consensus do you back up your text/edit, that Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic should be ranked equally World no. 1's for 2013? In case of any dispute - including on this exact page; No.1 male Tennis player - the player that ATP appoints "player of the year" will be the true no. 1. Look at the other years in the ATP era, e.g. 1982 with Connors vs. McEnroe and Connors did not even top the ATP ranking that year! Rafael Nadal won not only the year-end no. 1 in the ATP rankings, he was awarded the ATP "player of the year" and was appointed no. 1 by the Tennis magazine. That the lesser ITF - controversially - named Djokovic World Champion does not alone make Djokovic rank as equal No. 1 for 2013! How is that possible? That is anyway 3 to 1 in favor of Nadal and the ATP - the most important professional Tennis association - conclusively appointing Nadal as the undisputed No. 1 for 2013.

If you want to argue otherwise I would ask you to back up your argument with objective sources, relevant tennis awards, consensus in the Tennis world etc. and refrain from using biased, or even emotional arguments. Statistics is not what you believe or what you would want it to be, it must be what is officially correct. That you include in the text that Nadal lost in round 1 in Wimbledon reveals that you are clearly biased. Only finals in single tournaments are mentioned in all the other years. It is not objectively relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornmanager1 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Capricornmanager1, thanks for your post. Instead of discussing the merits of Nadal vs. Djokovic here I invite you to join the discussion on this topic at the WP Tennis Talk page where I have also given my opinion. Pending the outcome it would be best and most neutral to leave the 2013 position blank. --Wolbo (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo. Thank you for the invitation. Capricornmanager1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornmanager1 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Axios XRF Spectrometer.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RE:Charles Aeschlimann[edit]

Sorry, don't hate the player hate the game Face-wink.svg. But to compensate you I'm already working on getting +500 characters to get it back to start. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 14:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm back. I do agree you with what you said on the stub/start status and of course it's not a maths equation. And I don't even demand list-like articles (but not pure lists) nor those of minor tournaments' to reach the 1500 limit but for a player bio it's just too simple to push it through with relatively little effort. Today's players have plenty of career coverage while pre-open era players had a "main" life to live and us to tell and tennis was their hobby. Formatting needs to be a must in general I don't want to give out Start statuses just because infobox and external links are added. It's also easier for us to follow the 1500 rule if we ever consider sending our articles to DYK, which currently is the easiest way for an article to reach the Wiki main page. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 18:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Player images[edit]

Hello Wolbo, I noticed you have been replacing a lot of images from Myers' 1903 book "Lawn Tennis Home And Abroad" with better quality versions. Thank you for that! I'm a little curious... Did you find those pictures online? Or did you scan them from the book?--Kompakt (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Kompakt. I scanned them directly from the book (actually have two copies). It's great that a lot of these older books on lawn tennis are available online, and I make frequent use of them, but unfortunately the scan quality of particularly the images is usually not that high. Nevertheless it's of course much better to have these lower quality images than none at all and you did excellent work in uploading so many of them. Keep up the good work. --Wolbo (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I see... and I was wondering where to find these picture online! You're right, the quality of the images from online books is a lot worse than when you scan directly from the book. I assume you have a reprint - or actually two of them :-) It seems to be of very good quality!--Kompakt (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Both of them are original 1903 first editions. One is a bit raggedy and that is the one I use for scanning. Try to be delicate and careful with it to keep the old centenarian intact. --Wolbo (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok... very nice! That does explain the good quality :-) --Kompakt (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your tennis insight needed[edit]

If you have the time check out this discussion about a tennis scorecard inventor/umpire. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Had a quick look and I can see some merit in both Joe Decker's and your arguments. What's clear is that the umpiring aspect in itself is not sufficient notability per earlier project discussions but perhaps the handheld computer argument plus the available sources sway it in the keep direction. I'm somewhat on the fence here so I'll let this discussion pass and run its course.--Wolbo (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

IPA long reply[edit]

Hi there

I'm happy to see that you are interested in pronounciation guides. It requires some basic linguistics but not as difficult as many may think. First of all there are three categories of languages regarding the basis of pronounciation:

  • letter-to-letter : like e.g. Hungarian and Serbian
  • syllable-to-syllable : like most of the European languages
  • word-to-word : like Chinese

By clicking on any link generated by IPA-xx templates you get redirected to the main pronounciation page with a small summary of how the letters can be converted into IPA-characters. Although in some easier cases there exists a {{convert}} template that automatically does the job for you like in the Gene Mako article. These can be found at the Category:IPA_language_templates#C. Although in e.g. Hungarian one must still know to differentiate between the last letters of the names Bodrogy and Nagy whereas the first is two letters while in the second the ending gy counts as only one.

For every other syllable-based languages it has to be done case-by-case but if you find the syllable within a name/word it gets easy from there. Although I have to admit that e.g. Luxembourgish is still decypherable to me Face-wink.svg And as for the word-based IPAs (Chinese), like in the Kho Sin-Kie article is quite simple as in Chinese many of these names are really common and frequently used and almost every name has a "meaning" so they are not just proper nouns but substantive nouns as well. Wiktionary has IPA-codes for 70% of its dictionary so it's quite helpful to start from there.

Anyway if you need assisstance or find an article that you think I might be interested in just drop me a message. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 13:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Wolbo, sorry no one was around to help you on the help IRC room; a majority of the helpers are from America or Europe so there's not many of us around before around midday UTC. I was busy but just saw your message. I don't know that much about tables, but if you go to Help:Tables and Ctrl + F for 'Align' you'll find what appear to be a few examples which do what you need. Hope that helps, Sam Walton (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.--Wolbo (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sports nationality[edit]

Sorry for the change. I was only doing it temporarily because of complaints at the tennis infobox RFC. I was trying to show them how easy it was to make a tweak they could live with as opposed to the draconian things a few of them want. If they liked it over the next 24 hours or so I was going to switch it back and bring it up at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, wasn't clear to me that it was intended to be a temporary test. I'm not sure what the best name for this field would be if we elect (or are required) to change it but 'Sports nationality' just strikes me as odd. In my view a sports governing body does not assign an official nationality but rather rules that a sportsperson is eligible to represent a certain country. Also keep in mind that if a field name is chosen with 'nationality' in it the current usage of {{flag}} no longer works properly because it uses the 'country' name (e.g. Great Britain instead of British).--Wolbo (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that the term players compete under Internationally? Great Britain, not UK? Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I mean. Another example: country='Germany' but nationality='German'. If we switch the field name from 'Country' to something containing the word 'Nationality' the way the flag template works (adding the country name) is no longer correct. We could implement the same workaround that we now use for historic flags, namely switching to the {{flagicon}} template and then manually add in this case the nationality ('German,).--Wolbo (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

Hi Wolbo the above user has since blanked out more pages and changing and adding un-sourced stats, which have been reverted since your last warning here and also here. I don't know how you block someone but clearly this person is ignoring people, hope your well?--Navops47 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User has now been blocked.--Wolbo (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Player yearly articles - missed in the guidelines?[edit]

By convention and consensus we only have individual yearly articles for players that have won a grand slam tournament (or pro slam). Hence we can have 2013 Novak Djokovic tennis season. Players without this achievement have their stats only in a career statistics section. Somehow that missed getting put in the guidelines... unless I missed it. I would have had you write the sentence but where should it go? Probably under "Article types and recommended practices"? Maybe a section under "Single-year tournament articles" with a title "Single-year player articles" with the proper stipulations? It's long time consensus since the Roger Federer rfc, but I've noticed a few pop up and I want to be able to point to our guidelines. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's currently in our article guidelines and agree it should be. Before we do so it's probably best to run it by the WP:Tennis talk page with a link to previous discussions which resulted in the consensus to limit player tennis season articles to Grand Slam winners only. I think that's a sensible guideline, it's getting a bit out of hand when articles like 2014 Roberto Bautusta-Agut tennis season start to appear. But it would be good to get some feedback to reaffirm this consensus (or not) and work out a proposal for the wording.--Wolbo (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - DVdm (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't refactor what is signed by me[edit]

Wolbo, with this edit, you refactored talk page text that is signed by me. The result is that text I did not write is sitting over my signature. The correct thing to do would have been to propose that change in the discussion section of the RfC. In that particular case, I would have agreed to it and would have made the change myself. It is simply wrong to make it appear that someone has signed something they haven't. Don't do that again. --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BNA Access[edit]

Hey Wolbo, you have a user email waiting with instructions on how to get access to BNA via the Wikipedia Library Partnership, Sadads (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RE:1929 in tennis[edit]

Thanks. You were fast as lightning in discovering its existence. I hope we both receive access to BNA archives so we could complete the missing English tournament results. Fingers crossed. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Lajbi: Just happened to spot the clearing of your sandbox and figured that could only mean one thing. I actually have BNA access since a couple of days. Any particular English tournament results you're looking for?--Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Wow. It would be awesome if you could dig up the Welsh, Irish and Scottish main champs results. Unfortunately Tennisz és golf only lists the mens' singles scores. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 15:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

RE:Tennis player biography challenge[edit]

Okay, let's do it. One minor restriction though. Let it be a pre-open era player they are more of my interest. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I have to pick Roman Najuch, although he was a professional so his tournament achievements are somewhat limited. Because once I tried to create the Matejka page, but so few info is circulating out there that I had to give it up. So Najuch for me aaaand for you let's say choose one of the ATA championships winners 1917-1939 from this book (p. 221). As far as I know Ora Washington and Reginald Weir are already created. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 17:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting choice, I am aware of the ATA and know of Ora Washington but beyond that my knowledge is very limited. Will give it a go, hopefully there is enough info to be found.--Wolbo (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lajbi: Made my choice, an interesting player. How are you coming along? --Wolbo (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

GP Championship Series RM[edit]

Hi Wolbo hope you are well your input on the Talk:Grand Prix Championship Series#Requested move is needed now that other editors are giving feedback--Navops47 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian Ayre (tennis)[edit]

See this here, and this and subsequent edits. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Need Your Unbiased Input in a Dispute[edit]

Hi Wolbo I would appreciate if you have time as your good with accepted sources could you take a look at the discussion I'm involved in on this talk page Template talk:Sri Lankan former states of which there is a dispute and it's been protected by an administrator and give your feedback --Navops47 (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Navops47:, bit busy at the moment but if I find time and feel I can contribute I will try to do so.--Wolbo (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated- The issue is whether the Sinhala Kingdom and Lanka Kingdom are infact fictious names/countries or infact have some grounding as per there inclusion here: Kurukshetra War map to look at is here Mahajanapadas under the section list of shows map of Epic India on the right and these two kingdoms look for Island of Sri Lanka the editor objecting says they did not exist before 541 BCE. many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

World TeamTennis[edit]

Thanks, Wolbo. I'm glad someone is reading the World TeamTennis articles. I signed up as a member of the Tennis WikiProject, and I'll be sure to add the template to my new articles. I read through the material on the project page, and it seems that WTT doesn't exactly fit in. For example, Jimmy Connors was banned from playing the French Open because of his association with WTT. From 1974 to 1978, WTT was significant enough to attract top star players of the game. Yet, the definition of a notable player doesn't include one who played on a WTT championship team. In my opinion, it should - at least for 1974 through 1978. Of course, today's WTT is just a shadow of what is was in the 1970s. In 2014, Daniela Hantuchová and Vera Zvonareva were the only players that come to mind who sacrificed touring to play full-time in WTT. Other big-name full-time players (Andy Roddick and Marian Bartoli) are retired. Roddick is clearly past his most productive years, and Bartoli didn't play any single for Austin; Zvonareva was their regular singles player). Martina Hingis played full-time as well and still demonstrates a high level of skill. It seems the problem with her feet is too much to allow her to tour. A three-week season seems to work out fine. The other big-name players in 2014 WTT (Bryan Brothers, James Blake and Venus Williams) were just part-time. Springfield couldn't even get Blake to play in the Final. San Diego did get the Bryan Brothers to play in the Western Final, but they lost their men's doubles set. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Juan Martín del Potro 2014 tennis season[edit]

Hello, I am not an experienced user when someone asks to delete a page. I didn't know that they need to play 25-30 matches at least to have a season page, but the season isn't over yet and it seems he will come back at the Open in Kuala Lumpur, so shouldn't we wait for the end of the year and see how many matches he plays this year? I mean, it's possible for del Potro to play 15-20 matches this season, given that he already played 10. That's all. JoseRodil25 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you rooting for in the finals?[edit]

I'm kinda hoping Wozniacki pulls out her first. I give her and Danish fans little hope though. As for the I find myself wanting Nishikori to win. Chang has done wonders for his mental game. If he can get his teeth into a few of Cilic's service games, I think he has a reasonable chance. But Cilic played phenomenal today...making Fed look old. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Wozniacki winning her first GS title but basically only Serena can beat Serena and she deserves to be on par with Evert and Navratilova on 18 GS titles. So, I'm good either way. Right now I'm disappointed with Fed's loss and don't care too much about the men's final. It was probably the last chance the old maestro had to win another GS title. Have some mixed feelings about Cilic given his doping conviction last year but he played awesome and didn't really give Federer a chance. Hopefully Nishikori can dig deep one more time and take the title but Cilic is probably the slight favorite. --Wolbo (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... I find there is a bit of a vacuum of quality in the ladies game these days. With Henin and Clijsters giving away their best years and then retiring early, Serena has free reign. The others can play great for a tournament or two, but overall either their fitness or mental fragility let them down. I'm bummed about Federer too, but I've watch so many declines in the sport through the years that I'm surprised he can still hang in there. He hasn't been the same player since 2007 yet he has still managed to win a lot of tournaments since then. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 WTA Tour Championships to 2014 WTA Finals[edit]

Please edit all things about 2014 WTA Tour Championships (to 2014 WTA Finals, have 2014 WTA Tour (*5, 6 or 7), 2015 WTA Finals and Template:2014 WTA Tour). 333-blue (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

All article[edit]

Why you had to undo my edit? 333-blue (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Again? 333-blue (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A330 page[edit]

The A300 page states that it is developed into A330 and A340. Shouldn't it be same for A330 into A350? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuu100145j (talkcontribs) 10:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links[edit]


Please read Wikipedia:External_links#Minimize_the_number_of_links and WP:ELNO.

Thanks in advance,

Poveglia (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. For Serena you can find the links at the top of and for Roger you can find them on his linkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poveglia (talkcontribs) 02:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Poveglia: Hi, I read Wikipedia:External_links#Minimize_the_number_of_links and it seems to justify removing the external link to Federer's Facebook page, as it is prominently linked on his website, but not his Twitter link as that is not directly linked from 'the main page of the official website'.--Wolbo (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually it justifies deleting both. Quotes:
"Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances."
"Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.
More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation."
(The emphasis is mine).
Even if the social media accounts were not linked from his official website at all, we would still only link to them if they provide the reader with significant unique content. We are not trying to replace the search function of those social media websites.
Poveglia (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Poveglia: The way I read it this allows Federer's Twitter link as it does 'provide the reader with significant unique content' and is 'not prominently linked from other official websites' i.e. not directly displayed on the home page of Federer's official website. I re-reverted the Serena Williams external Facebook and Twitter links as these are indeed directly displayed on her homepage.--Wolbo (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It says: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances"...
This is not an official website. It is a social media account. The website is not owned by Federer. And no, it does not provide significant unique content, and (more importantly) it does not provide an pathway to a location outside the project that is likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. Wikipedia does not attempt to [snip, full quote above] provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Maybe Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Social_networking_websites explains it better (this topic has been debated many many times). We are building an encyclopedia; we are not trying to link to all official social media accounts of all notable people. In certain cases it is possible to use an official social media account as a reliable source, but it is almost never a good idea to use it as an external link. Poveglia (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Usually one link is the optimal amount, but I found an example of the very few limited circumstances where linking to more than one official website is a good idea: The Hooters. The band itself has a website and all five individual members have their own websites. But we are not going to link to all the social media accounts on instagram/google+/twitter/facebook/myspace/linkedin etc. Poveglia (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Federer's most recent tweets:
Incredible time at the Louis Vuitton Foundation #oneofakind
Everywhere you look its beautiful here.. excited to be back in Paris, 1st match Wednesday #ademain
Yeeeaaahhhh so happy, thanks to everyone for making this week so special for me! #ballboyforlife
Day 3 on clay #done
Claycourt practice #dirtysocks #sliding #grinding
Happy to be back home in Switzerland!
Should I walk across?
Ergo, linking to his twitter does not increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand.
Poveglia (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Exhibitions etc...[edit]

Do we have color restrictions guidelines on exhibition tournaments? I like it colorless better, but I just used what was already there at Borg–Connors rivalry because I didn't think we had any consensus to remove it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): As far as I know we do not have any colors assigned to invitational tournaments or exhibitions and I'm not convinced they need to have a color. That's one reason I removed the background colors for these events. Also, since it is better to split these events of into different tables (as they are not officially recognized by ATP or ITF), as is now done at Borg–Connors rivalry, having one background color for an entire table adds no real informational value. Finally, the blue background for the invitational tournaments was not WCAG compliant. --Wolbo (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Doubt regarding tennis articles assessment[edit]

Hello Wolbo! I have recently started to give a more serious help in WikiProject Tennis articles. In the last couple of days, whenever I have time I try to solve some unassessed and unknown-importance articles.

However, I found myself in a dilemma. An article such as this one, 2009 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships – Singles, I have been considering it as list-class, while its mother article (2009 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships) would be given a stub, start or whatever its status would be. But I saw that you did not consider it a list.

Since you are a veteran in this WikiProject, I almost certain your approach is the correct one. Still, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Is there anywhere I can look for further information?

Thanks for your time! Greetings, SOAD KoRn (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@SOAD KoRn: Hi SOAD KoRn, we can always use some more hands to assess the WikiProject Tennis articles so thanks for the help. Assessing tennis articles is not the most glamorous or fun part of editing but in my view it is useful to have an overview of the quality and importance of all our tennis articles so we have an idea how we are doing and it can help to focus our efforts. Regarding your question on the 2009 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships – Singles article, I can see why you would consider it a list-class. The article, like most of its kind, has a very small lede with almost no text and appears visually similar to a list. I normally rate these articles as 'stub' (sometimes 'start') because ultimately a tennis draw is not the same as a list like e.g. List of open era tennis records or List of Davis Cup champions. These tennis draws articles should really have a better lede that puts them into proper context so they can be read as standalone articles. The other option would be to integrate them in the tournament article. There has been some discussion about that once or twice but not enough to reach a consensus. For more info on lists you can have a look at the Manual of Style on lists. Hope that helps. --Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 737 ‎[edit]

I undid one of your edits to Boeing 737‎. There's no need to remove a dead link, and it actually should not be removed. There's no requirement for a reference to be available online, so the ref is still valid. I tagged itas a deadlink instead. We may be able to find the same ref elsewhere online, an archived version of the original ref, or a replacement ref. Meters (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Player yearly articles - how do we handle this?[edit]

You added the agreed upon lines "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title, onward from the year of their first title and provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam tournament title." But it adds a certain new problem I see. Most of the "yearly" articles are done continuously throughout the year, meaning we don't know if they'll play 25 matches and have a top 5 ranking until the end of the year. But by then the article will be almost complete. Take for instance the article 2014 Victoria Azarenka tennis season. She won a 2 Majors and was in 2 Major finals in 2012, 2013. In 2014 she started the year ranked No. 2 but only played in 24 matches so I assume this article should be removed even though it's only 1 year removed from winning a Major? It fails Tennis Project criteria, but 24 matches is close to 25 matches. But now we have started a new article 2015 Victoria Azarenka tennis season. Here she "may" play 25 matches but she starts the year ranked poorly at No. 31. Again her ranking "may" climb to top 5 but I'm doubting it. Do we let it continue and delete it once we see it will fail or do we delete it now and let creator MasterMind5991 keep it in his sandbox, only to revive it if needed? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be a Yogi Berra quote: "Every solution creates a new problem." I'm aware that at the beginning of each year new player season articles are created and this particular aspect has not really been brought up during the recent discussions. I don't think the 25 matches requirement should prevent these articles from being created because under normal circumstances this number will easily be reached. If a player is injured during the year and doesn't reach 25 matches the article becomes eligible for deletion, as happened with the 2014 Del Porto season article. It's a bit harsh to delete the 2014 Victoria Azarenka tennis season article for falling just one match short of the 25 matches requirement but the line has to be drawn somewhere and it can justifiably be said that the requirements work in this case as her 2014 season was indeed not notable. The 2015 Victoria Azarenka tennis season article should in my view not be created at this time because she does not have a top 5 ranking. It can be created if and when she reaches the top 5 (or wins a Grand Slam tournament). For the same reason 2015 season articles should not now be created for V. Williams, Stosur or Murray, but can be created for S. Williams, Sharapova, Kvitova, Ivanovic, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and Wawrinka. The guideline still has to go through WP:NSPORT but right now this is what the consensus looks like.--Wolbo (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That was the other thing I was going to ask. It's not clear but I assumed when we are talking about a player reaching top 5, that all that has to happen is they need to reach No. 5 sometime during the season. They don't need to have it at years end. Correct? You might want to tweak the wording to make sure that's clear to all editors. Otherwise as MasterMind5991 pointed out to me, Serena's 2011 season would also have to be scrapped. She started out in January at No. 4 (her previous year end ranking), but when she actually played her first match she was ranked No. 25. She ended the year ranked No. 12 and played in exactly 25 matches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. That is why it is phrased "during any year(s)" instead of "at the end of any year(s).--Wolbo (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Year End #1[edit]

Hello. On the "List of WTA number 1 ranked players" article, I had edited the year end #1 section to remove the year end #1 of 2014 and Serena Williams' 4 years to 3 year end #1's because the year has not ended yet. You seem to have reverted it back and called it a "disruptive edit." My edit was not meant to be disruptive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be some inconsistency going on in regards to the stats after the WTA season is over and I was hoping you could help. I had been explicitly directed on Project Tennis to NOT post date tallies for both Serena Williams' consecutive and total weeks at #1 because the year has not ended. The justification for this was that post dating is not allowed because the player could retire, pass away, etc. "We cannot tell the future" I was told. In addition, it was stated that ITF events continue and can affect the rankings. I cited press releases from the WTA stating Serena Williams as being 1- Year End #1 2- Accumulated 221 Total weeks and 3- 198 Consecutive weeks at #1 back in November after the finals. This documentation did not seem to matter to certain folks involved in Project Tennis who stated that the tallies must reflect the date listed on the WTA Rankings page even though the WTA already stated this as "fact."

So my question is this... why do we not post date #1 tallies stated by the WTA to be fact, while post Year End #1 stats before the year is complete? If the Year End #1 data (stated by WTA to be true) is allowed to be listed in the article before the year is over (in essence post-dating), why are the Year End Total and Consecutive tallies (also stated by the WTA to be true) not post dated?

Here are the links to the information. AND Thanks so very much.Kube8 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tokyo WCT and Tokyo Indoor[edit]

Hi Wolbo, I'm following you and I have seen this article. Is this tournament an edition of this one? Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matlab1985, I don't believe it is. The first edition of the Tokyo Indoor, also known as the Seiko World Super Tennis, was held in 1978 (confirmed in Barret's World of Tennis 1979 yearbook) and was part of the Grand Prix circuit. The 1974 Tokyo WCT event was a World Championship Tennis tournament and was, at least that year, held outdoor (see reference to 'heavy wind' in this NYT article). All those different Tokyo tournaments can be rather confusing.--Wolbo (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar (also)[edit]

Just wanted to say thankyou for the barnstar. YellowStahh (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd also pose a question as to whether 1974 US Pro Championships and 1975 US Pro Championships should be moved to 1974 U.S. Pro Championships and 1975 U.S. Pro Championships to match the naming style of the other associated articles. YellowStahh (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I have moved these two tournaments to achieve a better naming consistency with the other editions. Sources often differ on the spelling of these tournaments (between US and U.S.). Neither version is wrong and in those cases it is indeed better to stick to the one spelling version that is the most frequent in reliable sources.--Wolbo (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns/Archive. It was filed by Neelix and archived for lack of evidence. Nellix has recently received warnings on his talk page for inappropriate admin actions, such as WP:INVOLVED. See Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant and Pray tell where he blocked a newbie editor without warning. He was told about about WP:OWN and asked for an explanation for this edit.[21] He immediately retired, though maybe he is taking a wikibreak as suggested. I don't know Neelix. Just responding to your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. EChastain (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm 333-blue. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 1977 German Open (tennis), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. 333-blue 07:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not review the article, I created it and it was auto-patrolled. I'm a bit puzzled why you left this message stating you 'unreviewed' it without explaining why you did so. But perhaps I should not be puzzled and just add this to the growing list of incomprehensible edits you have made since your arrival.--Wolbo (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Convert to the usual draw[edit]

I was wondering for article such as 1999 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Singles, should I convert the draw down to the regular format for draws such as 2015 Aircel Chennai Open – Singles, without the 32 Entry template? YellowStahh (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rvt, spam, there are many other reliable sources available[edit]

Dear Wolbo how are you? First of all, I would like to contact you regarding some issues in the tennis history. Secondly, I would like to ask you if you found any problem with the reference link which I displayed at Don Budge's age. I appreciate your time! Mrandrew16 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Akron tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Virginia Slims of Akron tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten[edit]

  • Good day , Wolbo .

Is there a possibility to block all unregistered members from editing this article ? Quite frankly : I'm too sick and tired of all the trolls and clueless youngsters who trash it with false info , made-up "facts" and descriptions of scenes from ridiculous and sensational movies like "Crash Of The Century" , which has extremely little with reality to do ? It's not even funny !

Best Regards

NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @NaturalHeaven1979: if a page is the subject of frequent vandalism you can request page protection (or semi-protection) at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Wolbo (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Superscript in tennis scoring[edit]

Re: this edit, is superscript really the standard/accepted format for denoting tiebreak points when writing scores on a single line? I've seen superscripts when scores are written in tabular format, like:

Player A   78 64 4
Player B   66 77 6

But inline as: "Player B def. Player A 6-7 (6-8), 7-6 (7-4), 6-4" (with minor variations, i.e. not explicitly writing the tiebreak winner's points, but not with any formatting change). I can't find any official reference, and most of the major official sites use tabular scoring, but one website that uses inline scores has everything in plain text: [22]. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fru1tbat: the tiebreak score format in superscript is the Tennis Project consensus per the article guidelines, WP:TENSCR.--Wolbo (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for pointing me to that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
But when talking about actual tennis scoring, and explaining it to editors, it should be left in the natural notation. That's what they'll see in newspapers and tv, not a supercript version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I now understand why the scoring is different in this particular article and I'm fine with that although it may be somewhat confusing to readers, like it was to me, who compare the scoring format on this page with the format used in all our other articles.--Wolbo (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

US National Indoor tournament[edit]

I have a thought about what we should do with the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships event. From all that I can see this tournament is officially dead as of 2014. The rights were purchased and Memphis organizers buried the name that had been around since 1898. Their website no longer talks about the event prior to 1976. BUT... the Memphis Open has been around since '75/'76 and that's what the official website goes by. Heck in 75 and 76 Memphis had a different winner than the US Indoor Championship and that isn't being shown. I'm thinking we end this event at 2014, but turn the Memphis Open (tennis) redirect into a full article starting from it's inception in 1975. Yes, 95% of it will be on the national indoor page as well, but at least '75 and '76 will have the actual Memphis champions and 2015 will have Nishikori winning Memphis. Plus for each year forward all will now be well. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and did some of the changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a tricky but interesting issue. Have been a bit busy but will get back to you shortly.--Wolbo (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1973 USLTA Indoor Circuit[edit]

Hi, Wolbo. I'm reading this page (1973 USLTA Indoor Circuit) and I have founded an article ([23]) that talks about 14 (13+1) tournaments of this circuit and not "only" 10 ones. May you search this information on your Barrett's manual? Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted, I had 13 tournaments in the infobox but only 10 in the article. The three missing tournaments have been added. Two of them, Jackson and Washington, can also be found in the ATP tournament archive.--Wolbo (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Wolbo, I wanna ask you: Did this tournaments give ATP Points for the weekly ATP ranking or not? Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure is the only answer I can give you. Despite having Barrett's World of Tennis yearbooks at my disposal it is often unclear to me how the ATP points were calculated during the 70s. In contrast to the Grand Prix circuits the yearbooks give little or no info on how the ATP points for the players were calculated during these years and which specific tournaments were included in a player's points total. I'm still looking for a good, reliable on source on that. The '74 yearbook (on the year 1973), for example, does include an ATP points ranking table and in it lists the players, their total points as well as the number of tournaments they played but does not identify the tournaments and only mentions that the ranking is based on "performances in recognised tournaments". --Wolbo (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lottie Dod[edit]

Beste Wolbo,

bedankt voor Lottie Dod! Proficiat, je hebt het Nederlands nog niet verleerd Face-smile.svg.

Ik ben zo vrij geweest, het artikel enigszins te redigeren (en de niet-werkende link naar de HoF te repareren).

Als er nog meer zijn, waar dit vandaan kwam, dan zou ik dat zeker toejuichen.

Groetjes, Vinkje83 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vinkje83, you're welcome (I'll stay in English as we are at en.wikipedia). It was my small contribution to International Women's Day and Wiki Women's Launch (see [article]). Also added an article stub on Blanche Bingley. I'm not frequently present on the Dutch wiki so still have to get used to its article conventions and peculiarities. Feel free to improve any articles where possible.--Wolbo (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Great! I'll take care of Blanche Bingley. If you create any more tennis players in the future, don't worry about the "article conventions and peculiarities". Just give notice of the new article on my Dutch talk page, and I will see to it. Thanks again for your nice initiative. Vinkje83 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships[edit]

Hi Wolbo, I see you're updating 2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships. However, did you know all the results are already on the sub pages 2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships – Men and 2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships – Women)? (Maybe I can save you some work that is already done :)) Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 15:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you know that there is an article for the results (even linked from the article)? So, no need to put them into the main article. Kante4 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Just saw Sander's post right now. Kante4 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ATP World Tour Records article scope change[edit]

Hi Wolbo hope you are well? I see you haven't had chance to reply to your suggested scope change please share your thoughts on comments given at this point regards --Navops47 (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Wolbo, I reverted your edit on List of the world's busiest airports by passenger traffic by mistake. I've realized my error and undone my edit. Sorry about the confusion. -Zanhe (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

About adding links on Überlingen mid-air collision and Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751[edit]

Sir, you've removed my links from the external links i want to assure you that those links contains official archives many viwers want to download complete archives and verify it so in association with link owner i set them into the related post.

I'm not spamming just adding some useful archives.

I think you will now allow adding this and I made you clear about this Thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerkyRabbit (talkcontribs) 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@PerkyRabbit:, your additions of multiple links to the same website are a clear example of spamming and that needs to stop. All (or almost all) of the aviation articles to which these spam links have been added already have one (or more) links to an official aviation accident report, often in the form of a readily-accessible pdf document. The speed with which you have added these spam links makes clear you have not looked at the content of these articles in any necessary detail in order to determine if a report is already available or if your external link is even applicable. The website you link to provides no (additional) value to our readers beyond what is already available. --Wolbo (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wolbo: did you chcked that though Tittle is same but each link contains different documents which is related to the article. My main focus is to share the document not spamming if we want to focus site then we will do seo but in Wikipedia we re just sharing data from a storage site. I think you will re back those links thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerkyRabbit (talkcontribs) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice the medal template conversation?[edit]

There is talk about doing a little streamlining of the Olympic medal template. It does affect many tennis players, though it seems like only a small degree to me. I made some comments on the talk page but perhaps you feel stronger about what works best and can offer better insight than me. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion. Don't have a very strong preference but a solution that reduces line-wrapping seems preferable.--Wolbo (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]


This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wembley Professional Championships Draws[edit]

Hi, Wolbo. I found in a old newspaper ([24]) an info about the 1966 Wembley Professional Championships. It talks about some matches where Robert Haillet defeated Roger Becker 6-3 6-0, and Kurt Nielsen defeated Jean Claude Molinari 6-2 6-2. In our template che first column is filled by the first round matches: that's wrong because the 2 matches in newspaper are clearly the first round ones.--Matlab1985 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Matlab1985:, thanks for the quick response. The newspaper article is a nice find. I can solve this one for you thanks to a copy of Joe McCauley's The History of Professional Tennis which I received just last week. The article is actually correct. The two matches mentioned in the newspaper are also correct but, according to the tournament details in McCauley's book (p. 243), they were preliminary matches, preceding the first round. It is perhaps a strange draw as they could have chosen to have three first round matches instead of two preliminary matches followed by two first round matches. My best guess, and it is no more than that, is that they wanted to give both Laver and Rosewall a bye in the first round and therefore elected to have only two first round matches instead of three. I will add a note about the preliminary matches.--Wolbo (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OTD edits[edit]

Hi, please make sure that when you add new items to OTD pages, to move the ones you replaced back into the hidden staging area so that they can be used again in later years. Thanks, howcheng {chat} 02:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Howcheng: noted. Newbie mistake but it might be worthwhile making this a clearer part of the instructions. Now it is fairly hidden and is prefaced with 'Admins'. --Wolbo (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually it's in the "How to make suggestions for listings" section (item 2). Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

1971 Grand Prix (tennis) and Brussels[edit]

Hi Wolbo. I wanna ask you about the 1971 Brussels tournament. I found an article ([25]) it talks about a $13,000 tennis tournament, are you sure this one is a Group B tournament (1971 Grand Prix (tennis))? The prize money is very few for this category. Unfortunately I haven't the Barrett's books, can you control this information. Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matlab1985, I (re)checked and it is indeed mentioned as a B group tournament in Barrett's World of Tennis '72 (p.143). The prize money seems low but then again the winner of the 1971 Grand Prix tour (Stan Smith) only received $25,000 for his efforts. --Wolbo (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship FAC[edit]

Thanks for advising me of the FAC nom, which I will look at as promised, although it may me take a few days. I've moved your message on my talkpage to the foot, to help me remember it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re signup[edit]

Hello, Wolbo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing categories[edit]

Hi Wolbo, read this: User talk:Wwikix#Removing categories. Wwikix (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Wolbo, I've filed a sockpuppet investigation regarding the recent POV pushers on airport lists and other articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood‎. Feel free to add your comment. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Why use CHN flagicon for Hong Kong?[edit]

It is common to use Hong Kong for things related to Hong Kong instead of CHN one, like those lists in Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg.S03311251 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo[edit]

Thank you for your excellent work on the tennis articles. :)

Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

Sport of athletics golden barnstar.png The Running Man Barnstar
Great work on getting 1877 Wimbledon Championship to Featured status. Congratulations! Shudde talk 23:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Fact that Nadal beat Federer on all surfaces is Significant[edit]

I'm asking politely, stop trying to remove this from the article.

The fact that Nadal beat Federer on all Slam surfaces, while Federer beat Nadal on one is probably the most important aspect of the rivalry beyond the straight-up record.

Just because you don't like that FACT doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the page.

Your behavior makes it seem like you are trying to manipulate factual information toward your own designs. --Liquid foundation (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquid foundation (talkcontribs) 23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand how critical that fact is, then you should not be editing this page. Why can't you just stick to the Federer page as opposed to manipulating this page so that it does the least possible damage to Federer. Jeez, I mean the guy had his chance on court. He couldn't do it. The results are what they are, and they are by an overwhelming margin in Nadal's favor.

At least admit what you are doing to yourself, if you won't to the world. --Liquid foundation (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Tennisforum sources[edit]

I see you removing sources from tennisforum and I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. You've tagged things with WP:USERG but that guideline says largely unacceptable, not never unacceptable. The guideline also states an exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff. Rollo oversees the databases. We certainly can't use the info in BLP unless it's also tagged with a source on tennisforum, but for scores and draws I would venture to say that most of pre-1960 wikipedia wouldn't exist with the experts on tennisforum uploading the data from old books and guides that only they have access too. I've had to have editors there look up book info for me. It will never be labeled as such, but the draw and score info at is more reliable than the ATP/ITF/or WTA websites. Those are official yet chalked full of errors. exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff. Also, the site name is but that doesn't mean everything in it is a forum. There are moderated massive databases (like "Blast From The Past").

We always want to use the actual sources if at all possible, and must if we are writing the prose in a BLP. But for usual scores and draws if tennisforum is all we have, I have no problem as long as it's not an opinion. I always try to find old newspapers to corroborate their databases if possible, but there are times it's tough to do. It's also why our own tennis project's Grand Slam Project lists the site as a source for old draws. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I agree that the word 'largely' appears to allow some wiggle room but I'm not convinced that it applies in this case. This is not a question of expertise, we both know that the "Blast From The Past" section on is home to a few very knowledgeable editors on tennis history (most other sections of the forum are pretty useless). The forum is moderated and you make an interesting point about the editorial-like role of Rollo but to me it does not quite meet the requirement of "originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff". The threshold of "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" is also not met. Expert, yes, but not established and published. The central issue for me is verifiability. The forum uses many sources, some of which we do not have access to, but most of their content and data is not explicitly and specifically sourced and we are therefore unable to verify its reliability and accuracy. Sometimes more specific sources are mentioned but in those cases we should probably use those in our citations instead of the forum. There is also the minor issue of circular referencing (WP:CIRC) that we need to take into account.--Wolbo (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually that is the best thing to do. If they quote sources, use those as our citations, not I would say Rollo is a "member of the site's editorial staff" but unknown about credentialed. However, just because we don't have access to legitimate sources doesn't make those sources bad. We just have to have someone else look them up in those official sources. I had to ask several editors who were adding details to please add the sources at the top of their lists so that other who looked in future years would know where they came from. Alas, as you said many did not add the sources (but some did). The trouble is, we know (For A Fact) that the ATP and ITF websites are not reliable for their info from pre-1973. They are sometimes dead wrong or leave half the info missing. Yet editors here add the stuff they find there and everyone accepts it as fact, when you and I know it's wrong. Editors at wikipedia say, since that's what they have, that's what we put and you can't change it. That's not right either. pre-1973 tennis data is just not that easy to come by so we have to take a blend of sources. If something doesn't look right from data at then it our obligation to ask the author there for their source. We aren't supposed to source everything, just things that are likely to be challenged (unless it's a bio of a living person). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

tennis circuit
Thank you, tennis player with knowledge of European languages, for quality articles on tennis matches and players such as 1877 Wimbledon Championship[, 1974 World Championship Tennis circuit and Nell Truman, for gnomish project work like tags, page moves and "updated infobox and lede", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1267 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Template editor[edit]

Wikipedia Template editor.svg

Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

Happy template editing! KrakatoaKatie 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrea Strnadová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sparkassen Cup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Bjorn Borg born in Stockholm[edit]

RE your revision of Bjorn Borg (tennis player) Yes a lot of international pages ignorantly say Sodertalje as birthplace. However it was central Stockholm. Not a big deal, but there you are. See more about this on Talk:

Best wishes, good luck with your tennis projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Philippine international tennis tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Philippine international tennis tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

1973 WTA Tour[edit]

For the section at the end of this wiki article, where the tallies of tournament wins by player are recorded, Evonne Goolagong is absent from the list. It would appear she should be listed 2nd or 3rd since she had 7 singles victories, 5 doubles and 1 mixed doubles title during the year. The formatting is so complex, I don't know how to add this information, but perhaps someone more familiar with the page can include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Had a look and it seems the 'Titles won by player' table only shows the Virginia Slims circuit tournaments (as well as the Grand Slam tournaments and the year-end championships). Since Evonne Goolagong participated in the Grand Prix circuit and did not compete in any of the Virginia Slims tournaments she is not listed. Why the table does not show any Grand Prix or other tournament is not clear, perhaps the article started of as an overview of the Virginia Slims tournaments and the Grand Prix tournaments were added later. Nevertheless, since the article deals with all tournaments that year it logically follows that the statistical information section should reflect that. In other words the table needs to be completely updated. --Wolbo (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's a nonsense that she (and others) are omitted. However, an experienced editor needs to make the page edits as the format is far too complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B040:AFE2:8806:D205:1507:215E (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


We've been asked by the Admins to go back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and continue the discussion. I have started a new thread here [Mos:Bio 2.1.2 Changed names] so we can deal specifically with the main sticking point. Would love to have your input. Also, I think we should try try to bring in more editors than the 4 currently participating - do we do an RFC or is there an easier way? Thank You. Tennisvine (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

1927 Australian Open Women's Double final score[edit]

I was working on the GS finals table on the Sylvia Lance Harper bio page and noticed a potential problem. The score for the 1927 Australian Open Women's Double final is 3-6, 3-6 - but at the Australian Open sites results archive [26] there is no score listed, just a checkmark indicating the winner. The same score listed on Sylvia's page is also on other associated pages, 1927 Australian Championships, List of Australian Open women's doubles champions but with no reference to verify. Do you know of a reliable source where this score can be verified? I ask here because I see you've done a lot of work on her page. Thank You Tennisvine (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you the right person to ask for this type of question, or is there another page where I should make this type of inquiry?. Thanks in advance for your help. Tennisvine (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ref added.--Wolbo (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

How is it controversial changing the men's tennis players article to only encompass singles?[edit]

Wolbo, all of the other Wikipedia articles on tennis statistics have a singles and doubles equivalent (NOT together) - right down to the title winnings and Grand Slam winners pages. Rovingrobert (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

1979 Milan Indoor[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1979 Milan Indoor, and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Victor Pecci[edit]

The stamp in the article clearly states "Paraguay" with large red letters. It also appears in the catalogue of Paraguayan postage stamps as a part of the series towards 1987 philately exhibition in Cologne. No matter what is printed with a fine font, this stamp is most definitely not Portuguese. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Deinocheirus, upon reflection your assessment is probably correct. The mere fact that the stamp mentions "Paraguay" does in itself not mean it is a Paraguayan stamp. It could well be a Portuguese stamp dealing with Paraguay as a subject, or, more likely in this case, a stamp on 1988 Olympic competitors which mentions the nationality of the player. In my assessment the footer mark "Lito. Nacional-Porto-Portugal" meant it was issued in Portugal and therefore a Portuguese stamp. However, apart from the link you mention I found stamps from other countries (e.g. Nicaragua) that have the same mark and it seems to indicate a stamp that was designed and/or printed in Portugal (Porto) but not (necessarily) Portuguese.--Wolbo (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Hollywood tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Virginia Slims of Hollywood tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Detroit tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Virginia Slims of Detroit tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Brabant revolution[edit]

Firstly, thanks for your recent edits on the Brabant Revolution and related pages! Second, I don't suppose you'd have something to add to the Battle of Falmagne article? I created the stub, but couldn't find any WP:RS to expand it. Anything you could do there would be much appreciated! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, you're welcome. On this day brought me to the Brabant Revolution and you have done excellent work to get that article to GA level. With a bit more finetuning it could certainly become a featured article. Incidentally, Hendrik van der Noot was my very first wiki article, created way back in 2007! Must admit that my interest in this part of history vastly exceeds my knowledge of it. I do have a few sources on Dutch history, including Blom (2001) and have found a number of online sources that broadly cover Southern Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands, Joseph II, 1750–1800. Will keep an eye out for any info regarding the Battle of Falmagne. --Wolbo (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Columbus tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Virginia Slims of Columbus tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox height[edit]

I notice that the infobox at Bjørg Eva Jensen is showing an error for "height". This edit changed the first of these to the second.

  • height = {{convert|1.75|m|ftin|abbr=on}}
  • height = {{height|m=1.75m}} ("1.75m" should be "1.75")

I'm not sure, but I think people are using convert directly these days, so the first is preferred. At any rate, height calls convert to do the work so convert is always used, and the documentation at Template:Infobox speed skater says to use the docs at Template:Infobox sportsperson, and that shows convert. I thought I'd raise this here for your consideration—I maintain convert and don't have an opinion about what goes in the infoboxes, so please fix it however you think it should be. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Plural of runner-up[edit]

Yes, I did mess up the capitalization in that edit and a few others, all corrected.

I've researched “runner-ups” versus “runners-up” and it seems clear that the second is correct, and in rare cases M-W where both are deemed acceptable, the second is preferred.

For reasons I cannot fully explain, this error is more prevalent in tennis articles than others.

If you search Wikipedia articles for runners-up, you will get about 38,000 entries. For runner-ups, about 2000, many of which are tennis.

Can you point me to some discussion where it was concluded that the wrong term is preferred in tennis articles?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See this link

The hyphenate runner-up contains a noun and an adverb/preposition. Only nouns can be pluralized. Since it is still hyphenated, the parts maintain their grammatical value.

Collins Dictionary

Word forms: plural runners-up

Using English

The phrase in your resume was correct. Runners-up is just the plural of runner-up. You can use it when there is more than one runner-up.

I haven't yet found a site which suggests runner-ups is preferred. I do see that Wiktionary lists both, but, of course, that isn't a reliable source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion implies the subject has been debated extensively.

However, a search for “runner-ups tennis” in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces doesn't reveal much. When challenged, link was provided but there's nothing there, and my cursory review of the history revealed nothing useful. The discussion implies that an editor named Zaxem made a case, but that editor is a blocked sockpuppet. I have not found the case.

I will hold off a bit awaiting your response, but so far, it looks like there is a penchant in tennis articles to use the wrong term. I think it should be corrected.

Note this FA review where it is clearly stated:

As noted above, "runner-ups" is not a real word, should be "runners-up" (as it originally was, in fact)--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I have no issue with correcting the term if what we now use is wrong. I vaguely recall from memory that there were prior discussions on the proper use of the plural term within the tennis project around 2012–2013 but, like you, could only find the brief discussion from 2008. The sources you present in support of the 'runners-up' spelling, instead of 'runner-ups', are convincing although, as you mentioned, Webster allows both versions. While I'm fairly comfortable with the English language I'm not a native speaker and on this issue will gladly defer to those who are. Do note that we have many thousands of tennis player articles so this will be a massive update action. I will notify the tennis project of this update action.--Wolbo (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Thanks for your response. I am working on them.

Notifying someone – resuming Wikiproject Tennis – is probably a good idea, I should have done it myself.

I'm guessing you found the same thing I did – more than one person saying it was all discussed and settled some time ago, but no evidence of those discussions.

There may be fewer than you think, although more than enough to keep me busy for a bit.

I did a quick search and got 2003 hits.

I am working through the list, and trying hard not to get mindless. For example, I have found, in addition to “runner-ups” also “runner ups”, Runner Ups”, “runner– ups” (n-dash). My first dozen missed the capitalization, but I caught that, not before you saw one, and I am now preserving case.

I am using AWB which also does other fixes. In one article it wanted to change “Widley” to “Widely” but I saw it am did not let it happen. I am mildly worried I will zone out and miss something. I suspect you have many tennis articles on your watchlist, so if you see any errors, please point them out and I will be happy to fix them. In fact, I would prefer fixing them to you just correcting them, in case I need to watch for systematic errors.

Most of the corrections I have made so far at tennis article, and at least one badminton (which makes sense) plus a few others.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to The plural of runner-up, in which you are mentioned.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony Wilding[edit]

Respected Wolbo Sir.

As i mentioned in my edit summary,i am not editing articles which do not make any sense,i am editing articles which make sense,i want the people of New Zealand to know that they too have a good amount of history in Tennis,and i want them to know it in the summary of Tony Wilding,you yourself tell me,what wrong have i done,have i vandalised any information,and how can you call them disruptive when i have given information of truth and knowledge,so please stop putting false claims on a man like me,who has done no wrong,like you said,i will bring this notice to the Administrators,and we will see who is right and who is wrong according to the Adminstrators.

With Regards Anonymous., since you have chosen to go the route of WP:AN I will also respond there, regarding process and conduct, but in terms of content you would be advised to familiarize yourself with the guidelines on the Lead section of an article at WP:LEAD. It clearly states that the lead should "summarize the most important points" of an article. Your addition to the lead is not in compliance with the guideline because that information is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and can thus not be "summarized" in an article lead. Your argument that you include the content in the lead because you want "the people of New Zealand to know that they too have a good amount of history in Tennis" is largely illogical because the article itself, which I have worked on considerably to expand and improve, already achieves the purpose of explaining Wilding's significance, not just to New Zealand but to our global readership, and it does so regardless of your addition. Note that your content addition has not been removed from the article but has merely been improved (as Drmies also notes at WP:AN it was severely lacking in grammar and punctuation), with the most important aspect remaining in the lead (which will also need to be added to the body) and the remainder added as a footnote. Finally, the facts you mention require a citation from a reliable source to back them up which you did not provide. --Wolbo (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Wolbo, you've been mentioned at ANI . Feel free to contribute to the discussion as it's about you. Thanks! KoshVorlon 16:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tennis people from Los Angeles has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Tennis people from Los Angeles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Samantha Stosur[edit]

Hello Wolbo. I wanted to message you personally regarding the Samantha Stosur article. As you have an interest in this article, please consider providing sources before restoring unsourced biographical details, as required by our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yamaguchi先生, thanks for your message. Clearly large parts of the Samantha Stosur article are poorly sourced and in need of improvement. Having said that, none of the content which you have deleted seems contentious enough to require removal per WP:BLPREMOVE. The 'playing style' section may come closest to containing original research and has been tagged for a while. While the verifiability policy allows content removal per WP:UNSOURCED in most cases tagging is a more constructive and helpful approach to improve the article. After all, once content is deleted the opportunity to source it is taken away. I have tagged several sections and if no action is taken will take a stab at it myself. My proposal is to revisit the article in about a month's time and see where it stands.--Wolbo (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


Reads- An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist. I have noticed two recent articles you made that links to nonexistent categories. Please create the categories in the future or don't put in the links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

List of male tennis players[edit]

@Wolbo: I'm sorry about my controversial move of list of male tennis players to list of male singles tennis players. I'm sorry for not heeding your advice in the first place. Is there any way this can be undone? If it can, then list of male doubles tennis players should also be merged with the original article.

Rovingrobert, I have given my opinion on this at Talk:List of male singles tennis players.--Wolbo (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
So we've both changed our opinions? Right, okay. Any idea on how many opinions are needed to come to a decision? Rovingrobert (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


You should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete; could you please either complete it, or email me if you didn't get it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping. Please respond if you are still interested in getting access. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice[edit]

How to switch between editing environments
Part of the toolbar in the visual editor
Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.
Part of the toolbar in the wikitext editor
Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anthony Wilding[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anthony Wilding you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anthony Wilding[edit]

The article Anthony Wilding you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Anthony Wilding for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1908 Australasian Championships[edit]

Has the tournament taking place at the White City Tennis Center/White City Stadium (Sydney) but according to its WP article and this source[27], that tennis venue didn't open till 1922. Is the 1908 and any other pre 1922 articles wrong?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE, yes that was wrong. The 1908 and 1919 Australasian Championships were both played in Sydney, but not at the White City Stadium. This has been corrected, thanks for the notification. --Wolbo (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Alexandros Jakupović listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alexandros Jakupović. Since you had some involvement with the Alexandros Jakupović redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Anne Shilcock[edit]

Hi, this is Kudoni; I had not noticed, when checking that my citations were still in place, that you had removed them. The Blast from the Past Tennis Forum is a very complete and hard working set of people who have accumulated results from the beginning of tennis. I cannot see why this should not be accepted as it is a complete and readily acceptable source of women's tennis results. I had already put a simplified repeat of my citations back on the document before I realised that they had not simply failed to save, but that they had been removed. Since I had already been asked by another user to make citations, I would be grateful if you did not remove them again. Many thanks Kudoni (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Kudoni

Kudoni, per the WP:USERG content guidelines a self-published and user-generated source such as an internet forum like 'Blast from the Past' is, with some exceptions, not acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. This is mainly because user-generated content sources lack the editorial oversight of reliable sources. In itself this is not a judgment on the quality of these sources, but merely on their suitability as a reliable source for an encyclopedia. I know that 'Blast from the Past' has a number of highly knowledgeable and dedicated tennis fans and moderators, but it doesn't meet the requirement of having a credentialed editorial staff. However, 'Blast from the Past' is increasingly adding the sources of their content to their threads and these sources can be used for Wikipedia, although it is preferable to access the sources directly.--Wolbo (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Denver tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Virginia Slims of Denver tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


I noticed you change some championship to championships per common usage. I didn't look that closely but where did you find the common usage of the word for each individual event? I know some events go commonly and correctly by "championship" rather than "championships" so we shouldn't lump them all together. I would think we would have to make sure when to use the "s" and when not to? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The common usage is mainly based on the article titles which, with few exceptions, use the plural form instead of the singular. That certainly applies for 'US Championships', 'Wembley Championships' and 'French Championships'. In general tournaments which consist of multiple events are called 'Championships', although there may be exceptions. The 1877 through 1883 Wimbledon editions only had the men's singles event and were therefore called 'Championship' while from 1884 onward they had at least two events and were called 'Championships'.--Wolbo (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daphne Akhurst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Aegon Classic[edit]

Hi Wolbo,

could I ask you to fix this duplication:


Looking at previous years (since 2009 all were named 20xx Aegon Classic), the one to be picked would be 2016 Aegon Classic.

Thanks. Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There must some compromise on formatting[edit]

There must be some compromise on older articles (pre-2016) that we can agree to? I tried several solutions, and what looked like a good one on Anna-Lena Friedsam, but you didn't like that one either. I'm not sure where to go but the ball's in your court for some sort of solution for the pre-2016 articles or all the articles if it can satisfy everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It simply can not be that we have one standard for articles up to spring 2016 and one for articles created after that time. That would be nonsensical and an insult to our readers so either we manage to find a common understanding or the issue has to be forced one way or another. Naturally the first should have our strong preference but the viewpoints seem to be pretty divergent.--Wolbo (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I've tried multiple table schematics (some worked out with other users), but you reject them out of hand with no compromise suggestion coming from you. Throw some compromise at me like I have for you and maybe we can find common ground. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ITF color scheme?[edit]

Was it ever discussed what the color scheme is for Ladies ITF events? I was looking over Bianca Andreescu and noticed the 125's were done in "silver." When I checked the guidelines I noticed we don't have anything for the ITF events. I've seen you fix many of these and was wondering what our ITF color template was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), the color scheme for that article seems to be the standard used for ITF events and as such (if confirmed) should probably be included in our guidelines. My involvement was mainly with updating the older color scheme for WTA events as well as updating outdated HTML code in these tables to CSS.--Wolbo (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australia at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Australia at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Norway at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Norway at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sweden at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Sweden at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Belgium at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Belgium at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Italy at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Italy at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Japan at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Japan at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:France at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:France at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Netherlands at the Olympics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Netherlands at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Again on Guidelines[edit]

You know I'd rather ALL the article columns follow the same format and I have tried something like 5 different compromises, some working with other editors. You've rejected them all instantly. I think I've made note of all the compromises at the tennis talk page. I was even going to add another last try to the growing list but I haven't seen you even give it a shot at working the situation out, and that does seem a little unfair. We can usually work out our differences, and we agree on most things... why can't we find a compromise on this since the RfC came right down the middle? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My main objection remains that in this specific instance the article guidelines do NOT reflect project consensus which has been firmly established by years of editing in numerous articles by numerous editors. Therefore it logically follows that the guidelines need to be updated and not the articles. I concede that recently you have put more effort into finding a compromise solution than I have and can imagine that this feels a bit unbalanced. Will try to engage more actively to find a solution while remaining of the opinion that editing consensus is firmly on the side of keeping the No. column. Perhaps a way can be found to keep the No. column while addressing (some of) the objections raised. This can possibly be achieved by proposing alternative formatting schemes for the career finals table.--Wolbo (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Well if you keep changing all the 2016 articles I'm going to start changing ALL articles to match approved RfC Guidelines. The RFC confirmed we keep the guidelines as is, that they should be followed, but that longstanding articles do not have consensus to be changed. I had stopped with the pre-2016 grandfathered articles as a truce, but my patience is waning with you recent changes. I've shown you like 5 different alternative charts in the last several months. You haven't liked any and have given us ZERO other options. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. For all your words on seeking consensus you are the one, and the ONLY one, who is constantly edit warring articles to try to push through your individual point of view against a widely held and longstanding editing consensus. You are now basically on a one-man crusade and your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. Think it through, this is leading nowhere.--Wolbo (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. There are others also conforming these articles. You are the only one reverting them except for some suspicious anon IPs. You were really the only one insisting on the grandfather clause in the finalized RfC. You are alone in this crusade to go against guidelines. Another editor and i even tried to work out a hidden number column. (I forget whom but I can look it up). You rejected both of us! I'm the one putting forth compromises, I'm the one posting about the situation on the project page. You are doing nothing about it at all except reverting. I don't understand why but that's the way it looks to me. Can't you help rather than hinder the situation? At least I'm trying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Template Madrid Masters tournaments[edit]

There are articles on the 2002-2008 tournaments but for some reason they aren't showing in the template. I'm willing to fix it but need to know how.

Another thing- There were Navbox links to this template in both tournaments played in Stockholm and Stuttgart. Click here[28] and here[29] for examples of what I did. I removed those links out of tournament articles because the template is Madrid tournaments only....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Goolagong error[edit]

That name is not the problem.... it's the link. You cannot change a linked "Evonne Goolagong Cawley" to "Evonne Goolagong." That changes a direct link to an incorrect link. It must be "Evonne Goolagong Cawley|Evonne Goolagong". If this was just one or two of these I would simply change it and let the anon IP know. In fact that is what i did do. The trouble now is I spent two hours fixing and reverting last night all his errors. I'm not going through it every time for hours and hours. The direct link must stay if the name is changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, see what you mean. In this case it could be argued that the player article should be Evonne Goolagong (following her career statistics page) instead of Evonne Goolagong Cawley but I agree that if the article name stands as it is the wikilink should be constructed as Evonne Goolagong for her pre-marriage mentions. --Wolbo (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
True... the article name is subjective. She played under both names and is still married as far as I know. Usually the player is listed under the name she played under longest and she played under Cawley longer than just Goolagong. And this anon IP is also changing player's names after they got married, with no notion of when they got married. I was digging up newspapers to determine when the marriage took place so the articles were accurate, but after the 30th error by this guy (with revolving IPs) it starts to get hard to tell that any of his facts are correct at all. Some of his changed links go to disambiguation pages too. He needs to stop and learn how to change things instead of mass producing 100s of errors that need to be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Tennis profiles[edit]

It's not "crystal balling", all the information is taken from the website, a site updated daily with live rankings. It's also an official source for both the ATP World Tour Finals and the WTA Finals. So there is no predictions or guesswork. And now you just caused extra work because the ATP is too damn stupid to have heard of live updates and live-tennis is doing all the hard work for them. No surprise considering how horrid the ATP's writing staff is with multiple errors and typos every single week.

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Wolbo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations for over 100000 edits[edit]

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

Bästa nyskrivna.svgThis user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

- CAPTAIN RAJU () 12:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Tennis Base owner interviewed on Canal+ Sports TV Channel Espana[edit]

Hi Wolbo did you see the owner of the Gabriel Garcias interview on Canal+ Espana here: discussing his website on this sports channel discussing the site stats I don't speak Spanish maybe you do? Canal+ part of the Canal+ Group media conglomerate.--Navops47 (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and all the best for the festive season.--Navops47 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Navops47, best wishes to you as well !.--Wolbo (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


I have a quick question. Me and another editor are in disagreement in regards to listing qualifiers in yearly articles. For example, at 2017 Bangkok Challenger, he wants to list the qualifiers in alphabetical order while I have them listed in qualifier order. Is there an actual designated way of doing it or does it really matter? Adamtt9 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I take this as you have no idea???? Adamtt9 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Tennis templates[edit]

I see that you are talking with Frietjes and trying to get everything on one line, but I must say that it looks weird on two different lines. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ideally the navigation element (arrow + year) always appears on the same line as the tournament name; that takes up the least space and looks neat and tidy. However, we have numerous tournaments whose names are so long that both navigations (previous, next) do not fit on the same line and the result of that looks in my view more untidy and 'weird' than a two line solution. With these kind of visual changes it is often useful to give it some time to see if you get used to it. We can easily switch it back if needed. I will create a topic on this on the tennis project page to get more feedback. --Wolbo (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw that nowrap was mentioned as another option and that it would make the box wider. Would that be a better solution to the problem. And of course I can get used to the new look, I just noticed the difference today and it took me a while to find out what happened. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
And why does it wrap to a new line in 2016 Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia for example, but not on the singles draw article 2016 Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Singles. I know they are different templates, but can't they be formatted so that the name of the tournament fits on one line in both cases. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably a caching issue, maybe because the infobox used an old template name (now updated). The downside of the nowrap option is that the width of the infobox is in that case at the mercy of the length of the tournament name and can become very (too) wide as 2016 Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Singles clearly shows.--Wolbo (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Take a looksee[edit]

At User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox I wrote out a possible proposal for a new chart. Is there something you don't like? I was just going to do this as a show of hands, not a formal RFC. I would ping some of our more prolific editors to comment with no idea if they'll like it or not. If it's a snowball we could implement it, or if not we can always do a formal RFC. Right now I also have the date reversed chart there but I would only include one of the charts in the proposal on the Tennis project page. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): will provide some detailed feedback shortly but on first glance it looks like a sensible approach. --Wolbo (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): commented at your sandbox. I personally like the adjusted coloring scheme, it looks fresher, but it would be a shame if the entire proposal is voted down because some editors do not like that particular aspect of it. To prevent that from happening it would be best to present it as a separate line-item. --Wolbo (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer to see if everyone liked it with you and me as a united front. I figured maybe if they all thought that the two of us could agree on a chart it might be a really good one. I've been trying to listen to what others have been saying over the last year and some of the "good page" talking has mentioned the no need for the color going all the way across. Some had actually been created with separate colors for the different surfaces, but in my own experimenting it looked messier and really wasn't needed. Any thoughts on what columns to make sortable or not? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): it's fine to present all aspects in one proposal but in my view that should not result in an all-or-nothing proposal. In other words if one or two aspects do not get consensus we can and should still move forward with those aspects that do have consensus support. The core element of the recent discussions was the numbering of the wins and losses and my concern is that if we make it an all-or-nothing proposal the failure to get consensus on another aspect, e.g. the coloring scheme, the result would be that we go back to square one on the numbering issue. That is something I would like to avoid. Your thoughts?. --Wolbo (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with your assessment. I just thought that together we might carry a lot of weight so I wanted to show the before chart and the after chart, and list all the changes made and a brief why the changes were made. If you and I gave it thumbs up, and if pretty much everyone agreed (which is usually about 10 editors), we could incorporate it. If too many aspects were challenged we'd have to have a more thorough discussion and formal RfC to get to consensus. But yeah, perhaps everyone wants it to remain "category" and for that column and to remain right after the date. Perhaps they all want the day along with the month and year. Perhaps more don't want a No. column at all. I just thought that if you and I could agree on a single chart it might go long way to getting it done (considering they know we have disagreed on this chart in the past). I don't want a 60/40 split in favor of the change. If that happens I want to find some new compromise to appease the 40%, because unless most are on-board it'll take a long time to change all the current charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

11 years of editing, today.[edit]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Wolbo,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you leaving editorially biased content in an article (Federer-Nadal rivalry)[edit]

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The content you have reverted is editorially biased. It is the opinion of the contributor. It is a conclusion that he/she had reached. He/she IS NOT presenting the opinion of an external third party source. He/she IS presenting an opinion and using third party sources to back them up. As I told him/her, he or she is basically positing an argument and using findings and commentary to support it. The section cannot be saved because there are no professional tennis commentators out there on record that argue that mono and back injury influenced Federer's losses to Nadal in 2008 and 2013 respectively. That is why I keep removing the entire section. The entire section is the opinion of the contributor - and the contributor ALONE. So, please remove it. This is Wikipedia, not a Federer fan club website. You might also be interested in this article vis-a-vis that page: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi the User:Liquid_foundation who wrote the article in the bleacher report in the link you have provided was investigated as a WP:Sock puppetry case and banned see talkpage here: User talk:Liquid foundation.--Navops47 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the question as to why Fyunck his being allowed to editorialise on the Federer-Nadal Rivalry page. I see he's been doing it since 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Brigitte Cuypers[edit]

Dear Wolbo,

Please participate in nl:Overleg:Brigette Cuypers.

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing from your extensive knowledge.
Vinkje83 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Request edit[edit]

Please remove edit made by anonymous user (IP address: on the 30/03/2017.

I marked this edit as answered to remove it from the queue, as the edit has been reverted. Altamel (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2TeamBracket-Tennis3-ChallengeRound[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:2TeamBracket-Tennis3-ChallengeRound has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henri Cochet[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henri Cochet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaiser matias, thanks for picking up the GA review of this important tennis player from the pre-WWII era. As a disclosure, Lajbi is the main contributor to this article but he is no longer active since September 2014. This GAN is partially intended as a tribute to his fine work within the tennis wikiproject. I am however familiar with the subject and have made several edits to the article and should therefore be able to address any points raised.--Wolbo (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll keep a watch on the article, so just let me know via the review page when you're all finished, and I'll take a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henri Cochet[edit]

The article Henri Cochet you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Henri Cochet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing anything?[edit]

I think I covered everything but it always helps to have an extra pair of eyes. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/newguidelines. This would be a direct replacement to what we have now. I had to tweak some wording, and I wanted it to be as crystal clear as possible. Also, the old wording simply said to make certain changes for doubles but I simply said to myself, screw it, let's make a doubles and WTA chart so there could be no confusion. If you think wording could be better go ahead and fix it or let me know. I want it to be easy as pie to understand for any newbies. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing I wasn't sure of was the standard Tier abbreviation we use for the year end finals. Is it "Tour Finals" for both? Or is it "ATP Finals" and "WTA Finals?" As long as it's consistent I don't care, I just want to get it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of New England tournaments[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Virginia Slims of New England tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A request[edit]

I write ebooks and the next one I'm working on involves tennis. There are a couple of general tennis questions I have about how a woman would start a career in pro tennis. Could you please help me? We can do the questions and answers by email. Let me know and thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Boldface rv on Nadal[edit]


Please help me understand the logic in this: The key to the tables clearly states "Records in bold indicate peer-less achievements." What is the sense in bold-facing the words "Stands alone" instead of the record itself (which is supposed to be bold-faced per the associated table key)? One would imagine that the words "Stands alone" quite explicitly convey that it is peer-less, so where is the logic in redundantly bold-facing those words and not the actual record? To make my point clear, we are counterintuitively (in context of the key to the table), and redundantly emphasizing the incorrect column. In addition, I wonder if you find it as amusing as I do in citing MOS:NOBOLD, and then going on to ignore it in literally the same table. — Anakimitalk   21:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Anakimi, in my view the tennis project suffers from a lot of unnecessary bolding that is counter to the instructions of MOS:NOBOLD, specifically the part "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text". The argument can be made that a table is not article text but tables are not mentioned as any of the instances where bolding is appropriate per MOS:NOBOLD and in this case its use is clearly for emphasis. So frankly no bolding should be used for either the record itself or for the text "Stands alone". Historically most tennis player articles have used bolding for both and the situation of only bolding "Stands alone" is somehwat of a half-way compromise but you are correct in pointing out that this is not entirely consistent with either the key or the guideline. --Wolbo (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

voting on Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry[edit]

Hi, I've seen you working on many tennis articles over the years, and you also made some edits to the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry article. There are some people who want to delete it for reasons that elude me. Some of us are now voting to Keep or Delete at the bottom of the main discussion of this at: I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this discussion and then add your own vote to the bottom. Many thanks, and all the best! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[edit]

I've submitted a request for your account to be upgraded to Publisher's Extra. Should be upgraded in about 48hrs if not let me know.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Wolbo.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Wolbo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Wolbo. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing[edit]

Hello, Wolbo.
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
3,474 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Player Rankings[edit]

Hi if you have any issues regrading your belief that ranking lists did not exist then then discuss it first on the articles talk page without removing a reliable published a source it is also incorrect to claim your edit summary to that rankings did not exist then as a justification for removing, then how do explain just this example Lawn Tennis, Worlds Best Players, Norman Brookes in Second Place 1913. --Navops47 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Navops47, I am well aware that world rankings started in 1913 but they did not exist before that time and the articles in question should therefore not state that they did. That would be incorrect and misleading to our readers. I have corrected the Norman Brookes ranking from a non-existent No. 1 in 1907 to a No. 2 in 1913 per A. Wallis Myers.--Wolbo (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry I disagree adding a claim requires that you verify it from a reliable published source (published) in this case this book source here Concise History of Tennis by Karoly Mazak (Author) and with due respect neither you nor I are NOT qualified tennis historians with a Phd to make that judgement call therefore you should not be removing it either unless of course you are published. I would also suggest that you need to discuss further in regards to this article World number 1 ranked male tennis players for start and possible WP Tennis Project.--Navops47 (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Esmee Visser has been accepted[edit]

Esmee Visser, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Kindly point me to that consensus. How that would be in agreement with INFOBOXFLAG is a mystery; moreover, we don't do this for other athletes. The only time that tennis players represent their countries is in the Olympics and the Davis Cup. Track athletes, for instance, get their little flag in a separate medal box reserved for Olympics and other such competitions. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is longstanding consensus and has been discussed. Those flags are used in most sources for the individual tennis players, just as in auto racing. I think the Indy Car racing topic was the last major discussion on the issue. I've also had to revert your flag removals here at wikipedia. The players do in a sense represent their countries since in order to play they MUST be backed by a country. They can't register without that backing. It is also why MOS has the line
"the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport."
I'm not sure why you suddenly feel the need to remove them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty clear here--"in a sense" is vague, and "representations" is not; my above paraphrase of the guideline puts the lie to that vagueness. Being "backed" by a country (whatever that means--remember that the Olympics allows athletes without statehood) doesn't mean you represent a country; it means you have a passport. That's all. And I don't "suddenly" feel that need, Fyunck--I've felt that need for years; I just don't go looking for those kindergarten-decorated articles voluntarily. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Well whatever the vagueness is for you, it has been settled for years with tennis and auto-racing articles, so please leave them be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure every editor has his/her particular dislikes about certain aspects of Wikipedia. I have them as well but they are not a valid reason to make edits that go against longstanding project consensus and that are explicitly allowed under MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Tennis without a doubt qualifies as a sport where "national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality".--Wolbo (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Catherine Suire[edit]

Hi Wolbo,

do you remember where you found Catherine Suire's birthplace Tananarive, Madagascar?

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vinkje83, it can be found in the WTA Media / Player Guides, e.g. 1994 WTA Tour Media Guide (p.262).--Wolbo (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Let me guess: available on paper only? Face-sad.svg Vinkje83 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's be happy it is at least available on paper, otherwise it would not be available at all. This kind of standard bio info should of course be available on the WTA website but unfortunately it isn't. Anyway, here is a screenshot from the 1994 WTA Tour Media Guide.--Wolbo (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I am happy that someone within my reach possesses these priceless papers. Thanks for collecting them. And thanks for sharing the information. Groetjes, Vinkje83 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Vilas Rankings[edit]

Hello - I do not know whether you like all the more detailed information I am adding to the supporting information column of the yearly 1 and 2 player lists, but I think it is valuable information.

You must see all the terse discussions that 3 of us are having about moving Vilas's ranking higher, especially for 1977. The Min76 just keeps going on and on and on saying the same things even though Fuynck and I have addressed most of his points. It would be useful if you voiced on opinion on this matter. Informed analysis (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

More sock concern[edit]

Keep an eye on brand new editor User:Zerilous. His edit is odd to me quoting wikipedia guidelines in his first edit. Maybe nothing or at least I hope so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Lotte van Beek[edit]


You seem interested in the Dutch speed skating team at the 2018 Olympics so I thought I could give you this tip: the personal bests of Lotte van Beek are available on the Dutch version of Wikipedia, if you want to add a board on the English version like you did for Esmee Visser (thanks by the way)!

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

List of the busiest airports in Europe[edit]

As agreed from the beginning, European airports are defined as those that are within the airspace of the member and candidate states of The Council of Europe. (See discussion). Therefore, please don't delete any Canarian, Cypriot and Russian airports. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for March 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Prix Super Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Fleming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey Invite[edit]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at

Survey Link:

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]


There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Sloan Stevens info revert[edit]

I'm not sure why you reverted the changes made to Sloan Stevens? Some were required since the term Grand Slam was not capitalized and didn't have the term tournament or event after the wording. A very few changes were not required. I had posted this previously at Talk:Sloane Stephens in the GA review. Did you want me to remove the non-required changes? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My revert was done because you unnecessarily changed several mentions of the term "Grand Slam" to "major" instead of adding "title" or "tournament" to disambiguate the term where needed.--Wolbo (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Wolbo. 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)

Gerard Scheurleer[edit]

Hello Wolbo, there's probably an error in the Wimbledon players archive. Scheurleer didn't play in 1926 after loosing a leg in 1922. The 1926 Scheurleer was probably Gerard Willy Scheurleer born in 1907. I've already sent an Email to the AELTC. Cattivi (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Belgian tennis players?[edit]

Hi Wolbo, I have been working on improving the article on Kim Clijsters to get to GA/FA status, and I've been struggling to find freely available photos of her. Many of the ones uploaded to the Commons have dubious or unusable licenses. Do you have suggestions for places to look? I noticed you brought up the Dutch Photo Archive on your talk page awhile back, and was wondering if there was something similar for Belgium? Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sportsfan77777, no, not that I am aware of. I see the article currently has 10 images, if these are all properly licensed that is actually pretty good for an article. Certainly if you compare it to the period 1970–1995 which is a really difficult period to get good public domain images from. The articles of many great players from that era (Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Sampras) have just a few contemporary images, if at all.--Wolbo (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I think it is fine for the article requirements, and also relative to other players from around that time. I was just hoping to find some more variety. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Navigation template US National Championships been removed from pre 1968 player articles[edit]

Hello Wolbo hope your well please can you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis Section 5.--Navops47 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

World Number One Male Tennis Players[edit]

Wolbo, I not who you think you are. I did a massive amount of research in late 2017 and early 2018 to improve the article so that it was consistent for each yaer. The original author had a lot of detail but was inconsistent. NO ONE has objected to the text I added for over year. The editor Funk was in agreement with my work/writing. Please leave this article along. If you do not like it create your own article.

I do not know what is wrong with you. You are destroying hundreds of hours of research and writing I did. Much of the info repeats what the original authors had typed in and the information is not obtainable anywhere else anywhere in the world. You cannot find the year-end rankings of certain tennis authorities and experts from the 60s or 70s anywhere now...When I started my periodic re-writing of the article in late 2017 (one year by one year over 4 or 5 months) you never said anything and Funck the other main editor of this page was in agreement. What I prepared is a fascinating summary of the men's years in tennis - how the top 4 or so players did; what they won; who won all the major events and the year-end finals; how those top players did in the big 9 tournaments; in the 70s how they each did on the competing circuits; their records for the year including head to heads; why number 2 is ranked ahead of number 3 and number 3 above number 4. Many years the number 2 ranking was disputed or very close; and then the number 3 ranking might have been close to the number 4; in the 70s the top 1 to 4 were especially close most years. No one has made any deletions in over a year meaning virtally everyone who went to the page liked the information. Hope you are happy.

or v

Edit warring at Roger Waters[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Roger Waters shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment on Kim Clijsters FAC?[edit]

Hi Wolbo, I am planning on nominating Kim Clijsters as an FAC once it passes its GA review (hopefully in the next day or so). Since you are the only active editor with a Tennis FA, I was wondering if you could comment on the FAC. Thank you, Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, that FA feels like ages ago. Was a lot of work but also lot of fun to do. If I can find some time I will have a look at the Clijsters article. Had a quick peek and it looks pretty good in terms of structure and sourcing. Might be worthwhile to do a peer review before going to FAC.--Wolbo (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I am willing to try jumping to FAC in hopes of making it a TFA by June 8th. The worst case is they suggest doing a peer review instead, and then I would have plenty of time to get the article promoted by June 8th of next year. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

1973 US Open – Men's Doubles[edit]

Hi Wolbo, I'm editing the article 1973 US Open – Men's Doubles created by you. You cited the sources by John Barrett. I cited the sources by ITF, ATP and New York Times. There are several conflicts of sources, could you check which one was written on the book by John Barrett? 1. ITF and New York Times said that the partner of Rod Laver is Ken Rosewall but ATP said that the partner is Roy Emerson. 2. ITF and ATP said that the Quarterfinal score of Tom Okker and Marty Riessen was 5-7, 7-6, 7-6 but your version was 5-7, 7-5, 7-5. 3. ITF and ATP said that the Quarterfinal score of Tom Gorman (tennis) and Raúl Ramírez was 6-1, 7-6 but New York Times was 6-4, 7-6. Thank youPE fans (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

PE fans, Barrett's World of Tennis '74 also has Rosewall as Laver's partner. Pretty sure the ATP website has this one wrong.--Wolbo (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! How about the quarterfinal scores? PE fans (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Okker / Riessen was a typo should be 7–6, 7–6. Gorman / Ramírez is listed as 6–1, 7–6 by Barrett. --Wolbo (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

1973 US Open – Mixed Doubles[edit]

Hi Wolbo, I notice that you've added a reference to 1973 US Open – Mixed Doubles. Could you check what was the final score of 1973 US Open – Mixed Doubles on your reference? The ITF said that score for the first set was 6-3 but New York Times said that it was 6-4. PE fans (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

PE fans, Barrett's World of Tennis '74 has 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! PE fans (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@PE fans: The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune both say the score was 6–4, 3–6, 7–6. In fact several other newspapers show the same first set score of 6–4, so I'm wondering if Barrets has a typo? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I've changed it to 6-4, 3-6, 7-6. Could you add references to the article 1973 US Open – Mixed Doubles? Thank you! PE fans (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Checked it with Bud Collins' encyclopedia and he also has 6-3. Given the weight of the sources I have reverted the score back to 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Would probably be best to add a note that some newspapers have the score as 6–4.--Wolbo (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I actually can't find a single newspaper at the time that had it 6-3. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Could well be a newswire report (AP, UPI) that gets copied across the newspapers. Of course Barrett and Collins can make a typo, have seen several over the years, but if the ITF, Barrett and Collins all have the same score than we should give that more weight than scores listed in general newspapers.--Wolbo (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It could but each article was written differently. Also the very highly regarded book, The Encyclopedia of Tennis, 100 years of Great Players and Events, by Max Robertson and Jack Kramer also has it listed as 6–4. I would agree with your weight statement, but it is perplexing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree on the reliability of that source (a knowledgeable editor on a tennisforum, whom you also know, once mentioned he has never been able to discover an error in that book). That again makes it trickier to judge which score is correct. Since we have to choose one score and add a note on the other we might as wel keep it like this and add Robertson to the note. Anyway, PE fans, welcome to the wondrous world of comparing sources that do not agree with each other.--Wolbo (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
US Open website has 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
If Robertson has excellent reputation, then I prefer to choose 6-4. I think the sources written in 1973 are more reliable than the sources written in 2019. So Robertson (1974)>Barrett (1973)=Newspapers (1973)>ITF (2019)=US open websites (2019). PE fans (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You forget that Bud Collins History of Tennis also has 6–3, so Collins/Barrett/ITF are at odds with Robertson and 1973 Newspapers. Wolbo is correct that news services often get the same AP/UPI feed of the score. I wish I could find an Australian source that talks about it or Owen Davidson. I'm fine with the easily linkable 6–3 score as long as it's clear the score is debatable. Someone could also write the US Open and ask about the score. If they came back as 6–4 we could switch the footnote around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I already mentioned above that the US Open website lists the score as 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I missed that post but found the link on my own. It's 6–3 with footnotes to the discrepancies. God I wish you'd archive this talk page... it's really slow to scroll to the bottom to post anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hoad article[edit]

So funny. I was in the process of removing that same useless round-robin info from the Hoad article but ran into your edit conflict. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo. The Lew Hoad article currently has Hoad defeating Gonzalez 7-3 on their British Isles tour of '61, but that tour has now been fully documented and the correct tally is 6-4. The full results are published at Tennis Base and in a new book, The Professional Tennis Archive, whose author found some of the missing scores for that tour. Would there be any problem in using that as a Wiki source? It is a self-published book (as was McCauley), but its scores for that tour have been accepted at Tennis Base and the book itself was accepted recently at the Newport Tennis Library. I contributed some research to it as well. In any case, these sources, plus two additional newspapers from '61 which I can cite, agree on the 6-4 tally, so I can cite 4 sources in all on that Hoad page.Krosero (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Krosero the book that you mention, The Professional Tennis Archive, is as you indicate a self-published book. By and large self-published sources are understandably disqualified for use as a source for Wikipedia articles (see WP:SELFPUBLISH). As the policy mentions "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field.". The policy indicates that the only exception is when the author is an established expert on the subject matter. Note that it is NOT sufficient to be an expert on the subject matter, you need to be established as such by reliable, independent publications. In my view McCauley meets this criteria due to his work for World Tennis magazine. Unless or until it can be demonstrated that the author of The Professional Tennis Archive is an established expert on the subject of the history of (professional) tennis the book can not be used as a source. For the same reason personal websites (where the publisher and author are the same) are also not acceptable as a reliable source. This may apply to several tennis websites that contain data / statistics on tennis matches including Tennis Base. For the Lew Hoad article you can of course cite newspapers.--Wolbo (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, if you have contributed to the book or the Tennis Base website please be aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines and particularly WP:SELFCITE.--Wolbo (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

March 8, 1982 Women's Tennis Rankings[edit]


I was recommended by a friend, Gertjan, to reach out and ask you for the March 8, 1982 WTA Rankings? By chance, might you have those or another resource that I can try?

Thank you!

Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Wolbo, the Gertjan mentioned above, that is me; in case you wondered. May I recommend her to you? Thanks. Pommée (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi both, the ranking sources I have are almost all end-of-year rankings. Have some weekly rankings from magazines but not for this date unfortunately. The WTA website does have weekly rankings for players but that only goes back to 1983 so it is not possible to derive it from that angle. Perhaps you can can ask around on the Blast from the Past forum at or contact the forum moderator (Rollo). --Wolbo (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Around that time the WTA was changing ranking systems. Also, while March 8, 1982 was a Monday, that was no big deal back then. Computer rankings often came out on Wednesdays or Fridays and the WTA went ranking by ranking with the International women's ranking system. There was an Avon computer ranking for the top 10 for March 8, 1982, but that's for the Avon Tour. It was:
  • 1. Martina Navratilova 1075
  • 2. Andrea Jaeger 865
  • 3. Barbara Potter 585
  • 4. Bettina Bunge 422.5
  • 5. Anne Smith 360
  • 6. Wendy Turnbull 345
  • 7. Sylvia Hanika 305
  • 8. Mima Jausovec & Pam Shriver 200
  • 10.Chris Evert Lloyd 150
Best I could find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Mickey Mantle income[edit]

Wolbo, how does this information not relate to Mickey Mantles' baseball earnings? I am mystified. (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

I checked the source (PDF file) which you mentioned and could not find any reference to Mantle, Mays or their salaries. Also your citation did not include a page number.--Wolbo (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have another one. (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Actually it is not OK to add a claim to an article with a reference that does not in any way support the claim. It is problematic editing and it is not the first time it has happened. Editors need to be able to trust that any references added to an article accurately support the claim that is made. Please be more careful in this regard.--Wolbo (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I have re-added the salary info on Mantle and Mays as a note and with a reference to an article on the SABR website containing that information.--