User talk:HJensen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Any comments most welcome

John Swank

Editors can remove {{hoax}} tags from articles, though they should add evidence that this is not a hoax. other editors such as yourself can replace the tag, though please avoid edit warring. As the editor also removed the {{Prod}} tag, I've send to article to AfD. Thanks for letting me know, Gwernol 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lleyton Hewitt

Thanks for catching that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

John Frusciante

Thanks for the notification of that. I reposted the image because I had assumed all it needed was a the copyright tag that I had forgotten to include. However, I have looked on numerous other pages of Public Domain images and they do not include any more than I have. Cheers. - Mellowship_S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowship_S (talk • contribs) July 23

You're welcome!--HJ 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

John Frusciante

Thank you for experimenting with the page John Frusciante on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. HJ 08:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is ridiculous, I removed an entire paragraph of Original research and fan ramblings, deleting such content is par for the course on biographies of living individuals, do not ACCUSE me of vandalism.--I'll bring the food 07:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for having caused this. I just automatically thought that complete revomal of such a big paragraph was a bit destructive (the label 'ramblings' probably did not help me think otherwise - my fault). Thus, I reverted your change, and tried to remedy the paragraph instead. I will remember to assume good faith next time.--HJ 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The above exchange, appearing on I'll bring the food, has been STRUCK here as it has been STRUCK on I'll bring the food--HJ 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: External link on Frank Zappa article

I don't know for sure about Zappateers (I'll ask them), so maybe it's OK to be removed. But what about the streaming services? Did you check the legal status of what gets broadcasted and did you find anything officially/commercially released, which should not be there?--User:Nschlia 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about which streaming services you are referring to. Could you pls elaborate? --HJ 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I removed the Zappateers site link from the German Wiki as well. Thanks for the hint.--User:Nschlia 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant the Zappa radio site, I am maintaining that server, so if there was something on it which was previously released or otherwise copyrighted, I would remove that immediately.--User:Nschlia 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though no officially recorded material is streamed, I do not think there should be any link. It is still a site where copyrighted material are distributed (yes I know the files are not at the servers), so legal status is unclear. Also, in my opinion, this is not material that serves a clear purpose for an encyclodedic article on Frank Zappa (i.e., "where to go for unofficial recordings" is not adding much relevant information).--HJ 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me out. You've been very kind and helpful. Instead of being angry, I should have read your page - I thought you were one of those people who try to edit anything when they think they're right. But you know what you are talking about. A combined Zappa+Simpons fan can't be wrong :) --User:Nschlia 19:23, 06 September 2006 (UTC)

Country Naming

Yes I agree with your policy of country naming not being important for Yugoslavs born in the 1980s. This was pointed out to me once by another established user but I still think that there needs to be some kind of policy. I see your Danish background might give you some neutral perspective. I hope you agree that for now it is best to simply give the town name without reference to which country is was then or now. Ragusan 22 sep 2006

That seems like a good solution, which cannot hurt anybody's feelings.--HJ 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tennis WikiProject

Would you be interested in this? If so, please add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects#Tennis. Thanks! —MC 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists

I noticed your guitar player userbox. Would you be interested in joining the WikiProject Guitarists? It is a very active project dedicated to improving all guitar/guitarist related articles. Your contributions would be more than welcome. Cheers and take care! Anger22 12:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand about having no time. In the battle between Life and Wiki...Life always wins. I have spoke to Admin Aguerriero about the possibilty of giving the Frank article another Featured Article push. We also discussed the quality of the Frusciante article(it is well done) and how it was at the stage where it could be given a GA push as well. If you can spare the time your knowledge/contributions to these guitarist articles(and any others) would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Anger22 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Freak Out!

I'm trying to get the Wikipedia entry on Freak Out! promoted to a featured article. Feel free to help out. (Ibaranoff24 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Wowie Zowie! (Ibaranoff24 05:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Removing notes from my talk page

I have the right to remove notes on my talk page that were either vandalism or simple notes to me that I have already read and served their purpose. Please feel free to delete this note whenever you'd like. Regards. Tennis expert 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought there were rules against that. I don't know about "rights" here. So I guess I'll let your remark rest here. --HJ 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing notes from your own talk page is deprecated, ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES A WARNING. The appearance of warnings needs to be documented in semi-permanent form. Tennis expert is an egregious scofflaw in this regard. El Ingles 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kristian Pless.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kristian Pless.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tennis expert

I'm sure Tennis expert is a very dedicated contributor to that area. But after experiencing him first hand in a content dispute, I felt he could sometimes cool down a bit. It's nothing personal (I sure hope so). You probably saw it all in his talk page history. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Great contributions and knowledge. And I admire your efforts to convince him/her that some good faith in others' edits is a nice thing.--HJ 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Entry on administrators' noticeboard about User:Lman1987

I thought you might be interested in this. An entry about Lman1987's recent editing history has been posted on the administrators' noticeboard.[1] Tennis expert 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately he/she continues the disruptive behavior under the name User: Tennis Genius. See [2] --HJ 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. This user appears to have resumed his vandal edits, this time under User:72.155.113.55. Tennis expert 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get several tennis articles semi-protected WP:RPP and could use your support on this. Semi-protection won't prevent registered users from vandalizing the articles, but it will prevent anonymous IP vandalism. I'm thinking that checkuser can then be used to more easily link User:Lman1987 with what are almost assuredly his IP accounts. If you have any ideas I'm not thinking of, please let me know. Best regards! Tennis expert 07:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of tennis players' pages

User:Lman1987, under various names and IP addresses, continues to try and change the formatting of the records sections of various tennis players' pages. The user is trying to make what they believe to be a constructive improvement (and to some extent I see their point on how it would be nice to see players' finals all listed in chronological order), but definately needs a lesson in constructive discussion and enagagement on Wikipedia.

I previously said on User:Tennis expert's talk page that I didn't like this user's ideas on formatting becuase it made it very hard to pick out wins from losses in that format. But it has occured to me that if each entire line of wins had its text in bold and losses were not in bold, that problem might be solved and we'd in fact have what might be quite a good format.

Here's how that would look for Jim Courier's Grand Slam finals:

Wins (4) / Runner-ups (3)

Year	Championship	Opponent in Final	Result	Score in Final
1991	French Open (1)	Andre Agassi	Win	3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4
1991	U.S. Open	Stefan Edberg	Loss	2-6, 4-6, 0-6
1992	Australian Open (1)	Stefan Edberg	Win	6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
1992	French Open (2)	Petr Korda	Win	7-5, 6-2, 6-1
1993	Australian Open (2)	Stefan Edberg	Win	6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
1993	French Open	Sergi Bruguera	Loss	4-6, 6-2, 2-6, 6-3, 3-6
1993	Wimbledon	Pete Sampras	Loss	6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 3-6

And here's how it would look for Stefan Edberg's:

Wins (6) / Runner-ups (5)

Year	Championship	Opponent in Final	Result	Score in Final
1985	Australian Open (1)	Mats Wilander	Win	6-4, 6-3, 6-3
1987	Australian Open (2)	Pat Cash	Win	6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3
1988	Wimbledon (1)	Boris Becker	Win	4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
1989	French Open	Michael Chang	Loss	1-6, 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 2-6
1989	Wimbledon	Boris Becker	Loss	0-6, 6-7, 4-6
1990	Australian Open	Ivan Lendl	Loss	6-4, 6-7, 2-5 (retired)
1990	Wimbledon (2)	Boris Becker	Win	6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4
1991	U.S. Open (1)	Jim Courier	Win	6-2, 6-4, 6-0
1992	Australian Open	Jim Courier	Loss	3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 2-6
1992	U.S. Open (2)	Pete Sampras	Win	3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2
1993	Australian Open	Jim Courier	Loss	2-6, 1-6, 6-2, 5-7

What do you think? Would this in fact be both an improvement and a reasonable accommodation that might stop the current edit war?

Just a thought.

Regards,

Zaxem 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zaxem. Thanks for your message. My opinion: I think this format is very confusing. The point of the GS section is to provide detailed info on opponents and scores. The top priority is wins, so they should definitely have a table of their own. Being runner-up is subsidiary, and could actually be removed in my opinion. If it should be mentioned, it should definitely not be in same table as wins. Boldface does nothing here, except highlighting the player names that did not win. Could be confusing. As to the argument that one can see that a player has played several consecutive finals (and won some and lost some), I think that is not valid here. For that purpose, we have the performance time-line. So, I think the format should not be implemented. As to how the scores are presented in the runner-up subsection, I have no preference. --HJ 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

I noticed you mentioned how you were already at your 3rd revert on a certain tennis player's article, but the 3RR rule doesn't apply to when you're undoing the edit of a banned user. In this case, it's obvious when a certain banned user is editing as a sockpuppet, and thus one should report them. oncamera^(t) 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gibson J-160E

Hello there! I saw your revision at Frank Zappa and went to the article about the guitar that was linked through the previous version and I thought, "Well, there havn't been a whole heck of alot of players who have played one of those..." I think maybe Steve Howe might have and probably a few jazzbos; in the hard rock milleau/context FZ was probably the only one. It would probably be nice to have at least one article that links to Gibson J-160E by a player other than Dave Malone at the very least. Anyways, I was one of the people who tried to get this article featured a while back and my personal thought is, "Why not include a complete list of the instruments he was known to have played?" Thanks for your ongoing contributions to Wikipedia, have fun editing! Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have never seen a photo of Zappa with this guitar [3]; hence, my revert. I may be wrong, but could you please provide some more info (I am quite interested in this). In any case, there is the issue whether it is one of his "notable" instruments. Cheers, --HJensen, talk 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I confused the big bodied semi-acoustic Switchmaster that he played with the model in question. If he did indeed play an acoustic, I have never seen a picture, nor have I ever seen one in the (extensive) video collection I have of FZ in performance. If indeed a guitarist so closely identified with electric guitar played an acoustic on occaision it could be counted as notable; in the sense that it was done only rarely. If the intention of notability is to stress a close identification of a particular instrument or model, then there is no doubt that any acoustic instruments would be far from notable in the FZ inventory (excepting possibly the Bösendorfer FZ kept in his studio for recording). Carry on, noble wikipedian, you have opened mine eyes! Hamster Sandwich 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and best wishes to you!! --HJensen, talk 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Zappa Picture

Thanks, mate. Found it on the Norwegian Wikipedia. The Prince of Darkness 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Zappa Yellow Shark Photo

Thanks. I got loads more but I figured this one says enough. Hereby released into the public domain. Rien Post, talk 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Zappa GA

It's really an issue of fair use-as the album boilerplate text says "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question", which is taken by most on Wikipedia to mean solely on the album page. As for the Kate Bush article, it seems that the GA passer wasn't very familiar with accepted policies-the images really should be removed from the article. However, as images aren't a requirement for GA, there is a good chance the Zappa article will pass with some more references-but without images it will never reach FA. Your best chance of finding images of Zappa is to get screenshots of movie/tv clips, however. ErleGrey 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zappa genres

Hi, I saw you just edited the genres in the Zappa infobox. I strongly approve of your motivation, but am not sure I agree with your choices, and would like to start a discussion at Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 8#Genres (and infobox), rather than blindly overruling your whim with mine. I hope you can offer some feedback on the topic. Thanks. --Xtifr _tälk 19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned message on my main page --HJensen, talk 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

umm, i dont know if this is where im supposed to do this but you (hjensen) left me a msg on my talkpage regarding an edit to a some tennis player's page that i didnt even make. honestly, i dont even know who he is. maybe you should check it again, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.227.126.162 (talk • contribs) 10 May 2007

Regarding your comment on my user page, this is the edit coming from your IP address to which I responded with the warning: [4]. (Also look at this earlier edit: [5].) Maybe it is a shared IP address, so that you didn't do the edit, in which case I apologize. I would recommend to register to avoid situations like this again. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 16:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image resolutions

When I was trying to get the Freak Out! article to FA status, I was told that fair use images should be no larger than 400px. I used 300px because it was slightly higher than the resolution currently used in the article. (Ibaranoff24 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Image:Rhcpareawesome.jpg

Hi. You told me to do something about this, but I dunno what to do. I told you guys on the summary page all I knew about the pic. On the fan forum I go to, someone said they took the image, and I asked if I could use it for Wikipedia, they said OK. What do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xihix (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 May 2007

Ah, thank you for the fast reply. On MSN Messenger, I asked him to upload it to Wiki Commons, and he agreed to do it. Thanks! Xihix 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he uploaded it. I was about to add it... But I have no idea how to. May you tell me so I can add it? Here is the file, by the way: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rhcpareawesome.jpg (By the way, he wasn't sure if the tag he used was right, but he thinks it is). Xihix 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will ask him to put that there. But will you tell me how to put something from Wiki Commons to Wikipedia? I just want to learn a little from experience so I can save myself from trouble in the future :) Xihix 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Inform me when you learn yourself :) (Also, sorry if I'm spamming up your discussion page) Xihix 00:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured out how to use it myself! I just did the same thing you do on Wikipedia, and it worked. Thanks for all your help! I guess the picture problem the article has had for a while is good now, with a pretty good quality picture and one where you can see all the of the band member's faces. Hopefully the article will be good enough to be a Featured Article one day! Xihix 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will look for a good picture of John that someone will release. I've seen many good pictures of John (also sexual faces when he's playing his guitar... as a fan of John yourself, you probably know what I'm talking about ;) ), so I'll go look for one someone took him/herself. Xihix 16:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New John pic

Like the new pic? Finally found someone after looking around. He was front row and took some very nice pics, but I asked him to host that one. Also, I sourced much of the equipment section. Xihix 22:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I think we should write about his equipment, and not just list them, though I personally wouldn't be able to do that (I'm not good at making paragraphs...). However, I found the list useful myself when I needed it, due do some of the guitars I needed, so I think we would have to somehow mention almost all of them, if not all, which would be hard in a paragraph or two. Xihix 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to mention. As you know, John sold a few of his guitars for drug money a little after he left RHCP. We'd have to mention that. Also, are any of the guitars in that list not even part his John's collection due to him selling it? Xihix 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome To WikiProject Tennis Hi and welcome to WikiProject Tennis. As you might have known, WikiProject Tennis is a project dedicated to improving tennis-related articles. These are a few things you might find useful, when editing with us: Feel free to create some templates regarding our WikiProject. Vote for the article you think needs improvement, in our Collaboration Department. Join in assessing tennis articles with the Assessment Department Participate in one of our many mini-projects, including the Grand Slam Project or the Davis/Fed Cup Project If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or one of our other members. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! --Dark Falls talk 07:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal

You misunderstand. He was cruising at 4-1, but he had to stop, and after that the tournament turned around. Maybe it would have anyway. But the fact is, it did turn around after he had to stop and get his knee taped. The game numbers confirm that fact. Baseball Bugs 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The point being that the screeching-halt to tape his knee marked a turning point in the match, even if it had nothing directly to do with the outcome. Although it probably did. Baseball Bugs 23:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is an important event in a match. We just cannot know whether it really was a decisive cause of his loss. Even Nadal cannot know. Hence, it was speculative as it was written in the article: "he had to take some time out to have an ailing knee taped, and the direction of the match turned in Federer's favor". That statement clearly links the taping to the turn of the match (and you can even yourself only say "it probably did"). We should stick with facts (and for the article I think it is too detailed).--HJensen, talk 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Zappa's drug use

Thanks for the edit. Your sentence does a better job of reflecting the information I sought to add. JStripes 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SteveGHelper Links - WP Spam Policy

I have read the Spam Policy page several times now, two months ago when Mariano Cecowski cited it as the reason he removed the External Links, and now again that you have removed two more links today and have changed your objection from "Redundant Info" to "Spam Policy".

There is nothing I see in the Spam Policy page that would qualify the SteveGHelper links as Spam.

So please do me a favor and cite specific guidelines in the policy that I am violating by posting the SteveGHelper links.

In the meantime, I'm going to do some elliptical while watching the night matches, and then I will address your original concern of "Redundant Info" (compared to the ATP site). ShabbatSam 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Try also to look at [Links normally to be avoided]. There, I guess steveghelper fulfills points 3 and 9 (apart from 1). As for the WP:SPAM policy page, I just stumbled over "Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, ". This fits, imo, your links, as you on your user page indeed writes "But the reason I joined was so I could add links to male tennis player pages that would take them to my two webpages that search for a player's match results and ranking history." Well, yesterday you did remove the words "my" and "search", see here, but you can't change history that indicates that you join Wikipedia in order to put in links to promote your site. Hence, it is spam according to WP:SPAM. I have some time ago given other arguments against inclusion of your site on your talk page (they don't give more info than ATP, they were massively inserted onto tennis bios without consensus (or even discussion), and so on). --HJensen, talk 06:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also read thru that page twice. I am not attempting to promote a personal website. I am attempting to provide Wikipedia users with extremely relevant External Links. I edited my home page yesterday based on your original comments you made to me back in June because I would prefer these edits to be judged based on the merit of the data they provide, not on my connection to them. You seem to be hung up on my personal connection to them and do a reasonable job of ignoring their merits, which I have just addressed below for the Recent Match Results link, and will do tomorrow if I have time for the World Ranking History page. You are falsely assuming what my motives are. My motives are simple: i believe people frequently come to Wikipedia looking to find out info about a player with whom they are unfamiliar, usually because he is playing a player with whom they are familiar or even a fan of. They want to know: Who is this guy? How has he been playing lately? How has his career progressed? These two links answer those questions efficiently and do exactly what they state. No user is going to feel surprised or misled after clicking these links. The quality of Steve G's data are first rate and updated daily. The SteveGHelper pages present that data efficiently with a single click. People know instantly that Djokovic's rise this year has been meteoric, or that Nadal has been #2 for 2 full years now.

And since you are restating your issues, please give a careful reading to my discussion below about the Recent Match Results link. It is very easy to see that your claim of "they don't give more info than ATP" is incorrect. They give results that are updated daily, include Qualifying matches, show singles and doubles in one search, none of which is available on the ATP site.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

As for trying to reach consensus on including these links, I already explained why my first edits were done without consensus, how I asked for help immediately for creating a template to simplify these links, and found nothing but crickets chirping in response. And crickets chirping in response to your complaints about my edits as well, if you recall the lack of interest in this issue when you raised it the first time.

ShabbatSam 06:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I do actually intend to try for consensus, since two other editors have removed a total of 10 links. I emailed one of them yesterday and explained the two links to him fully and let him know that I would be re-entering the links he deleted later if I did not hear any objection back from him. I can't tell from his note he just left on my Talk page if he is done deleting my edits. I'm guessing yes since he left that note and told me to use his talk page "in the future". I was then going to address the other editor before turning my attention to you, since you have been most adamant about deleting links. And then, once I had addressed all three of you individually, I was going to list the merits of these links on the Talk page, rather than address all three of you there in public. Things tend to get very nasty here on wikipedia from what I have observed, and I think that is due to the public and permanent nature of the arguments people have with each other over edits. ShabbatSam 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just think you with your statement "I am attempting to provide Wikipedia users with extremely relevant External Links." show that you miss the whole point. Use energy on editing articles. Create articles. Wikipedia should not rely on links!--HJensen, talk 07:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited DOZENS of articles, created more than a handful, and spent a good deal of time an energy writing articles, considerably more time than I have spent adding External Links, and considerably less time than I have spent trying to explain myself to you. The links I add do not pull up static content, they pull up extremely relevant dynamic content that changes on a daily basis, but also not content that needs to be added directly to the wikipedia article for the most part. There is no point to having every match a player has played ever, or even recently, documented on his wikipedia bio, and having to update the bio daily. Clearly that would get done only for a couple dozen players with rabid fans on Wikipedia. These links are permanent, maintenance-free additions to the info contained in the bio. That's why they are External Links. I have actually used links to SteveGHelper as References lately for some articles; for instance, to back up the assertion that Isner's ranking when he turned pro was too low to get him entry into any tournaments, so Wild Cards were needed -- the ATP site results don't show Wild Card, Lucky Loser, Alternate, or Qualifier status for a player, nor can you isolate a specific block of time, such as the 9 weeks prior to the US Open; and to show Alun Jones success this summer over a limited 6 week span that raised his ranking from 198 to 123 -- also something you can't show on the ATP site. The ITF site does let you select a specific time period, but does not show opponents rankings.

And incidentally, if you were watching the Nadal / Jones match today, you would have been subjected to the announcers repeating about a dozen times that Jones has NEVER beaten a top 100 player. That's incorrect. And it's probably because they were using the "authoritative", as you put it, ATP site, which does not list Qualifying matches. The 30 people who searched SteveGHelper during that match for Jones' results knew otherwise: he beat #90 last week in the New Haven qualifying.ShabbatSam 07:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear! That is where your site can come in very useful: As a reference to particular points made in articles (good examples you give!). But is should indeed be as references in the Isner and Jones articles. It is the standardized external link approach I fail to see the relevance of. Wikipedia is not a site for linking to external search results (that is indeed a policy; see above). If your sites have info not on ATP - which like it or not is "authoritative" - they should be used as references backing relevant statements in wikipedia articles.--HJensen, talk 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SteveGHelper Links - Recent Match Results

Your claim has been (until yesterday) that "Can't see these links add anything not found on atp" as you noted when you removed the links from Lleyton Hewitt on June 23.

I'll spare you the long explanations again and just focus this on one example.

On July 30, you removed the following Recent Match Results link from the Max Mirnyi bio:

• Mirnyi Recent Match Results

Click this link today and looking at matches just since August, you get 9 match results: 2 Main Draw singles matches, 1 Qualifying Draw singles match, 6 Main Draw doubles matches (including the Bye result lines).

Using the ATP site, clicking the "player results" link on Mirnyi's profile page:

• ATP Results Page

You get immediately show just ONE match result during August. With some knowledge of the site and 2 more clicks, you can see 5 more results, the Main Draw doubles byes and matches.

2 of the 3 matches that SteveGHelper shows today that the ATP site won't show you are:

• This week's Singles and Doubles matches at the Open. The ATP site does not show matches from

tournaments that have not become part of the "ranking system". This includes matches from this week's tournaments, but also matches from last week's Futures tournaments. To see this clearly:

• Ghareeb via SteveGHelper
• Ghareeb at ATP Site

Ghareeb's Futures results from last week are not there because the points don't go on his record until the following week. Except during a 2 week tournament such as the slams, Miami, and Indian Wells, in which case they don't go on the ATP site until the ENTIRE 2 week tournament finishes. That means Challenger results ALSO don't get listed for this week's tournaments until AFTER the open finishes.

The 3rd match that you can't find via the Player Results page at the ATP site is Mirnyi's qualifying match from the Cincinnati Masters event. The ATP site does not show Qualifying matches in the Player Results page at all. There is no way to find this info on the ATP site, except to open up all the draw sheets and look to see if a player is in there.

So the claim that this link does not "add anything not found on atp" is demonstrably false. In one click, the "Recent Match Results" link delivers more match results than you can find with 4 clicks via the ATP site link.

So please stop deleting this link from player bios. Your deletion is not justifiable.

I will deal with the World Ranking History links later. ShabbatSam 06:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue of whether qualifying matches indeed are of importance. In the broad picture they are not. As for your site being quicker updated, this is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a newssite. We don't continuously update bios during tournaments - and for very good reasons. Is this where I then should write "So please stop inserintg this link in player bios. Your insertion is not justifiable"? Well, no. I give up on this. Maybe others will have the patience.--HJensen, talk 08:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to hit on exactly my point as to why I think these links should be added. I think it is idiotic to go updating bios on a daily basis -- please run through the edit history for John Isner and look especially at my comments on the talk page. But that is a hot page right now, and several people are more than happy to update it every day with not just his latest match, but also his cumulative W/L record and even his US Open W/L record.

As for Qualifying matches, ranking points and money are at stake, and usually much more money and similar points to what are available in the first two rounds of Challenger tournaments. So of course they are of importance! The ITF site lists them. I have no idea why the ATP site does not, but I will bet that they will show them sometime in the future.

As for the value of having a link on a wikipedia tennis player bio that pulls up his very latest results, all of them ... are you seriously going to dispute this? That is why people are looking on wikipedia. They are watching a match on tv, or reading about it online. They google the unfamiliar player's name, the wikipedia link is usually the first thing that comes up, they read the wikipedia entry that probably hasn't been updated in weeks, or was just updated 15 minutes ago by some clown watching the match to say "he's playing Nadal right now on tv and the score is 7-5, 3-6 ...." So they come to the External Links section and click the ATP site link, which may or may not give them the info they crave. If it doesn't, then maybe the next two links, "Recent Match Results" or "World Ranking History" will. In fact, that's how I got started on editing wikipedia. I noticed a good result from Tsonga, wondered why I had heard nothing about him for such a long time, googled him, clicked the wikipedia entry, learned nothing from the outdated article, and instead found what I was looking for via the SteveGHelper pages. So I went into wikipedia and added them so other people could also benefit. ShabbatSam 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoting Websites

In June, when I tried to figure out just what kind of links you like to delete, I noticed you had deleted three links all at once from the John Frusciante page. One was jftabs.com or something like that, and seemed to me to be a very relevant external links. I don't know crap about guitars and music, but i did have a good friend who was in a big band and I remember reading a music mag article he showed me that asked him about "tabs". So I didn't know why you felt a site that seemed dedicated solely to JF's guitar tabs needed to be removed from External Links. The other two, I believe, said things like "Discuss JF in his forum at ..." and when you clicked them, you were taken just to the opening page of that site, and if there was an actual forum there, you needed to search and find it. THAT to me is what is meant by promoting a website via an External Link.

If I had written a bot to edit every male tennis bio page and insert a link that said "Find Match Results for 'PAGE-NAME'" on it but then took you to the Match Results search page and expected you to then enter the player's name and do the search yourself, that would certainly qualify as a link meant more to promote an external site than to provide useful info (although of course, the useful info would still be just a few keystrokes away ....)

But that is not what I did. I created the search for Match Results specific to that player, then verified that the results it pulled up were what was expected (since i was usually just going with the player's last name or even just a portion of the last name) and modified it in the cases where it didn't perform well. Ditto for the Ranking History link. And I left a detailed edit summary for every edit I made. And I frequently edited the ATP link to use the ATP template (which meant i had to go to the ATP profile and copy and paste the player's ID#). And I added the ATP Profile link as well to many pages that did not already have it.

My concern in adding the ATP links and the SteveGHelper links was not to promote the ATP site or SteveGHelper, but to improve the article with useful links to dynamic content, content which it would make little sense for wikipedia editors to attempt to duplicate. You suggest that my intent was otherwise, to simply promote SteveGHelper, based on your reading of my user page. I wrote that on my user page just to be upfront about what is NOT a conflict of interest but could be viewed that way by some people, so i thought i would head that thinking off by coming straight out and stating my connection to SteveGHelper. Instead, in your case, my admission seems to have kept you from examining my edits objectively on their own merits. Hopefully, my latest explanation above of the unique info contained in the Recent Match Results link to SteveGHelper will get us past that issue once and for all.

Please note that I could have named that site "SamFTennis" or "ShabbatSamTennis" or something that promotes me, but I named it SteveGHelper instead, something that gives all credit to the source of the data, Steve Gocha and his SteveGTennis site. I am not about "promoting", I am about providing useful info to people. See for instance my edits to the Piedmont Park article. I don't like dog owners, but I wrote two paragraphs under a new heading touting the dog-friendly features of the park. ShabbatSam 08:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are now heavily diverting the discussion by referring to editors' behavior in other instances ("just what kind of links you like to delete" - are you really being serious here, or just sarcastic?), and/or trying to use other sites as precedents for a discussion. Such ways of discussion is discouraged on Wikipedia per WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have no longer anything to add to this than I have already said here, on your talk page and/or the Tennis Portal. --HJensen, talk 08:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I "heavily divert"ed the discussion ... by introducing this section of the discussion with some facts of how I first reacted to the edits of mine you deleted. I'm being honest here. I looked specifically for other links you had deleted to try and see if there was some pattern that my edits fit. The rest of this section that I spent too much time writing, did you even read it? I then wrote 4 more paragraphs specifically addressing the issue of whether my edits are website promotion. I didn't return to your other deletes at all. And that introduction heavily diverted the discussion. Maybe in your mind. Why don't you get someone else to read it and give you an objective viewpoint.

For now, since I am still awake and wasting time on this, I will get on with the merits of the Ranking History links. ShabbatSam 09:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no. Not "maybe in my mind". Surely in my mind. This is me, so I write about how I actually react. And the discussion was in my mind diverted by your very inappropriate statement "just what kind of links you like to delete". It is not "maybe" in my mind, I felt it was inapropriate, it was very factual. To me, it is a quite insulting statement, but I chose to assume good faith, and just mention it, and take the consequences and back out of this.--HJensen, talk 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SteveGHelper Ranking History links

You previously stated in June that you felt the ATP site's Rankings History page was better than the SteveGHelper page. I won't argue with that subjective viewpoint for now, only with whether SteveGHelper provides useful info that is NOT available on the ATP site.

For a simple example, we'll use John Isner

• ATP Rankings History page
• SteveGHelper Rankings History page

Looking at each, the distinctions are that:

• ATP site lists singles and doubles, SGH lists only singles rankings
• ATP site lists EVERY week, SGH gives a "telescoping view" that goes back weekly, biweekly, monthly, and then finally quarterly after one year, so you get a general overview for the player's ranking progression over a number of years on a single screen of data.
• ATP site lists only the ranking #, SGH shows total points, # of tournaments, and change since Jan. 1, as well as linking directly to each ranking week's complete ranking file, which is not available anywhere on the ATP site, for the current week or for any week.

Clearly from the above list, SGH is presenting additional info that is not to be found on the ATP site.

Here are my conclusions of how each presents the data to you.

Looking at Isner on the ATP site OVERWHELMS you with useless data. It appears that Isner was mired in a career that was going nowhere until 6 weeks ago.

But the "telescoping view" of the SteveGHelper page and its additional data fields tell the real story.

Until 6 weeks ago, he just wasn't playing professional tennis, with only a couple tournaments each year for the last 2 years until this summer. That is readily seen from the last few entries of his points and his # of tournaments.

Do you really prefer seeing EVERY week's ranking forcing you to scroll several times to see it all, when the reality is he wasn't playing during any but two weeks out of all those rankings for the first two years? You don't prefer a telescoping view of the data?

To me, the "telescoping view" of the Rankings data delivers the data to the user in a much more digestible format. You might disagree. Then you can continue to use the ATP page when you want.

But what you can't continue to do is to claim that you don't see how SGH adds anything that isn't already available on the ATP site. The discussion above plainly enumerates the uniqueness of the data SGH presents. ShabbatSam 09:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Going Forward - Re-entering Links for Some Players

Going forward from this discussion, I am going to re-enter the links for Mirnyi, Ferrero, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Nadal, and Hewitt. I am 'NOT' going to re-enter the links for Federer, since that page is one you edit heavily (btw, why is that Mental Toughness link still there? it's a book advertisement found on several player bios.) I would like to add them again to Pless, especially since he is now going to be entering more Qualifying tournaments, but that also seems to be a page dear to you. I'm not looking for conflict here; I'm just looking to not have my edits destroyed by you. If you want to argue this one more time on the Tennis project page, then please do. But please don't continue deleting my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShabbatSam (talk • contribs) 09:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Please delete the mental toughness link if it is an advertisement. It should clearly not be on Wikipedia then. And finally a friendly advice: A sentence like "I'm just looking to not have my edits destroyed by you" is actually not souding very friendly. I am not destroying anything. I have just been removing external links that was placed on Wikipedia, and which I did not find appropriate, and which I feel there should be have been a consensus about, before they were installed. But all along, you have taken no reponse as implying consensus. Well, I really don't want to waste more time on this. I'll and let others (as said above) step in. And your argument for not putting your links on the Federer page is completely beyond me.--HJensen, talk 11:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1