User talk:Kendu020
Good to see you back! But I need to tell you, Murray and Novak had not been updated in Shanghai yet, so adding one win does not reflect the current situation. You would have to add another one for Murray (no 2nd round) and two for Novak. Also I see someone is messing with Connors/Villas numbers again, what is the controversy here? Could you add an explanation in the Talk page? Tnx --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
ATP world tour records/Borg[edit]
Hey Kendu020, appreciate your work. I have no idea why the official ATP page lists only 7 Davis Cup singles matches of Borg (2 vs Czechoslovakia in 1975, in 1979 2 vs Romania and 1 vs Czechoslovakia and in 1980 2 vs West Germany, look here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Bo/B/Bjorn-Borg.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=0#) when in fact he has played 40 Davis Cup singles matches http://www.daviscup.com/en/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=10002258 . And in ATP World Tour records page all ATP (= listed by ATP) and Davis Cup matches are relevant. This is one of bugs on the official ATP page, but a major one, because it changes a significant record - winning streak. Without those DC matches Borg's 2 longest winning streaks are 43 and 35 matches long, with them 49 and 48 (1st and 2nd place in the open era). Some other tennis statistics are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_statistics so maybe it wasnt needed to make a new page.
open era[edit]
Thank you message;) Edamian (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
GoodIntentionedFreak[edit]
Hi, I read your reply!
I found your readability suggestions very reasonable and implemented them at once. I do not feel, however, that the presence or lack of technical jargon on the page is related to the technical approach to page layout and maintenance. Perhaps we are both misusing the adjective "technical" a little bit. I will continue to champion what I understand under this term and try to to find a meaningful measure of symmetry and principle.
I will not probe the issue of section ordering at least throughout the USO.
I found out I have another issue of a certain magnitude, so I described it in talk ("Winning percentages"). I am in no hurry and will not act prematurely about it.
What are your sources for matches that are not listed on the ATP website?
Cheers. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see you were shocked, otherwise you might have reacted less impulsively. Please check Talk (also, my satisfaction and other personal emotions are not to be discussed in the page Talk, but in the user Talk). And a little plea: indent your contributions to the Talk pages, for me to recognize them more easily. Thank you.
- I saw all your updates of Connors career -- nice. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- PS. I agree that Year-end semis might be too much. Was the year-end format always the same (round robin)? If it was, then the semis actually relay the information on "passing the group stage". That is why they might be interesting too. But I leave it to your discretion.
- I think "Year-end titles", and "Masters titles" and the like, are actually perfect, because they make for unique, yet natural table names. They are not too long and describe the tables completely. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Singles/doubles earnings[edit]
Hi Kendu, I come with news.
On the ATP website, you can, under "playing activity", select ALL years, which displays an entire (either singles or doubles) career of a player, and in the header total prize money for a discipline (singles or doubles). Great!, I thought to myself, we just use these numbers instead of total delivered at the front player profile page (and also in that generated PDF), and we have singles earnings.
But it was not be. I quickly noticed that the sum of the singles and the doubles number was smaller than the reported total number, for all top-10 earners of all time. Some money was missing. Sometimes millions.
That was not all! I also checked if the sum of individual earnings (in the sense of tournament after tournament) matched the reported total for a discipline. And it did not. For example, while Federer's earnings in singles for 2001 did match the number reported in the header, the career earnings of Pete Sampras in the doubles discipline were smaller than the reported number.
(For these examples, I calculated both manually and using my data extraction tool and got the same results.)
So, in short, the sum of prize money won at tournaments in singles/doubles is often less than the reported total prize money for singles/doubles, and the sum of the total singles and the total doubles money is always less than the grand number given at the profile page. This makes it really difficult to deduce the right operation to get the exact prize money quantity that we need. We could sum up the money week after week, but what would we be missing then? Millions would be drained without explanation.
(AND to make it even worse, several years ago they started displaying some of it euros, australian dollars and pounds, so we [or my program, which is easier] would need to know currency exchange rates for the given weeks... horrible. So to correct myself: we cannot even sum week to week without controversy.)
If I come up with something I will let you know. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is a walkover notable?[edit]
Hello. Regarding your undo of the footnote I put in the Novak Djokovic article,I believe that a walkover in a grand slam event is notable, for a number of reasons. In order of importance (IMO) here are my reasons. First, the grand slam table is confusing if there is no indication of a walkover (e.g., Djokovic's 2011 grand slam record would have been 26-1 without the walkover (21 wins for 3 championships and 5 wins for advancing to the semifinals at the French open). Second, it seems to me that there are not very many walkovers (at grand slam events) -- rough guess: 1 or 2 per year, on average (a value judgement about the rarity of walkovers, as well as the notability of something which occurs with this frequency). Third, some walkovers are unusually notable -- the 2011 Djokovic's one because it looked like it might have a big impact on Djokovic's win streak (see title in footnote 120 of the version before your undo). In your opinion, is there a better place to discuss this? Thanks Free2brag (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
tennis records of the open era[edit]
I don't see anywhere on the page "ATP World Tour records" where it says "Data and statistics are according to the ATP World Tour website." By having that sentence at the article top it implies that all the records come from that source. If there are errors at the ATP World Tour records article please list them so we can correct them, but that sentence cannot remain on "tennis records of the open era" without it being changed to accommodate other sources. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
SW Career Statistics[edit]
Hello, I agree with your edit but I reorganized it so that all current Premier Mandatory/5s are grouped together for organization, so you can better see what tournaments are still included on the WTA Tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wol339 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Open Era Tennis Records (Men) (October 31)[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Open Era Tennis Records (Men).
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Open Era Tennis Records (Men)[edit]
Hello Kendu020. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Open Era Tennis Records (Men)".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Open Era Tennis Records (Men)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Kendu020. 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Kendu020. 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)