Carlo Colussi

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Carlo Colussi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Why have you blanked Tennis world champions named by the International Tennis Federation? I have gone ahead and reverted your blanking. Please let me know why you have done this. Thanks. KOS | talk 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. -- KOS | talk 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Hello

Because I've accepted the merging proposition of "tennisexpert" into "Tennis Statistics" and then I've inserted all the content in the last article : I have to make modifications and I will make it directly in the "Tennis Statistics" article.

So given that it is now in "Tennis Statistics" I think we can blank or even delete it. If you are OK you can DELETE this article because there is no lost information.

Carlo Colussi 09:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bjorn Borg and the Australian Open

Hi there. I was always curious about why Borg didn't compete at the Aussie Open. Thanks for your response. Regards. SteveO 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

carlo my response to connors borg head to head is on my talk page

jeffreyneave 1 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Translating

I'll be very busy translating in next months.

Thanks for all. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC) All right Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC) You can see the "little" progress of the trans in the page. Work isn't finish, AT ALL!. Thanks. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lucio I've seen "Listado de tenistas masculinos número uno del mundo" today. Great : this is almost done. Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1931 WORLD RANKINGS

Carlo , you have obviously seen the andrew tass list of winners and finalists for all amateur events in 1931. I think it is quite clear that cochet is not no1. His performance are very ordinary. Its also quite claer that Vines has the best record. He has completely dominated all the major events in the USA. He has also very importantly beat perry 4 times; and perry seems to be the only top player competiting on both sides of the ATlantic, which leaves VInes as the only real candidate for n01. Myers' rankings should be discounted and as bowers meekly just accepted Myers'views his ranking should be discounted. I feel that as a compromise Vines and Tilden should be named as co-numbers for 1931 ( My gut feeling is that Vines was the better player given he always had the edge on Tilden when they played from 1934 onwards and looks as impressive as ever in 1931). The problem is the source. Can we use Andrew Tass as the source and get round the inevitable objections of Tennis expert's fanaticism on wiki rules

jeffreyneave 14 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.152.44 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jeffrey,

Andrew and Károly Mazák, very high class men, have given me their results about 6 months ago not only for 1931 but for all years and in World Tennis it is written black on white that Perry and G. Patrick Hughes were sent to the USA. Perry was the only non-US very top player who made the transatlantic player : Cochet and Austin didn't make the trip. Because of his illness Cochet didn't deserve the 1st amateur rank. I have all the available results for the Monte Carlo Cup and the Italian Chps (Sutter's book for Monte Carlo and Fumarola's book for the Italian) : for Monte Carlo some matches or rounds are missing (Sutter though helped by Alan Little couldn't find all the results before publishing his book in early 1997) but for the Italian I have all the matches (except errors) from 1st round to final. In particular in 1931 Cochet beat just good players at Monte Carlo (as George Lyttelton Rogers) but not top players and in the Italian he beat only "ordinary" players and the only good player he met was G.P. Hughes : being already ill the French couldn't resist and lost in straight sets. So Károly and I agreed 6 months ago that Vines was probably the leading amateur. But contrary to you Károly and I also agreed that Tilden was the best in 1931 because Tilden was a better all-round player than Vines in 1931 in particular on clay. Vines improved after 1931 nevertheless in the very first meetings against Tilden in 1934, Tilden led Vines though all the matches were played on fast indoor courts, Vines's best surface. Only after Vines reverse the results at the very end of their first short tour (11-9 for Vines). Then in the rest of the year 1934 Vines mastered Tilden but mainly on fast courts. Vines became a top player on clay only in 1935 when he won the French Pro beating Nüsslein (then the best pro claycourt player) winner of Tilden in the semis : this was Vines's apogee on clay. So I repeat : even at the very beginning of 1934 Tilden beat Vines on the latter's best surface so I presume that in 1931 Tilden was better than Vines on every surface.

To conclude, unhappily Andrew is not an "official" source and he hasn't published any ranking so we can't use him to rank Tilden and Vines instead of Cochet for 1931.

Other debatable year : 1913. Myers ranked Brookes co-No.2 (with McLoughlin) but Stakovich from Tennis and Golf didn't rank Brookes in the Top10 probably because Brookes didn't quit Australia. But in some aspects I don't entirely contradict Myers. Apparently in 1913 Brookes just played test matches in January and the Victorian Chp in November : in the last one he beat in the semis one Parker (for the moment I can't find if it was Harry or Ernie Parker) but defaulted in the final to Heath. I recall you that the British Isles made an Australasian tour in austral summer 1912-1913. In November the British Isles captured the Davis Cup with in particular Parke beating Brookes in five sets. Then the British team played numerous matches down under (in particular the Australasian Chp and test matches against New South Wales, Queensland, New Zealand, Sydney Metropolitan Club, Australia, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia). In early 1913 Brookes represented Australia (meeting ended on January 21, 1913) then Victoria. The Melburnian had learnt from his Davis Cup defeat to Parke not give angles to Parke and to play in the centre of the court : in those 1913 matches Brookes met Parke twice and beat it : 97 62 as an Australia representative and 63 36 63 as a Victoria player. But more amazing Brookes met Charles Percy Dixon, one of the very top player of the time, and Brookes crushed him ... 60 60. So Myers have perhaps overrated Brookes (on reputation) but not so much. The most puzzling : Charles P. Haggett, a British professional, invited by the West Side Tennis Club in early 1913, had a slight edge on McLoughlin in practice matches for the preparation of Davis Cup in early June 1913 and have beaten Wilding too in practice matches (but I don't know when and where : 1913 seems doubtful because Haggett was mainly in the States whereas Wilding was in Britain so perhaps in 1914 when Australasia played the US in Davis Cup) Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

hello carlo, Vines seems to me to be a good player on all surfaces. In 1931 2 of his wins are definitely on clay. Vines just did not play very often on european clay throughout his career. In the tours with perry and budge he had no problems winning on clay and refuted suggestions that he could only win indoors. As to 1934, Tilden is the one with the advantage because he has played indoors a lot. Amateurs hardly played indoors (vines' events in 1931 are all outdoors); kramer had the same problem against riggs and just used the wrong tactics initially indoors; the point is Vines won the series and who won the 1st match is irrelevant. vines was the better player in 1934 and though it could be argued Tilden had declined from 1931 its not particularly proven. Whether Vines got any better is not sure either. He played great in 1931, great 1932 (his wins in 1932 finals at us open and wimbledon suggested awsome form, but he did not play like that every day), poorly in 1933.; its unknown whether he raised his game in 1934 or not. So a fair compromise would be a tie between the two.

I have no respect for wiki rules whatsoever; I regard them as smug, unpersuasive elitism. Original ideas are great. The truth is what we are after not following silly wiki rules. As 1931 shows being published does not mean quality. We rigged 1964 to give Laver a share when we all knew he was the best. vines was the best amateur according to the facts and it should be recognised; cochet should be dropped and Myers's opinion consigned to oblivion.

jeffreyneave 16 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.28.67 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys "rigged 1964 to give Laver a share." What exactly does that mean? Is WP:NOR one of the "silly wiki rules" full of "smug, unpersuasive elitism" that should not be followed in the rankings? Tennis expert (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

NOR is certainly one of those rules; its crap. we want all the original ideas we can get. the object is to increase the world's knowledge not to restrict it to previously published material; the truth counts above all else. being published like myers does not mean quality at all. loads of tennis journalism is hack work of no merit. We are not here to parrot copy from published work. All wiki editing rules are rubbish. rabid elitism and anti democratic. 1964 was not rigged in your silly terms . Geist co-ranked Laver and Rosewall no1. but the majority of pubished sources favoured Rosewall; howver carlo, german friend and myself all clearly saw that laver had the better record in Macculey's book; Laver was no1 and very clearly so. truth is more important than published sources.

jeffreyneave 25 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.157.90 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you in TT

Greetings, keep reading, learning and sharing.

--Lucio Garcia (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ladies Number 1s

Hey Carlo, Would you be able to help add to the ladies #1s as you have here on the mens? I wasn't sure if you had the info from 1920 back for the ladies or if it even exists. The link is on the bottom of the mens page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Carlos. If you get the info and don't have time to post it I can always do it for you if you send me the file. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok so when I see BRI-G it is England as opposed to BRI-I which would be Ireland? And anything that is before 1921 is only Károly's personal ranking except for the years 1909 by Charles Dixon, 1896-1905 by Lawn Tennis etc..., and 1883-1895 by pastime? If I recall "Pastime" was a sports magazine not just a tennis magazine? And for say 1920 or 1919 there is no book, magazine or journal that ranks the ladies at all? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to compile year-by-year lists for #1 players for some of the major countries

Hi Carlo, I don't think that there are any articles in which the #1 players are listed for various countries on a year-by-year basis, ie, Budge 1939, Riggs 1940, Kramer 1946, etc. etc. I have a couple of *real* encyclopedias where I can get the yearly ratings for the American players (generally the top 10 for each year), and I recently found a nice Australian Website where they have a page with the top Aussies each year from 1930 through 1976. I could therefore compile my own lists from these. But no matter how much I Google I can't find similar pages for the British, French, and, oh, the Germans. Can you direct me to anything? Many thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For introduce me to world of tennis history. Thanks Carlo. Lucio Garcia 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

History of Tennis book

Any idea how to get the "Concise History of Tennis" pdf from Károly Mazák? His web email seems to be dead. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I will send Károly an e-mail to answer you Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested in that pdf as well. --Wolbo (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The tennis barnstar

	The Tennis Barnstar
	For all your great work on the rich history of tennis! Wolbo (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

I hope you doing well, cheers. --Lucio Garcia 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Astrakhan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continental (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Lennon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helter Skelter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Wilding's singles titles

Hi Carlo, I've been busy updating and completing Anthony Wilding's long list of singles titles. Good progress has been made but there are a still few dead ends. One of them is the 1910 Riviera Championships in San Remo which you added to the list of titles on 5 May 2008. There are sources available for Wilding's 1908 and 1911 tournament wins at San Remo but I could not find any source on the 1910 tournament. Do you have any more info (opponent, score) or a source? Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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 else Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thx for the response Carlo (and Fyunck). I had seen the tennisarchives result that Fyunck links to which shows a different 1910 San Remo winner. Also note that this overview posted in a New Zealand newspaper in 1916 has a comprehensive list of Wilding's titles and shows the 1908 and 1911 San Remo singles titles but not a 1910 title. I have not found any New Zealand, Australian or European newspaper article mentioning a 1910 title. Finally, if we take a look at Wilding's itinerary; he won the New Zealand Championship at the very end of December 1909 and afterward took the boat to travel to Europe (a 6/7 week trip!). Along the way he had a stop-over in South Africa and won the championship in Jo'burg in April 1910. It's highly improbable that he played the Riviera tournaments in between these dates. So, I think we can safely conclude that Wilding did not win a title at San Remo in 1910 and I have removed it from his title list (if other sources can be found to show otherwise we can always put it back). Cheers, Wolbo (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Found this newspaper article showing Wilding left Christchurch, New Zealand in early February 1910 and traveled via Melbourne and South Africa to Europe. That makes it clear he could not have played any of the Riviera tournaments and could not possibly have won the 1910 San Remo title.Wolbo (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Love those old newspaper articles. I was especially impressed that "One thousand and one bargains can be had at Caterer and Carey's bargain carnival of drapery" where they will have the "greatest bargains ever offered in the city." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, thanks for the information and the articles.

An aside : being an environment "aficionado" I have slightly changed your links that I replaced by the "the computer-generated text" links instead of your original "newspaper article" links. Your first link has 7 pages whereas the associated "the computer-generated text" link has only 3 pages. I have no personal laptop so I wanted to print the "the computer-generated text" link : using the layout I reduced to 95% of normal size in order to print only 2 pages instead of 3. And using the recto-verso I printed in the end only 1 sheet instead of 4 sheets (the 7 pages of the original newspaper link).

The score of the Cannes Beau Site (Cannes Championship) match against Brookes in 1914 is wrong : the true score is 6-4 6-2 6-1 and not 6-2 6-2 6-2 as in the second Cannes Carlton meeting.

Primarily I thought that the Italian Riviera Champs were held in April but apparently they were played in February, according to Tennis Archives, and given that the South African champs occurred during the week crossing March and April if the Italian Riviera event was indeed organized in February it is clearly impossible that Wilding played it. Therefore he didn't play it unless the San Remo dates are wrong. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Carlo, glad we got this figured out. Saw your comment on Talk Tennis. FYI I just ordered a copy of Anthony Wilding, A Sporting Life. Judging by the comments on the book, yours as well, this seems to be one of the better tennis biographies around. Curious to find out what it will add to On the Court and Off and Captain Anthony Wilding by Myers. Cheers, Wolbo (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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 --Wolbo (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I also removed another unsourced tournament namely Paris, 1910. Can find no sources for it and it's not shown on Talk Tennis or Tennisarchives. I you have any info to substantiate that title I'll gladly re-add it to the list.Wolbo (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, From memory the Richardsons didn't list, in their book, any 1910 Italian Riviera Championship in Wilding's record. Otherwise they made some errors : for instance once they put a Monte Carlo tournament played by Anthony in the wrong year, the 1909 Victorian final score is slightly wrong, and there are some other slight errors I don't remember anymore but it is a wonderful book very detailed with many pages (I don't remember how many but probably circa 400). With this book I put 112 or 113 titles in the French & English Wikipedia articles without counting his titles between 1901 and 1903 won in Colleges, and his Wimbledon Plate victory as well. Since the English article has been updated by other Wiki members who added some other victories while I didn't change this part in the French one.

At this very moment I don't have the Richardsons' book to hand but I am almost sure I used this source to put it in Wiki. However if my memory is good there was very little or even none comment about it and perhaps the only reference was in Wilding's list of tournament wins without any more precision. Tonight I will check it in my book and search if there is any detail or comment Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carlo, I forgot to thank you for posting your elaborate list of errors in Richardsons’ book. That will certainly be of assistance when I read the book. It's a pity that what is apparently an excellent biography on Wilding contains these factual errors but it is perhaps unavoidable for such a major undertaking.--Wolbo (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo,

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. Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo,

well I don't think it's such a pity : there aren't a great percentage of errors given that there are 451 pages fully and well documented. Besides I don't think (but I can be wrong) that the Richardsons are sport (and in particular tennis) specialists. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalahari Desert, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages WWF and Great Escarpment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Australia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Warburton and Lake Gregory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please note your current edit warring can see you blocked - have a close look at WP:3RR to see how you might be blocked very soon.... sats 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mallee (Victoria) may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• mm}} per year but Hopetoun in the south receives around {{convert|370|mm|abbr=on}} <span>in)</span>. Variability, however, is quite high: in 1973 the Mallee averaged as much as {{convert|650|
• is quite high: in 1973 the Mallee averaged as much as {{convert|650|mm|abbr=on}} <span>in)</span> but in 1982 only {{convert|115|mm|abbr=on}} <span>in)</span>. Temperatures in summer are generally very hot: in January 1906 it is believed Mildura

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gobabeb page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Astrakhan climate

Hi, I appreciate this is a bit old, but I noticed that in your edit on the page Astrakhan on 3rd october 2012, you added something about Aralian and Turkmenon climates. I can't find any reference to these terms elsewhere, so I wonder if you could add a citation please? Thanks! The edit in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrakhan&type=revision&diff=515773657&oldid=514303006 Alecjw (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

in the French old school, geographers and climatologists such as Emmanuel de Martonne or Georges Viers used to give names to the climates according to their main area distribution. For instance de Martonne used the expression "climat chinois" to describe the climate of the chinese southeast. Viers preferred "climat cantonais" from "Canton" = "Guangzhou" because de Martonne talked about the subtropical humid climates which cover only the southeast of China and not the whole country (you also find these types of climates in the southeast of the USA and in some east parts of the austral continents).

Viers, in particular, defined three main "temperate" (semi-)arid climates : "les climats araliens" (Aralian climates), "les climats ukrainiens" (Ukrainian climates) and "les climats turkmènes" (Turkmenon climates) according to their precipitation regime : if most of the precipitation fall in the warmest six months of the year the climate is considered as "aralien", if most of the precipitation fall in the coldest six months of the year the climate is considered as "turkmène" and if the precipitation are more or less distributed throughout the year the climate is considered as "ukrainien" (a term I do not like because Ukrainia is not arid or semi-arid but at best subhumid).

Jean Demangeot, though much inspired by Viers's work, also uses the terms "aralien" and "turkmène" but defines them slightly differently. Demangeot considers as "araliens" most of the "temperate" (semi-) arid climates and "turkmènes" as the warmest of the aralian climates, independently of the precipitation regime : in fact Demangeot considers the climates around the Aral Sea as "araliens" and the climates of the Turkmenistan" as "turkmènes" where the annual temperature is about 15-17°C (see Figure 9 Climats désertiques d'Asie in "Les milieux désertiques" de Jean Demangeot et Edmond Bernus, https://books.google.fr/books?id=iZ8DDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA9&ots=_Mziyy4oUc&dq=climat%20aralien%20les%20milieux%20d%C3%A9sertiques&hl=fr&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false).

You can find some bibliographies of French climatologists in https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_de_Martonne, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat_subtropical_humide#Bibliographie (for instance Georges Viers, Éléments de climatologie, Paris, Nathan, 2001, 2e édition ISBN 978-2091911878 or Jean Demangeot, Les milieux « naturels » du globe, Paris, Armand Colin, 10e édition, 2002, (ISBN 2200346085)).

I inserted some of the references in the Astrakhan article but I don't know how to do it properly so thank you or anyone else in advance for improving it. Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Carlo Colussi. 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)

Jersey high temperature

I rolled back your change to Jersey because the source you cited isn't an official source, and this one is (or was, because the site has been replaced, but the data still stands): http://www.jerseymet.gov.je/climate/records.html Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A proposal to delete the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry

Have you seen that???? Madness! Let's rally all the troops to defeat it! Thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, again, as I've written to other editors of this article: 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gonzales%E2%80%93Rosewall_rivalry. 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)

Thank you for your fine contribution. You said all the things I WANTED to say earlier but with far great precision and knowledge. Also I find it difficult to keep my temper under control when dealing with people such as this. We will have to be alert to them trying to propose the same deletions with other rivalries! Best! Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Pancho Segura and the Ellie Vines book

I just added some new material to the Pancho Segura article. Do you know the fascinating book by Ellie Vines published a year before Kramer's book? Tennis: Myth and Method, (1978) by Ellsworth Vines and Gene Vier, Viking Press, New York. His evaluations of the ten greatest players since Budge are fascinating. He has Segoo at number *FIVE*! Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vines' book is filled with factual errors, almost at every line (I am severe) : in 2009 I had begun reading this book (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/ellsworth-vines-10-best-list.120080/#post-3845698), the first 16 pages then and already noted several errors. Besides I do not subscribe to many of his evaluations. Once again Rosewall is underrated. Vines said that it took Rosewall a long time (I don't remember exactly but I think 1 and 1/2 year) to dominate a declining Segura in the pro tour while in reality as soon as Wembley in September 1957, Rosewall led Segura in head-to-head confrontations. It took only 8 months for Rosewall to take the measure of Segura. Vines was circumspect toward the lift shots while it was already the standard since his book days and became the only way of playing since. He mainly explained Laver-Segura-Riggs-Rosewall order by their supposed service efficiency correlated in his opinion to their respective height. On the other hand he pretty overrated Budge who was not such a great volleyer, had not a such a great service and even less great smash and who once had reached a supposed peak (in 1939, not in 1938) didn't try to improve his game anymore (it is true that war and his 1943 injury didn't help). However Vines was true enough about the Serve & Volley game myth however on fast surfaces, which doesn't exist anymore, players after 1978 such as McEnroe and Edberg, true S&V players, and even Becker and Sampras (both played more from the baseline) were pretty efficient with this type of game. Vines probably would have praised (loved ???) the modern "Big 5" (Wawrinka included) game. I said earlier that Rosewall was pretty underrated but Segura and Riggs are also pretty underrated (virtually unknown). Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad to have your opinion of the book. I myself was fascinated by the first ten or eleven chapters, then skipped all of the "method" stuff, which seemed like nonsense to me. Also to my other tennis friends who read it. As for accuracy: I grew up playing tennis in So. California 60 years, and have studied tennis ever since, and I had NEVER heard of the so-called "Australian grip" that he says most of the Aussies used. Some of them used the Continental, I think, and some, like Rosewall, used an Eastern. As for the rankings, that's just HIS opinion, of course. The question is: WHOSE opinion? Ellsworth Vines HIMSELF, or Gene Viers, the guy who helped him write the book. My understanding of Vines is that after 1940 he immersed himself in golf and had nothing at all to do with tennis anymore. After retiring from golf, he helped run the La Quinta resort outside of Palm Springs, more on the golf side than the tennis, I believe. With all of the very detailed info he gives about grips and playing styles of these various players, I find it hard to believe that he could have found time over the years to study them so carefully. Viers, on the other hand, was a sports writer for the Los Angeles Times, I think, although a very minor one -- Googling him hardly turns up a trace of him. HE might well have been the guy who was fascinated by tennis and, every time the pros came through So. Calif., he turned out to watch them. And, for all I know, interview them. Then, I imagine, he basically wrote Vines's book, chatted with Vines a couple of times, and put all of his OWN opinions into the book. I certainly don't believe that Vines had anything to do with the weird chapters about how to PLAY tennis! As for Budge and how good he was, I just don't know. I never saw him play. He did beat Vines, Riggs, and Perry on the tour, although not badly. And Kramer calls him the best. I've seen a video of him playing Riggs, and maybe a couple of other people, and his serve didn't look all that hard to me, but it's hard to tell from videos. Everyone at the time SAID he had a great serve. As for Segoo and his ranking, Kramer says he could beat everyone except himself and Gorgo. In 1958, after Hoad had turned pro, Kramer had a round-robin at the L.A. Tennis Club. I went to see some of the matches (Gorgo beat Ken in a long evening match) and I also saw Segoo beat someone or other. There were either 7 or 8 players in the round-robin, the BEST players in the world, and Segoo beat EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! He didn't lose a single match. Gorgo, Sedge, Ken, Lew, Trabert, Hartwig (I think), Pails (I think). So, when he was on, he was indeed unbeatable. And he was FUN to watch! As Kramer says over and over, he was the MOST fun of any of the tennis players to watch.... Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Kalahari

Hi Carlo

Merci beaucoup pour la traduction de mon text sur mon user-page en Francais!

The Picture

Kalahari

was taken near 24°39′20″S 018°30′25″E. The darker dots are de:Kameldornbäume. Their altidute is probably 4 to 6 meters. We were flying approximately 400 meters above gound. We call the Kalahari a Semi-Desert. Regards, Hanspeter --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Carlo Colussi. 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

Hello, Carlo Colussi. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, I'm Laser brain. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Quarrymen, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Pole of Cold

Youve been around quite a long time, so I'll just use my own words.

I think that the scientific community, broadly speaking, will continue to think of Siberia as the true rightful Pole of Cold for the indefinite future. The -70ish reading in Klinck is not impressing us in the same way as Siberia because it was recorded at a high elevation where nobody lives.

I've undone your edits ... if you decide to restore them, please explain why you believe this particular label should be taken away from the Siberian towns and applied to the summit weather station.

Best regards, —Soap— 23:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, I'm not convinced .... I've replied to you and undone your edits again. —Soap— 13:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Above the equator

Hi there, regarding this... yes, now I see what you mean. In the context of the subject, I (and probably the original writer would) interpret the qualifier "above" as "to the North of" (just like as "below" would mean "to the South of"). Apparently you interpret it as "at some elevation in height". In your meaning, "below" would mean "under the ground", right? . This looks like a little ambiguity. No big deal. - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Note, user Constant314 seems to agree with the original meaning: [1] . - DVdm (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Note, to avoid all ambiguity, we can use "at the equator": [2]. - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, ok for the compromise "at" instead of "above" though I still believe that "above" is the best term. Because most of the world maps have the Northen Hemisphere "above", many wrongly consider that the Northen Hemisphere is above the Southern Hemisphere but it isn't the case (except if someone proves one day that there is a direction in the universe and notices that Europe is above Australia but according to our present knowledge Europe is not above Australia and Argentina is not below or under Russia). Above the land or the ocean means that you are not on the land or the ocean. --Carlo Colussi (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect citations

I just had to correct many of the citations you made for certifications, which simply didn't work. Could you please check your citations? Each of your edits is creating more work for other editors. --Muhandes (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

For those like me who use Wikipedia little, adding the references correctly in Wikipedia has become a real headache, especially in the boxes outside the "full text"

(for example the presentation box of the article at the top right or in boxes of charts or certifications where the web link of the source is not indicated).

For example in the article Woman (John Lennon song) if I compare your additions with my version in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman_%28John_Lennon_song%29&diff=1129862436&oldid=1129727405 ,

I note that you have put among others id=8312-2886-1. I guess that's completely correct but I don't understand what that means at all. I would like to know what it means.

Here in terms of reference I am very incompetent that's why I ask the help of competent Wikipedia editors on the subject.

Because of my incompetence I am also annoyed because I cannot modify for example in the Certifications box the column "Certified units/sales" because its content is generated automatically by the data entered in the other two columns ("Region" , "Certification").

This bothers me regarding the articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_(John_Lennon_song) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(Just_Like)_Starting_Over because this automatism displays sales in the USA of each of the singles of 1 million because of their gold certification but when one consults the site of the RIAA for these two singles, https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active= default-award&se=John+Lennon#search_section, when you click on "more details" it is indicated for Woman as well as for Starting Over "Certified Units 0.5 Million" and not 1 Million.

If the RIAA is correct in this case it would be necessary to be able to modify the amount of the sales which I cannot currently do.

Why did I add these certifications in the various articles of Lennon's discography ?

Because most of the time the certifications were better informed in the summary article of his discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon_discography than in the dedicated articles. For example the certifications of the album were indicated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon_discography but not in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaved_Fish which is really ridiculous. I thus filled this gap but as I told you before, indicating the references correctly is very complicated for me. This is why your work has been very valuable and I thank you for it.

Summary of my questions:

1) what does id=8312-2886-1 mean, what does it refer to?

2) Is the RIAA right about the sales of only 0.5 million in the USA for Woman and (just like) Starting Over ?

If yes how to modify the article (the column "Certified units/sales") ?

P.S.: I found this link https://entertainment.ha.com/itm/music-memorabilia/awards/john-lennon-just-like-starting-over-riaa-gold-record-award-geffen-49604-1980- /a/7089-46359.s claiming that more than 1 million copies of Starting over had been sold in the US. This contradicts the RIAA link (0.5 million). Don't know what to think. Carlo Colussi (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• The |id= parameter for BPI citations comes from URL of the source. The URL can be found by clicking on the song in the search list on the BPI website. The URL in this case is https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/8312-2886-1
• The sales are automatically calculated based on the consensus achived in the last 12 years between many editors. These sales reflect what the community thinks the correct numbers to be and you very rarely need to change them. In the case of RIAA, they changed the certification from 1 million to 500,000 in 1989. Since "Woman" was certified in 1981 the template is correct. That is the consensus.

See {{Certification Table Entry}} and {{cite certification}} if you want to learn more about the templates used, and I'm always happy to help with any other questions. You may want to ping me in case you leave me a message out of my talk page and you want a prompt response. Muhandes (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at John Lennon, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

a) please begin your message with the word "Hello" before writing anything else, Please review the guide of politeness.

b) Wikipedia should also be coherent between linked articles :

in The Beatles it is written "On 20 September, Lennon announced his departure to the rest of the group" (with 2008 Philip Norman's book "John Lennon", pp. 622–624, cited as the source) so in the John Lennon article, exactly the same date should be indicated in order to be coherent.

In many linked wikipedia articles, months or even years aren't, wrongly, identical (at one time in the John Lennon article, John had founded the Quarrymen in 1957 while in the Quarrymen article, John had founded the group in 1956; happily there is no more contradictions today).

However coherence should be one of the main goals in writing articles.

c) I reverted your edit in the John Lennon by using the same source as in the Beatles article.

About the 2008 Norman Philip source, I would favour instead the 1997 Barry Miles source because it predates that of Philip (the problem is that I can't indicate the exact pages of the Barry Miles book, "Many Years From Now" because my Miles book is hidden in one of my moving boxes.

Thank you Carlo Colussi (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Hello" is not required for politeness. Your comment about "coherent between linked articles" makes no sense. You received a standard template warning for unsourced edits approved by Wikipedia. Sources belong with your edit, not on your talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous answer from an unpolite person, of course coherence between articles makes sense Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)