Striving4

Hello, Striving4, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place. If you are stuck, and looking for help, just type {{helpme}} and your question here on your user talk page, and a more experienced Wikipedian will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

It might seem a lot but you'll get the hang of it and there's plenty of people out there willing to help out. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Technopat (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be doing alright from what I can see, I'd ignore the random. :) Orderinchaos 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Career Slam Runners up

This is under discussion on the tennis statistics talk page. Please don't add any more data on this topic till we resolve this. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to continue adding data, as you seem to be the only person who opposes it. Cheers. Striving4 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just asked about it. You have to give people enough time to assimilate the info before they comment. You seem to be doing an awful lot of tennis expansion for a new user... do you have another handle here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, WP:AGF? Orderinchaos 03:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I think you would be well served to visit this article about wikipedia policy LEAD, which states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." My lead is yours leaves many things lacking!69.137.120.81 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Like what? Numerous references to "legendary" players, for instance? Striving4 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way three time finalist do not get mentioned in the lead only four time do, and if they are they are only mentioned because the lost or beat a four time finalist, way too many three timers!69.137.120.81 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be winning when it is in the past, which is a future tense verb! It must be won to be past tense!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Striving4 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS

Hey Striving4, thanks for your contributions so far. There's been some discussion about your recent arrival and knowledgeable edits at the tennis project. I thought I'd let you know. In the meantime, if you could try, where possible, to add an edit summary explaining why you've made the changes you have, it'd be much appreciated. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Just a quick note to say that there was nothing personal in the project's approach to your recent edits. As a relatively new account, you clearly have a good grasp of our guidelines and policies, and that may make people suspicious. I seriously hope you can continue to contribute positively to the project, and perhaps would be prepared to engage in project discussions in the future. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rosewall

Wow, I've only really started looking at his article recently, it's in a terrible state, isn't it? I'd be more than happy to try to help you with cleaning it up a bit, if you're interested? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Majors

Please stop it with removing the term Majors and major championships from tennis articles. It's a term that's been around since probably before you were born... far longer than the phrase Grand Slam tournament. Thank you. Also, though I didn't add it, the first French championship was played on grass but afaik the rest were on clay. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's been around so long, you shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever citing it. Regards. Striving4 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Venus Williams' FO serve record

Hi, dont you know that Venus reset the record to 207KM/H at Roland Garros this year? The record she did was 206Km/H in 2007 and Serena tied in 1st round this year. But Venus soon gets 207KM/H (128.6MPH) in 2nd round. So please dont do revise again. http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/extrastats/speed_ws.html You can see from the reference: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/18940094 Williams noticed the readout of 206 kph — which translates to 128 mph — on the court’s radar meter and let out a laugh, cracking her concentration.

From the French Open official website, Venus definitely achieved a new record. Maybe reporters didnt notice that but the official site is absolutely trustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vswfan(talk • contribs) 07:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem has been your refusal to cite the information you add. When you add stuff to an article, it is your burden to reference it. Striving4 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been reported at WP:AN3

See WP:AN3#User:Striving4 reported by User:Fyunck(click). You may add your own comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Indef

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Striving4 reported by User:Fyunck (Result: Indef ). Reviewing admins should also note the warnings that this editor removed from his talk. My most recent offer was deleted here. My proposal was: "Any evidence that you are willing to patiently negotiate with others might be enough to avoid sanctions. For example, you could promise to stop edit-warring on tennis articles and offer to seek consensus before doing a large number of article moves." See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert for previous background. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the dysfunctionality of this place is appalling. I was going to respond to Mr. EdJohnston but he was too impatient. Just look at the time between his note to me and the permanent block he imposed. I deleted his post because it was embarrassing. It is still in the history of my talk page and I was going to use it when responding. (Is it against the rules to delete something on your own talk page?) But when he wrote to me, I was in the middle of creating a new tennis article and was paying for access to a database. Besides, it seems like he had already found me guilty of being Tennis expert, violating the three revert rule (when I didn't), moving articles without consensus (when every move, as noted by The Rambling Man, was required by WP:Title, which I think is derived from consensus), and who knows what else. He apparently was itching for a reason to impose the block. No other administrator did anything in response to the 3RR note that Fyunck posted. What does that say? I've been treated very badly and with suspicion ever since I registered for an account, with Fyunck being the worst and The Rambling Man and Orderinchaos being the exceptions. I appreciate their kind words. But now, all my work (which I was proud of) has been reversed, I've been permanently blocked, Fyunck has posted something on my user page that I'm not allowed to remove, etc. So, I'm gone for good. Striving4 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were, in fact, planning to appeal your block, or respond to my latest offer, feel free to do so here. You had removed Fyunck's 3RR warning to you from your talk page as 'harassment,' which suggested to me that you were unlikely to negotiate. You had already broken 3RR at Margaret Court by the time he gave you the warning, but if you had made any kind of positive reply to his message, it is unlikely that any action would have been taken against you at the 3RR board. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR warning is not per se harassment. But a 3RR warning from Fyunck in the context of everything else he had been doing to me was harassment. It's unbelievable that you didn't take the time to investigate before making assumptions and a permanent block (23 minutes after your last message to me, which I noted that I had read). (I was going to get back to you after I finished adding a long list of results to List of women's singles finalists at the Pacific Southwest Open, which has now been deleted.) Did you look at Fyunck's edits, including (but not limited to) the Margaret Court article? Did you look at his gaming the 3RR rule there [1]? Did you see his reversion of countless edits in the Grand Slam (tennis) article just because he didn't like ONE of them [2]? Did you look at the things he had been saying about me around Wikipedia? For example, in reference to my work and his discomfort at changes, he said "it's as if the tennis articles were hit by a bomb of edits."[3] Another from him was that he was inclined to revert all my edits on sight if I didn't include the edit summary he believed to be necessary [4]. Did you see that? Did you look at the warning from Orderinchaos to him to assume good faith? Did you look at the warning from Rambo's Revenge to Fyunck to quit biting me[5]? Did you see where The Rambling Man tried to encourage me in the face of so much negativity [6]? Have you looked at all the good things I've done, particularly to the Ken Rosewall article? Did you look at where I participated in a long discussion at Grand Slam (tennis) about the term "Major" and how hostile Fyunck was there? I can't believe you looked at any of these things because I'm going to assume you're a reasonable, fair person. And please explain how I violated the 3RR rule in the Margaret Court article. The edits Fyunck listed were mostly different from each other. Striving4 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Striving4. I understand this is difficult, and for what it's worth, the community would most certainly regret any misidentification. We've had users here who have abused their position and been indefinitely blocked for disruption. Unfortunately, when we see new users editing with the skill you have, alarm bells ring. If you'd be prepared to undergo a voluntary checkuser or give a definitive statement of your experience, I'd like to think the rest of the community would be more than happy to welcome you (and help you) to edit the various tennis articles in which you're interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been around Wikipedia a long time as an IP editor in many different subject matter areas. That's where I gained the experience that seems to be so suspicious. (I could be wrong, but IP editors do most of the editing around here.) I registered a few weeks ago because I wanted to be able to watchlist articles and because my IP addresses kept changing because of my Internet provider. I saw how terrible the tennis articles were and decided to concentrate on them at first, along with some non-tennis Australian articles. Striving4 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well that's fine, and as I said, the community is being cautious to avoid long-term blocked editors from sneaking back in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.253.75.221 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/97.77.159.243 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)