You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out onto the court to play each other; to have heard the applause, to have heard dead silence from the crowd as a point was in progress. The years have come and gone as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, and Sampras... and now the space age materials and all-court players such as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King, Goolagong, and Navratilova, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Graf and Williams. Service has changed from having to keep one foot on the ground or just getting the ball in play, to players who can fire a dart that only high speed cameras can behold. The four majors have changed in my lifetime from three grass courts and one clay court, to one grass court, two acrylic courts, and one clay court. The courts have also been changed in the last 20 years to be closer to the same speed; Wimbledon slowed down and the French Open sped up. The balls have also been slowed down and with all those changes the tougher-to-master net game has disappeared but the multi-surface champions have blossomed.

Of course I wasn't there in the 1920's when tennis truly went international and the ILTF wrote into their bylaws that no Major championship could claim to be a "world championship" or that the language of tennis would be "for ever in English", but the repercussions of those early days, and binding together of adversarial organizations, laid the groundwork for what we have today. The sport is special to me and it always will be. As we venture into the unknown of pandemics and crowdless stadiums lets applaud how far we've come since Spencer Gore won the first Wimbledon Championships back in 1877. We'll get through this with flying colors, and not just tennis. We'll mourn our great losses but eventually move on like juggernaut. Tennis looks like it's in good hands with the youngest generation of players ready to grab the brass ring from the seats of their steads, but the legends are still hoping they get some splinters from reaching out too quickly. Cheers.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
98		Serve-and-volley (talk)	Add sources
52		2010 Rafael Nadal tennis season (talk)	Add sources
169		2024 ITF Men's World Tennis Tour (talk)	Add sources
7		Baron Leighton of St Mellons (talk)	Add sources
35		Tennis male players statistics (talk)	Add sources
13		Champions Tennis League (talk)	Add sources
335		Ajay Thakur (talk)	Cleanup
8		Victorian Championships (talk)	Cleanup
925		Myanmar conflict (talk)	Cleanup
7		2002 Hopman Cup (talk)	Expand
12		2012 in tennis (talk)	Expand
395		WTA Tour (talk)	Expand
3,692		Max Purcell (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8,006		Badminton (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,002		Williams sisters (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5		Cryopterygius (talk)	Merge
9		Nathalie Djurberg (talk)	Merge
95		Second Holocaust (talk)	Merge
122		Jack Kramer (talk)	Wikify
22		Grand Slam of Ultrarunning (talk)	Wikify
91		Joan Evans (actress) (talk)	Wikify
4		Nagi Daifullah (talk)	Orphan
7		Roliball (talk)	Orphan
4		Brainshuttle (talk)	Orphan
340		Warp Speed Warriors (talk)	Stub
12		Bertha Townsend (talk)	Stub
20		Vasili Kuznetsov (decathlete) (talk)	Stub
14		Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (talk)	Stub
33		Vladimir Yashchenko (talk)	Stub
56		Credit One Stadium (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from Talk:Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect ATX Open has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 13 § ATX Open until a consensus is reached. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This is one the crazier things I've seen administrators do. An improperly moved article gets fixed by me and in so doing I create an "ATX Open" redirect. I created it and I wanted it deleted so that in the future, the editors who are actually working on the draft article of "ATX Open" can get it created when it's finished in the future. Why is this so hard to fix? It seems so simple. The disruptive editor who created the problem must be laughing his head off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a crazy thing that debatable speedy deletion requests get denied. That's always been the practice. And the speedy deletion request was debatable - it was already denied once by an admin and while I can't find any direct link between ATX Open and the Texas Open, I can't find any information clearly ruling it out. Besides, the redirect is now replaced by a noticeable deletion request tag, which IMHO signals its dubious nature sufficiently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I guess deleting the title is debatable since it will be re-created in a week anyway, but the redirect is not. The argument that you couldn't find a direct link is a terrible argument. I can't find a direct link that George Washington wasn't also called Peter Dumpling, so we should leave the link? There is plenty of evidence it is not the same such as the tournament website calling it the inaugural event; the WTA calling it the inaugural event; the city of Austin calls it the inaugural event; Tennis World magazine does the same as does Tennis Infinity. The redirect should have been removed instantly which is why I initially removed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, recently you have reverted several tennis statistics updates without proper edit summary. Moreover, the edits you reverted also appeared to be correct, and I have restored them. Examples: [1][2] Gap9551 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gap9551: You are correct. While I have explained several times, I did not in those occasions when it was the umpteenth time I had to correct it. If you note in the reverts not ALL the info was correct. Tags were removed such as "sources needed" or "trivial information". Just because an editor adds good info along with bad does not mean I had to piecemeal fix it. I do the first couple of times, but then I remove it all. It is up to the IP to re-add it without the errors. You'll note he just did it again. But I did only mean to do one IP revert instead of three. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The goods edits were separate edits, so it's not hard to leave them alone. Also, one of them was by me, and I didn't make any controversial edits around the same time. Gap9551 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gap9551: Yeah. Sometimes I just get a button in my header asking if I want to revert an edit and I just do it. I'll try and be more careful. But also sometimes I can't revert a bad edit if you later add to an edit. It'll say you can't undo because another editor has changed something. It's all or nothing, so we have to go back to the last known good page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case you can manually restore the good edit. Gap9551 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gap9551: That depends on how much there is to re-add. I don't think you can just click a button and say re-add the good edit. If there's 50 items to re-add, then it won't happen. However if I leave a good summary to let you know what needs to be re-added, it would be better. I try to catch the anon ips as fast as I can to minimize the damage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article György Balázs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/György Balázs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've noticed your contributions to tennis career statistics, removing Russian flags. Whilst this is standard for tournaments now, it hurts the continuity of career statistics. Can you raise a topic somewhere to see about achieving a consensus before engaging in multiple edit wars? Thanks. WhySoSerious? (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WhySoSerious?: No it does not. They did not play a Russian player in those tournaments per the WTA ATP and ITF. This has been discussed for Russian and Belarus players multiple times. What continuity does this hurt? They represented no country when they played and it is original research to say otherwise. Look at the ATP and WTA website for those events since March 1 2022. Look at the actual source for Indian Wells 2022. Neither Russia nor Belarus were in that event per all rules. You can't just invent something out of nothing. To that end of unsourced flags you bet I have started a topic. You should be helping to fix these things not create unsourced problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Дейноніх (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. For someone who has done 5 reverts to two different editors in 24 hours I'd be worried about a boomerang block. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this edit you re-capped what you had previously lowercased. What's the theory there? Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dicklyon: I wasn't sure what the deal was on that edit of yours. We had all agreed at the tennis project that ndashes have significance so that in that same box, Single – Doubles are capitalized but that it would be "– Mixed doubles" if we used the full term. When I see "– Hard –" it looks to follow the same pattern. I wasn't sure so I looked back five years of ATP Tours and they all use "Hard" when separated by –. Since someone had already reverted your edit but I had to revert part of their edit, I put back the capitalized change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I recall correctly, the "dash theory" was about subtitles in article titles (and didn't reach consensus). In other contexts, capping after a dash is not generally done. I've been lowercasing these tennis surfaces after semicolon, too. I don't think there's a relevant difference. Do you? Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dicklyon: We absolutely talked about that same box being "Singles–Doubles–Mixed doubles", and the project decided to go with Singles–Doubles–Mixed rather than using lower case doubles. It looks like HARD would use the same principle in that box. Why would we do part of the box differently? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could explain my reasoning, but it might be best to just hear from others. Should we open a discussion some place? Or invite people to here? Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dicklyon: I started a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis to see what others think. I haven't got a clue since it was never talked about. We only discussed Singles–Doubles–Mixed doubles and the affect ndashes had on "Mixed doubles", nothing on "Grass" sandwiched between dollars and draw-size. It seems like it would follow our Singles–Doubles–Mixed header discussion but perhaps the project feels court type is different in some way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Novak Djokovic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vanjagenije: It goes against the example given in MOS. But understood. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And one other thing. I did not revert the last issue on Novak Djokovic. I stopped. Instead I stopped reverting and simply made sure it complied with Wikipedia MOS MOS:PRONPLACEMENT. We had the discussion at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt and was thanked for making sure it complied with good examples rather than wrong examples. Djokovic's article is an example in MOS as what not to do. When there is more than one tiny example of pronunciation it should be a footnote. Tennis articles really go overboard and make the leads hard to read. That can't be good for our readers. But I stopped moving it to a new section since there was a complaint and simply went with MOS. And i said so in the summary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you explain why you reverted my edit on the above article with the comment - "improper grammar when tallying"? In English grammar compound nouns with a noun hyphenated with another part of speech (like up) only take the plural on the noun. This can be confirmed from the OED and Wiktionary and from Swan (2019 reprint), the grammar guidebook for English teachers p117. Exceptions do not exist for different applications of the noun itself since English grammar does not have any conventions for complications of that type. Perhaps you can supply your reference for your stand on this grammar point? Scootertop (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scootertop: I think I can help. This is something that was discussed years ago and we actually had to talk to the publishers of the OED, CMoS and others. There is only one reason we use runners in runners-up, and that is because there are multiple runners. It is the standard way to do it and the way it is meant 99.9% of the time. What we have here is quite different in that we are totaling the term as a whole. They explained that a more usual way to handle our situation of tallying runner-up trophies is to say 5 titles and 7 runner-up finishes. But if we are simply totaling the number of runner-up finishes without using "finishes" it is a total of the whole as there are not multiple runners. We are actually totaling (runner-up) not the usual (runner)-up. So it should be runner-ups. It is an unusual situation to be sure. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all well and good but you don't give a source for that and it seems just a Distinction without a difference as the agent noun and the abstract noun refer to the same thing (coming second). It actually chimes in with one of my references that describes "runner-ups" as a colloquialism only, and so similar to the fairly common errors in some other compound nouns such as "mother-in-laws", which wouldn't be considered preferable to "mothers-in-law" and so not a reason to revert. If you don't have a verifiable reference, I'm going to reinstate my edit.--Scootertop (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I will revert it as wikipedia consensus. It made perfect sense when discussed years ago. And it would be the same with mothers-in-law when discussing multiple mothers rather than tallying the number of times you count the word "mother-in-law" in a book index. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Fyunck, this is still kind of speculative but I thought I'd ask for your input. At the US Open I met the photographer Jimmie48 (www.j48tennis.net) and he was open to the idea of donating a small number of photos for Wikipedia. He said he had been asked before but found the process of uploading to Flickr to do free licensing fairly complicated. I'm planning to reach out by email after the Open with hopefully an easier method. At the moment I'm eyeing a trophy photo for Świątek's infobox [3] and haven't yet found ideal photos for the Sabalenka (maybe [4]?) and Rybakina infoboxes. Thought I'd let you know in case you have the enthusiasm to look through his catalog for what might improve those articles (or others). I'd value your input. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hameltion: We always need more good photos. And he's right about uploading being a problem for some. I tried in vain to get a couple Margaret Court photos for her wiki page. I was in actual email conversations with her personally and she agreed to upload to flicker several personal photos (old and new). They kept making her jump through so many hopes every time she uploaded that it frustrated her. It was never good enough for wikimedia. I finally had to tell her I'm sorry I asked her for pics and apologized for wikipedia rules. Wikipedia would not let me do it for her so to this day we have pretty much nothing. The pic that's in her infobox looks to be stolen from a video so I just reported it for admin to check. The pics we need most are of older players who attend events that we have no good free photos of. Players like Virginia Wade, Rosemary Casals, Pam Shriver, Fred Stolle, etc... These are tennis icons that occasionally attend events yet we only have blurry pics or no pics at all. They won't be around a lot longer and I wish photographers that attend events would snap some shots of famous players in their seats. I'll look at his catalog. You seem to go to a lot of tennis events yourself.... I'm envious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How frustrating re Court, and good point about older players. I had already been thinking about these Original Nine photos [5] [6]; will add Wade [7] as a priority too. I just uploaded, as it happens, some photos of Shriver from USO (Commons link). I've been lucky this year that travel has happened to coincide or I've been able to extend it around some tennis events. By the way, your ping didn't go through because it was added in a different edit from the signature. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hameltion: Oops... meant to change the sig too. Sometimes I think editors are more interested in over-flooding an article in pics rather than adding pics to articles that really need them. I get it though...It's a player they really like and follow they want the best for that particular article. I also changed my mind at your Sabalenka talk topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any opinions on this Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC on capitalizing after dash in sports article names. I ran into it after a notification that one of the tennis articles was moved here and I'm not sure if the consensus is really there or we need more discussion. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamtt9: We had an rfc of this awhile back and it was to keep the capitalization the first word after the dash. No one seems to have informed the proper projects that an rfc was underway that undermines the last rfc. Probably on purpose. I just moved it back. We had huge discussions over here, and over here, and over here. This was pretty much a done deal in the aftermath. It was a compromise of all parties but we went through all the changes and got it done. I have no idea why on earth we would go through it again when an amicable outcome was reached. It looks like a couple more articles were moved without informing sports projects about the conversation. I moved the tennis articles back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I just found the discussion itself interesting too. It didn't seem like that strong of a consensus and then the discussion was closed with almost no real explanation by an account with only 100 or so edits. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamtt9: A bit strange, and it flies in the face of other agreements from 2021/2022. We get compromises for agreement sake, change thousands of articles to get them stable, and then they keep moving the goalposts. Getting tired of this to be honest. We have longstanding-consensus when we changed thousands of articles in the huge RFC's we were invited to. We knew the first word after the ndash could be capitalized and we use that fact in almost every article. You don't just take anther discussion on a few items and change what was compromised and agreed to a couple years ago. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I hope you are having a lovely weekend.

I am here to discuss about the expansion of Djokovic's 2011 season...

In Djokovic’s wiki page, every single one of his seasons describe each of his grand slam campaigns, SEPT for the 2011 season, which is odd, considering that it is literally one of the greatest seasons in Tennis history. Furthermore, between 2007 and 2016, all of his seasons have at least four paragraphs, SEPT for the 2011 season. This is why I believe the 2011 needs to be expanded. Not only because it deserves so, but in order to be in tune with the other seasons of Djokovic’s wiki page.

You stated that my edit was “Way too much”, and you are probably right. My version of his 2011 season had 1089 words, which is significantly higher than his next biggest season, the 2015 one, which only has 869 words. That is why I will re-insert my edit, but in a more summarized way. Before I do it, however, I would like to hear your advice about this.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, it's supposed to be a short synopsis of his season. It is one of the great seasons in tennis history.... it must be top 20? But that's why it has its own separate article... so this one doesn't get too bloated. Each section could even be shorter in my book, especially 2015. I know editors want as much as possible but it could simply list his titles and list his major titles with who he beat. Do we really need more than that, especially with grandiose details in another separate article? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally do not think that simply listing his titles and listing his major titles with who he beat is enough. All the feats he achieves and all the records he breaks along the way should be mentioned if notable enough. The separate articles will then have all the grandiose details, such as the wildly fluctuating fortunes of the important games or those minor records who are simply not notable.

My new version of his 2011 season will be more summarized, somewhere around 700-800 words like the 2010, 2015, and 2023 seasons. I hope you like my much shorter version.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is done. You can cut down or remove some stuff if you want to. Thank you for your time.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only shortened a couple sentences and removed a couple trivial facts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I have seen. I agree with all of them. Your edits were all very assertive (the McEnroe thing was that 42-0 is the best start to a season in the Open Era). We got it all the way down to 666 words.

It was a pleasure to reach a middle ground with you.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. As you said the McEnroe thing was Open Era record but the sentence said nothing about that... and it is quite far from the historical record of 68-0 or 78-1 for the entire season, not just the start. The section is now much longer than it was but shorter than the first effort. I think it's improved in the end. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Here I am again.

I believe that what you found "way over the top" in my edit was the line about Djoko Damjanovic (and you are absolutely right. It really is). So I will re-insert my edit without that line.

Regarding the "We do not need his ancestry at all", well... Now that I have removed Djoko Damjanovic, the only ancestry that remains in my edit are his links with Kosovo, Montenegro and Croatia, which I think should be mentioned. Other top athletes, such as Messi and even Federer, talk about the origins of their family.

I would like to hear your advice about this.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Barr Theo: Actually here are my thoughts. Federer's early/personal life section is tiny compared to Djokovic's. Much much smaller. Federer's is about 2/5s the size of Djokovic's. This is an encyclopedia not a book so we want the highlights here. We get complaints from administrators all the time about the length of some of our tennis articles. Before you start adding to Djokovic's article, first the early life section should be cut by at least 1/2... It is gigantic. I just trimmed it down to a manageable level. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again.

Although I am slightly disappointed (given the hours I put into that), I understand where you are coming from. I mean, not even Andy Murray's early life section (+600 words) was that big (+900 words).

I agree with your changes for the most part, but I am going to re-add two or three details that I think are notable enough, such as the "parents gave him a mini-racket" line, which is notable because is literally the whole reason why he began playing tennis in the first place.

But do not worry, I will not even exceed the 450-word mark this time (currently at 386).

PS: I am starting to enjoy our dynamic. I take the initiative to expand while you keep me in check of information overload. We go back and forth a lot, but in the end, he always seem to find some sort of healthy equilibrium. And therefore, I would like to let you know that either tomorrow or after tomorrow, I will expand his juniors career with a tremendous edit (just like I did with 2011), so feel free to trim that edit as best as you can.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure why you did not reply to me. Perhaps you missed the notification.

But anyways, I have just re-added that important detail to his early life, which now has 444 words. I am going to start working on his junior career now.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't see a question so I didn't reply. Again my thoughts are that the Djokovic article is already way too long. If you add something you should also remove something to compensate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is finally done. It took a while because I had to create the likes of Tennis Europe Junior Tour, Tennis European Junior Championships, ITF World Junior Championship in order to provide better back up to this edit.

This time I had the care to trim my Edit myself. For instance, the original draft included the details of his participations in the winter and summer cups (he won the latter), as well as his deep runs in Genoa and Arezzo in April 2001 (semifinal and final). I think I did a good job at trimming it, and for this reason you might find it a little bit harder to trim that much yourself, so take it easy.

I am now aiming at doing my fourth and last expansion in Djokovic's page, which revolves around his Futures and Challenger titles. After that, I am done with Djokovic... happily for you, haha.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that at Talk:Paul Bettany, you edited several other people's comments, including mine. Please do not do that. If I had wanted it to read a certain way, I would have typed it that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Sorry. Some were nested improperly for an rfc, but you are correct that I was trying to help any future closer by bolding the terms under discussion and overstepped. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Georges Feydeau on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Starbucks unions on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me Fyunck! I notice you have recently reverted my addition to the Novak Djokovic page, claiming it is not relevant. I beg to differ! It is quite relevant that Djokovic suggests in that interview that he may not play past 50: given all of his recent success, as silly as setting a limit of that age sounds it does provide more of a framework than we've had so far for his likelihood to end his career by a certain date.

So, I contend my edit is relevant and request that you revert it back! HELLOLET'SEDIT (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Fyunck(click), may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your edit as: 1. Team competition=tournament (points are still counted) 2. If you really think 0 is the correct description, please change all the values of United Cup participants (although this will be controversial). Thanks, and sorry for disturbing. Timothytyy (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fyunck(click)

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]