TheTennisObserver

Re: My Blocked Status On The Roger Federer Page

A few days ago somebody changed the wording of the first paragraph of the Federer article from "many consider him to be the greatest tennis player ever" to "he is considered one of the greatest..." Apparently I violated the 3-revert rule by changing the wording back to "the greatest player ever."

The issue here is pretty straightforward.

Numerous tennis legends and esteemed commentators - from Jack Kramer, Billie Jean King and Cliff Drysdale to Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras and Simon Barnes - do in fact consider Federer the greatest tennis player ever, and are on record saying so. By noting this fact Wikipedia is NOT being partial to Federer or staking out a position on the issue. (I don't think this last sentence requires explication.)

Anyway, if somebody can help me get my editing rights back, or offer suggestions on how to do so, I would be quite grateful.

(For the record, I've played and followed the game of tennis for over 30 years.)

• You were only blocked for 24 hours. Has someone protected the Roger Federer article to stop any further editing?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, Elen, because today (June 12) a couple of people edited the article. My "24-hour" block began on the 9th, so I'm not sure why I'm still unable to edit the main page. Thanks for the reply. TheTennisObserver (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

I checked - the page had been fully protected, but was reduced to semi protection late on the 9th. You are not currently blocked, but this account is less than four days old. Accounts which have not yet been autoconfirmed (less that four days old and/or less than ten edits) may not edit a semiprotected article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for all the help, Elen. It's much appreciated. TheTennisObserver (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC) TheTennisObserver

No worries - give it another day and you can get back to it. Although from the looks of the talk page, they may have reached agreement on wording.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Federer Article: Federer-Nadal Rivalry

You're right that it is misleading and someone suggested a good idea. Instead of highlighting their respective tallies on specific surfaces there are two better options:

1) Briefly describe their meetings at each of the grand-slams detailing who has one what. This will give the idea how dominant Nadal has been on clay but his worse success on other surfaces against Federer. Then we give the overall result.

2)Briefly describe every encounter detailing who has won and lost. I am less in favour of this because it will add too much detail that has already been covered (and won't give the desired impression as well)

Basically I don't have enough time to do this at the moment (as referencing it all will be quite a job!). However if you want to do this on your sandbox (which you can create:User:TheTennisObserver/Sandbox) then I would be more than happy to paste it into the article (or you can if you have your rights back). If not, give me a week and I can do it myself. Hope this helps! Bittersweetsmile (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bittersweet, I appreciate both your time and suggestions. I must respectfully disagree with what you've said above. I think it would be far less arduous and just as, if not more, objective to add a sentence or two explaining that 9 of Nadal's 13 wins over Federer have come on the clay surface. I don't see how the inclusion of such a sentence would compromise that paragraph's integrity. Of course, a lot would depend on the wording. TheTennisObserver (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Your change is good. As you can see I have added, in the interest of clarification, names to the results you put in brackets. Thanks for solving something that seemed it might get complicated so simply! Bittersweetsmile (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! I like the change that you made the other day. It's succinct and accurate. TheTennisObserver (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Federer: Greatest Ever

Hi TennisObserver, thanks for the heads-up and your contribution to the debate. If you come by any more reputable sources that cite Federer as the greatest of all time (as have been cited by the article) please add them as references. Some of the references you have provided on the talk page leave a lot of room for interpretation since they do not deem Federer unequivocally the greatest player of "all time" but instead imply that he is the greatest of his generation, the best of his era etc (for ex. "the best I have played against"). Such references simply provide fodder to the people who wish to keep fostering the "debate" based on a skewed perspective. Societal and general standards apply in this regard and despite some detractors the overwhelming majority of tennis pundits do consider Federer the greatest of all time. Ciao!TennisGrandSlam (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slam, for some reason I'm not able to make changes to the first few paragraphs of the article; perhaps, as Elen noted above, it is semi-protected. One thing you have to remember is that legends of the game are asked different questions and often respond in their own way. I think "best player ever" rather than "greatest player ever" is a distinction without a difference. If you go to the Talk page, you'll see that Pete Sampras, John Lloyd, Tracy Austin, and Simon Barnes have used the phrase "greatest player ever." Those using the phrase (or some variant) of "best ever" include Jack Kramer, Bjorn Borg, Rafael Nadal, David Ferrer, Cliff Drysdale, and Tim Henman. On many occasions I've heard John McEnroe refer to Federer as the "greatest ever." I'll be on the look-out for more such references. Thanks again for all your assistance! TheTennisObserver (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver