203.63.150.37

New tennis charts

Please bring to the appropriate talk pages if you want to include those new tennis charts like the one at List of WTA number 1 ranked singles tennis players. Others may agree with you in liking them but I find them superfluous and ugly. You appear to be new here so it's great to be bold and add something but if it gets challenged you don't add it back. You bring it to the article talk page to convince others of its worth. In this case, since it is multiple articles, you should bring it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis and see how others feel. Maybe they'll agree with your additions of other peoples' work but I certainly do not. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I find the timelines to be useful aids for understanding who was number 1 at which time, and for showing the domination of certain players, which is why I copied from my home wiki to the english one. In the tables, Rafter's 1 week at number one for example takes up the same space as Federer's 237 weeks (1 row), so you don't get a good grasp of the time spans involved, whereas with timelines you do. The doubles timelines are more chaotic with so many players bouncing in and out of that position, so I'm not bothered if those aren't kept, but the singles ones I think should be. I'm not willing to start some major discussion, so I would suggest reinstating the singles ones for a bit to see if other users objects to them. I wouldn't have reverted you but I found your edit summaries calling the timelines "horrible" and "useless" to be unnecessarily combative. Have a good day and week. 203.63.150.37 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think. If there is an objection you NEVER re-add without discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Again with the combativeness. Firstly, never say "NEVER" on Wikipedia, where editors are free to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules including whichever ones you are using to gatekeep these articles. Secondly, let's look at the definition of "trivia" https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/trivia "unimportant matters, details, or information". Timelines showing the chronology of the number 1 tennis players on pages specifically about the number 1 tennis players simply don't meet that definition. It's ok to object to things because you just don't like them, but don't try to justify your emotions-based objections with rules that don't apply in those situations. Have a good day and week. 203.63.150.37 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting this info that you are free to ignore every singles rules. That stuff should be out until discussed. If others agree it should go back. That plain and simple... the way it is usually done around here. So yeah when people don't play by the rules they deserve to be pretty much ignored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The policy page I linked says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So yeah when people don't know the basic rules of Wikipedia they deserve to be pretty much ignored. 203.63.150.37 (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I just found this post on a tennis forum https://old.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/ssf985/djokovic_completes_360_weeks_as_world_no_1_today/hx0591c/. People are already finding the timelines useful... thank goodness I undid your trigger-happy reverts. It's no wonder Wikipedia has such a hard time recruiting new editors when established editors simply revert anything they don't like. 220.244.89.84 (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably your own post. It will be removed here as soon as someone else sees the mess. You have some serious issues on protocol so I think your time at Wikipedia may be short unless you start following some basic guidelines. Time will tell. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And now others have removed it. As I said, bring it to the talk page and try to convince editors that it has worth. Maybe some will agree with you. If you need help in forming the talk-page query I can surely help you out there, but it must be discussed and agreed to before it is ever brought back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Not my own post, but not surprising that you would suffer from the backfire effect. Raising "protocol" and making veiled threats is comical when I've already had to correct you twice, and your block log is anything but clean https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Fyunck%28click%29. 220.244.90.74 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow really. Yeah I had 3 blocks listed in 16 years. I'll take that over an unlisted anonymous editor from Adelaide Australia who has been at Wikipedia for a week. As I said, bring it to talk to convince editors of its worth and all is well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've also been on Wikipedia for years, just rarely the English one. Never have been blocked. Not sure what my current city has to do with the quality of my edits any more than Canoga Park, Los Angeles has to do with yours. I think our conversation here has run its course. A parting bit of wisdom for you: to take revenge on an enemy, give him an elephant -- first he must thank you for the gift, and then the elephant's appetite will deplete your enemy's resources. 203.217.80.13 (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

---