User talk:Zaxem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives User talk:Zaxem/Archive 1

Contents 1 Is Edit Counts that important? 2 Won't stay dead 3 Amy Fisher copyright violation 4 Derrick Rostagno 5 Tennis page IP vandalism 6 Runners-up versus runner-ups

[edit] Is Edit Counts that important?

In my opinion, edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value and faithfulness one is toward Wikipedia. I questioned that why is everyone opposing someone from becoming an administrator if their edit count is only 1500? You can create 1500 articles and only counts as 1500 edit counts. Unlike some others, who is "faking" edit counts, they created 1500 articles with an edit count as high as 15000. Why? What is the difference between the two? The only one I could think of is that one does not have an adminship, but the one with 15000 edit count does. This is VERY unfair, I am sorry to say.

--Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Won't stay dead

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddy. Looks like it's deja vu all over again. -999 (Talk) 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Fisher copyright violation

It appears that you added text to the Amy Fisher article in September 2005 [1] that seems to be a word-for-word copy of copyrighted information from http://amyelizabethfisher.com/bio.html . I have put up a {{copyvio}} tag on this page and added a link on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. --rogerd 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I certainly recognize the text that's on the Bio page of the amyelizabethfisher.com website. It's almost exactly what I wrote for the Wikipedia page back in September 2005, which you've spotted. I don't know if the amyelizabethfisher.com website even existed back then - I suspect it didn't becuase I'm sure I'd have found it while Google searching information for the article if it had; but until you pointed it out to me I've never come across this website. I think it must be fairly new. I certainly didn't copy anything from it into the Wikipedia article. It appears that the website has lifted the text of the Wikipedia page and used it as their bio. My sources of information when I edited the article were another Amy Fisher website - www.amyfisher.com - which was alreday listed as an external link in the article before I edited it; and a few news articles I found on the web, most notably www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/amy_fisher, which I added as an extra external link at the article when I edited it. Zaxem 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We can just put it back and perhaps put a note next to the external link that the text was copied from wikipedia. Since it is her official site, it seemed a little strange that she or her representative would write that bio that has some negative aspects. If they did lift it from the text that you (and others) wrote for wikipedia, they would have a log of chutzpa putting a copyright notice on it. --rogerd 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WHOIS entry for amyelizabethfisher.com, the entry of the text in question predates the existence of amyelizabethfisher.com. This is not a copyright violation. In fact, amyelizabethfisher.com is wrongfully asserting copyright to information that was obviously obtained from GDFL wikipedia. The previous contents have been restored. --rogerd 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derrick Rostagno

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Derrick Rostagno, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis page IP vandalism

Thanks for all your help. It's getting tough, but we shall prevail! Here's a list based on one IP address which has vandalized many more tennis pages including players who are not that famous (your help is greatly appreciated!) :
Mats Wilander Michael Chang Michael Stich Jim Courier Patrick Rafter Boris Becker Stefan Edberg Goran Ivanišević Yevgeny Kafelnikov Gustavo Kuerten Jim Courier Alberto Berasategui Sergi Bruguera Petr Korda Carlos Moyà Àlex Corretja Vitas Gerulaitis Greg Rusedski Thomas Enqvist Guillermo Vilas Mats Wilander Marcos Baghdatis Kevin Curren MaliVai WashingtonYannick Noah John Lloyd (tennis) Thomas Muster Fernando González

You've already contributed to a lot of these, but hopefully there are some more that you should be aware of. Thanks again. Supertigerman 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I like your bolded version. In fact, I didn't mind the new version that much, only that they were doing it without discussing it and reaching a consensus. And the IP guy is right about the order of scoring for losses. In all other sources, a loss is written from the perspective of the player, hence the sets he lost would be 3-6 not 6-3. I'm all for that, but what are we going to do? Just go to every page and make it all bold, or somehow tell the IP guy to do it too? Supertigerman 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true. Here is a quote from an August 2006 edition of the New York Times: "Second-seeded Rafael Nadal lost to Juan Carlos Ferrero, 7-6 (2), 7-6 (3), yesterday in a matchup of Spaniards in the quarterfinals of the Western & Southern Financial Group Masters in Mason, Ohio." Another example from an Associated Press story this year: "Top-seeded Rafael Nadal lost to Xavier Malisse 6-4, 7-6 (4) Saturday in the semifinals of the Chennai Open." No doubt I could find many other examples if necessary. edited by Tennis expert 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More examples. (1) Bud Collins writing on MSNBC.com on September 10, 2006: "I know that many tennis fans might be disappointed that Andy Roddick lost to Roger Federer, 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the men's singles final at the U.S. Open." (2) News on tennis.com on January 16, 2007: "In last September's Davis Cup semifinal between the United States and Russia, Roddick lost to Dmitry Tursunov 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 3-6, 17-15 in the decisive fourth match." (3) Match notes on tennis-x.com on November 16, 2006: "Tournament History: Lost to James Blake 64 76(0) in his opening match, before defeating Tommy Robredo 76(2) 62." (4) News article on www.australianopen.com on January 26, 2007: "Klein ... is anticipating another crack at Eysseric, who he lost to last week, 7-6(2) 6-2." (5) News article on www.australianopen.com on January 22, 2007: "Chakvetadze ... believes she is a much more complete player now that when she lost to Sharapova 4-6 6-4 7-5 in Los Angeles in 2005." (6) Post-match analysis on www.usopen.org on September 8, 2006: "Jankovic’s Cinderella run in the 2006 US Open ended in the semifinals, as she lost to No. 2 seed Justine Henin-Hardenne in three sets, 4-6, 6-4, 6-0." (7) International Tennis Hall of Fame biography of Dorothy Round Little: "That same year in the U.S. Championships, she lost to Jacobs, 6-4, 5-7, 6-2, in the semifinals." (8) London Times report about the Davis Cup tie between Russia and Argentina on December 4, 2006: "Russia beat Argentina 3-2 (Russia names first) Singles: N Davydenko bt J I Chela 6-1, 6-2, 5-7, 6-4; M Safin lost to D Nalbandian 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. Doubles: Safin and D Tursunov bt Nalbandian and A Calleri 6-2, 6-3, 6-4. Reverse singles: Davydenko lost to Nalbandian 6-2, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4; Safin bt J Acasuso 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 7-6." Tennis expert 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you Zaxem. The whole line should be bolded, and yes, we have to listen to others' opinions before implementing the new format. I left a note on Tennis Expert's page, and am awaiting his reaction, as he has reverted edits but not discussed your proposed format thus far. Supertigerman 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Making the runners-up names bold in the wins rows probably isn't necessary; but either way I'm fine. Supertigerman 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zaxem. Thanks for your message. My opinion: I think this format is very confusing. The point of the GS section is to provide detailed info on opponents and scores. The top priority is wins, so they should definitely have a table of their own. Being runner-up is subsidiary, and could actually be removed in my opinion. If it should be mentioned, it should definitely not be in same table as wins. Boldface does nothing here, except highlighting the player names that did not win. Could be confusing. As to the argument that one can see that a player has played several consecutive finals (and won some and lost some), I think that is not valid here. For that purpose, we have the performance time-line. So, I think the format should not be implemented. As to how the scores are presented in the runner-up subsection, I have no preference. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HJensen" --HJ 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runners-up versus runner-ups

Hello there. What is the source for the information you placed on my discussion page (and your reverts)? Tennis expert 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)