User talk:HJensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there! Leave your message at the bottom, followed by a signature. I will reply on this talk page so as to maintain continuity in discussions. So, remember to watch this page — I won't notify you directly on your talk page.
Finally, please be civil when leaving a message.
Archive
Archives
July 2006 — September 7, 2007


Contents

[edit] RfM for Djokovic

I've requested mediation for the Djokovic article here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković and listed you as an involved party. -- Yano 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok! That's fine.--HJensen, talk 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine? Nice of you to contend so but i differ. Frank Zappa was a dull homophobic, misogynist which is why he appeals to 13 year old boys and dull homophobic misogynists. How dare you edit the truth. This isn't Eastern Europe. It's the net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.27.193 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment "It's fine" referred to accepting being an involved party in the issue about renaming the Đoković article. I fail to see what Frank Zappa has to do with this, and your statements are on the verge of incivility.--HJensen, talk 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I seem to have edited the wrong complaints entry. I was trying to comment on the degree to which Zappa influenced Václav Havel. I have no problems with tennis players.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.27.193 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 September 2007

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Arbcom request filed

I've opened a request for the Novak Ðoković dispute at this location. Orderinchaos 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. An admirably balanced description of the situation. Thanks!--HJensen, talk 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to get this resolved one way or the other, so we can move on and talk about tennis instead of linguistics. :) It may well be the consensus or a ruling goes against my opinion, but I can wear that. Orderinchaos 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Re your comment on the Arbcom btw - sorry for not clarifying in my initial notice above - anyone (not limited to the parties) can post a statement of no more than 500 words putting forward their view on the situation. Doing as you have (creating the "Statement by..." section) is correct. (Note too that the rejection is a vote by that particular arbitrator, it's if a few of them vote the same way that there is a problem) Orderinchaos 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DubRoomSpecial DVDRelease2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DubRoomSpecial DVDRelease2005.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DubRoomSpecial VideoRelease1982.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DubRoomSpecial VideoRelease1982.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Players' playing style and racquet

Thank you very much for the information. I was wondering why it was never visible. It makes sense now. Regards. --Leonidas1982 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ZPCD91.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZPCD91.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Does Humor Belong in Music DVD.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Does Humor Belong in Music DVD.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still impressed

I just noticed that you removed my comment from the talkpage. Perhaps it was an accident, or perhaps you took it as an sarcastic remark, or perhaps you're just modest. Anyway, it was meant as a genuine compliment, slightly dressed up with a pinch of irony :-) - Keep up the good work and Cheers! DVdm (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It was completely accidental. I had copied the code into an editor and then inserted my new comments. Then I pasted things back into Wiki a few hours later. In that process I overlooked your nice comments. Sorry about that - I have restored the comments. Thanks a lot for the kind words!HJensen, talk 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

Hello,

I have tried to understand some updates you recently made in the Frank Zappa article.

It seems some of these actions were motivated by 'guidelines' from Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Embedded_list#How_many_links_in_each_article.3F saying that only 1 or 2 links are needed at the end of an article.

External links that were removed pointed to websites that could be used as sources as they do contain information that cannot be found anywhere else.

I am not saying that these links should stay where they were, however I think that in some cases organising information may be better than erasing information.

Thanks for your understanding.

Maroual (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I try to organize information as is best possible. I have for now, however, edited in conformity with the GA nomination revision comments. If the links (as also suggested by the reviewer) can be used as sources (e.g., as inline citations), this will be great. But they should not just be there in order to be there. I have, just to make that clear, nothing against any of the sites that were listed per se. --HJensen, talk 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice work by the way! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FZ

Hey there, this is the first time I really took the time to look at it but Frank Zappa is a really great article. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to get it to FA status. Have you thought about putting together a worklist? Are there things missing that you know of? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit more details on his last years (political involvement, illness, Synclavier compositions). I plan to put some in soon (cf. the talk page). I have then thought about tyring to push it for FA status. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My references in "Jimi Hendrix"

It would be far too time consuming for me to add the pages for every reference at the moment, as it took long enough just to get the books titles, authors, publishers and dates of publishing, having had several previous references removed along with the particular (accurate and verifiable) additions, (hopefully only due to my breaking the protocols around here, which I have, just today, dscovered). I have done this in several places though, but then there are many mistaken or innacurate assertions and other faults in this article, that have no references at all! Who can dispute that Hendrix was a bandleader and a record producer anyway? It's there in the very title of his group! and written for all to see on the LP's and singles he produced! Well, apart from when he calls himself "Heaven Research"Jameselmo (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimi Hendrix

I think describing Hendrix as only “ an American guitarist, singer and songwriter” does him a disservice. As from 1968 he was a record producer as well, producing the bulk of his USA No.1 LP Electric Ladyland, and all his recordings since that, he also produced Cat Mother and the All Night News Boys LP; Eire Apparents LP and single and co-produced Buddy Miles Express’ Electric Church* LP as well, and also, I’m sure you will agree he was noted bandleader

  • I mistakenly wrote ‘Expressway To Your Skull’ before


Note: A letter by Hendrix :

February 5 Wednesday J.H. [initialled]

Page 4

Oh yes, almost forgot: please make clear to Mercury (contracts included or whatever legal means) that in due time the Buddy Miles Express new L.P. will be one of the biggest for Mercury and we are aIl (the group and myself) working very hard on it and it would seem to be honestly fair for my name alone to appear as producer and receive normal producer's fee. If there are hangups on Ann Tanzy's (sp. ?) side of the fence as far as whose name goes where she may well be represented on the L.P. as supervisor. I know a name on an L.P. jacket sounds like small tut, rather an ego thing, but one of my ambitions is to be a good producer and extend. Therfore that's one of the main themes in the idea of the name being there. I planned to finish to the bone of the whole L.P. as long as the necessary Papers and attitudes on both sides (Mercury and us) are together. If I could work with Buddy and group without being entirely hung up over this fact over those fat starving....Jameselmo (talk) 17:20,1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message (I didn't quite understand the last part; i.e., the purpose of the letter thing). Well, it is indeed cumbersome to reference almost everything, but that is what makes a difference between a mediocre and a good encyclopedic article. And Hendrix deserves a good article. I think it is way too undersourced now. And the fact that there are many unsourced statements in the article, is no argument for inserting other unsourced statements. Let us all try do do our best. Happy editing. --HJensen, talk 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the "Letter thing" (a transcription of a page of a letter from Hendrix to (probably) Mike Jeffery) was to illustrate the point that Hendrix himself considered it important that it be recorded that he was a record producer.

The point I was making about my references were that although I had no specific page No.'s on a lot of them they could all be verified from the information I gave, but were removed none the less, unlike the many wild and completely un-referenced statements and opinions in the article that remain.

Now I am beginning to see how it works, I will bide my time and hope that it improves.Jameselmo (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Hendrix article

Hi. I haven't read your new edits yet, but I noticed that you inserted a lot of {{fact}} tags. That is fine, but I don't think you need to have square brackets around the text you think need to be cited. It makes the article appear even more of a draft that it does already. Also, you may want to use the sandbox when editing (or copy the text into another editor). This will enable you to come off with fewer, but larger edits (remember edit summaries) thereby making it easier for other editors to assess what you have been doing (compared with now where you make numerous small edits within short time). Happy editing --HJensen, talk 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi der mr Jensen, i feel the brackets are extremely neccesary as they are really there to point out glaring, unproveable assertions, referenced or not, to fundamental errors within an almost(I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of "rock music journalese") acceptable text. After all it's always possible to come up with commercially warped, hyperbolic versions of the original quotations from CD notes, aimed at what the authors of said distortions obviously percieve as a shallow, easily manipulated market ("Never give a sucker an even break" author Barnum blah blah etc.) Most of the stuff in brackets is nonsense , I mean check out the bit on Hendrix going to see King Creole in Paris, it's basically gibberish! I have no desire to puff up this article and have subsequently only made small changes to the text, as my earlier larger ones were only my way of explaining the faults and giving the information to correct these to whoever might be the editors/contributors (hence the "or" comments and not knowing how to reply to editors comments made to me on wiki - I thought there was some hidden e-mail type thing!). The important credit "bandleader" is unsourceable directly, although understood implicitly since he arrived in England in late 66, no serious commentator on Hendrix could logically dispute this. He chose the musicians, he sacked them. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 February 2008
I share you concerns, but those are not an argument for making up own styles like inserting brackets. The fact tag is sufficient. The brackets will just have to be reverted making other editors slightly annoyed over your otherwise productive edits. --HJensen, talk 09:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, apologies, and also apologies for my mixed up edit about the Monterey/Miami guitars. Although references to the smashed guitar with painted flowers and dedication from Saville theatre are frequently mixed up with the single piece of guitar from Monterey, both of which have been on display at experience music project.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 February 2008

Ah! at last found it Univibes 27 pages 31-34, it appears zappa's/dweezil's guitar is the one Jimi burned in UK Astoria. there is no contemporary evidence of hendrix burning a guitar at miami, it seems frank being given this burnt guitar in miami just assumed that jimi had torched it there. It was he that had it renovated by Rex Bogue and had a new neck fitted and some electronic gizmos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Jameselmo (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So some entries although pointed out that they have no merit and are completely unreferenced & bogus can stay because they might one day find a reference from any old rubbish as long as it's published in some form. Is that what you're telling me? While my referenced ones from well researched and recognised sources are just removed without duscussion. since i found this page there has been no discussion of any of the points i've raised, it takes two to discuss. This article is not going to improve if historical sequence is just jumbled up to suit the "style" of particular contributions. And blatantly ridiculous pieces like the bowler/ trilby nonsense allowed to persist.Jameselmo (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. That some bogus material exists in an article is no excuse for not removing other bogus. Nothing is "allowed" to stay by some magic force! Wikipedia is continuously involving, and we have to proceed in steps. I remove bogus material when I see it (i.e., mainly non-sourced speculation). It does not rule out that there are bogus I overlook, and/or have not the time to delete or edit. Also, just because something wrong has been along for a long time does not make it a precedent for other crap to be left alone. Clearly, it is then a matter of judgement whether one removes stuff or tags it. The latter is typically done when you as editor know that a source can be dug up, but the tag is left there as a reminder for youself/other editors and as a cautionary warning for readers. Keep up the good work. (I hope not that I have deleted, without discussion, anything you have sourced?).--HJensen, talk 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is much bogus material here that IS "allowed" to stay by some magic force! there is obviously interested parties involved in maintaining much un-referenced and/or flowery/Americanised rock journalese, hyperbolic prose nonsense here. so don't patronise me!89.241.204.118 (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)'

Who are you? And what have I said that is patronizing? I am just trying to explain myself and be helpful. Sorry if that came down the wrong way. (Furthermore, I haven't any knowledge about "interested parties involved", so that I cannot comment on.) --HJensen, talk 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay no trivia, how about just leaving out stuff that never happened ie Les paul NOT meeting hendix. I mean where's Devon Wilson? a major part of Jimi's life, from when he returned to USA in 67 until his death, the only woman that recorded with him and featured unambiguously in some of his later songs and who openly challenged him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We should never write things that did not happen, of course. If you can find sources on the importance of Devon Wilson, then add something about her influence. Otherwise not, as that would be original research which is not allowed.--HJensen, talk 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Kenneth_Carlsen.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Kenneth_Carlsen.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kenneth Carlsen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kenneth Carlsen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Novak Đoković

I emailed him to inquire about that. Thanks for the heads up as I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He's an admin though. :) He just doesn't use his powers very often. I say that because you can't make moves over redirects otherwise. And he's on the admin list. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! --HJensen, talk 06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
East718 is an admin. You can tell by looking at the logs. If a move log says "moved over redirect" then that means that user is an admin. Only admins can move pages to pages that already exist as redirects. Not sure how to handle this, to be honest. I'd really suggest going to AN/I. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move logs

Ok! The move logs are as follows. For Novak Đoković:

  • 23:27, 7 March 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Đoković to Novak Đoković (tennis player) ‎ (repairing history) (revert)
  • 03:23, 5 March 2008 Erudy (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic over redirect ‎ (revert)
  • 12:31, 21 February 2008 Woohookitty (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic ‎ (per RM) (revert)
  • 03:44, 15 September 2007 Yano (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic (tennis) over redirect ‎ (Well-sourced spelling.) (revert)
  • 01:34, 15 September 2007 Yano (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic (tennis) ‎ (The spelling "Novak Djokovic" is reliably sourced as being a scientifically accurate transliteration into English according to UNESCO and Mathematical Reviews. It is the spelling most commonly used in English-language print and media. The previous) (revert)

For Novak Djokovic:

  • 19:49, 7 March 2008 Bože pravde (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Djokovic to Novak Đoković (tennis player) ‎ (revert)
  • 13:57, 22 February 2008 Zocky (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Djokovic to Novak Đoković over redirect ‎ (We keep articles about living person's at their native spelling or their native transliteration. The proposed convention to do it otherwise was rejected. A move request vote can't override that.) (revert)
  • 06:39, 8 March 2006 Zvonko (Talk | contribs) moved Novak Djokovic to Novak Đoković ‎ (revert)

So the non-admins making unilateral moves are found in the latter category. Except that you, Woohookitty, is an admin, but is not listed as moving "over redirect". I am still a bit confused here. --HJensen, talk 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I don't think it looks very good to have a lot of large images squeezing the text like that. The point of having the images as thumbnails is so that when you click on the thumb, you can look at the full picture. I try not to have the image thumbs above 220px. 300px is pushing it, especially for every image, in an article with multiple images. I put the screenshot from the BBC performance at 220px, since browsers might need a bit more detail on that, but the other images are singular photographs of Frank that do not need larger thumbs. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

This is clearly very screen-resolution dependant. I use quite high resolution, and there the images in "only" thumb format look quite small. But no problem, people can click on them at see the largest possible version in any case. --HJensen, talk 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi HJensen please check out the latest on your last Hendrix discuss entry, urgently!

Some bells were ringing but too busy check at time, now have delved a bit into the world of mr ogunjobi, it would appear he has substantially "paraphrased" if not plagiarised this site as well as several books. check it out on the discuss page. truly bizarre! CheersJameselmo (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will leave comments on the Hendrix talk page. Best, --HJensen, talk 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry,

I removed some vandal-content from your talk-page. I hope you agree. Regards, abf /talk to me/ —Preceding comment was added at 10:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:ZappaYellowShark1992e.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ZappaYellowShark1992e.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:2006zpzposter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2006zpzposter.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zappa "revert"

It actually dawned on me after I was looking through the post-revert diff that this was probably just what you described - I remember several of the issues being raised on the talk page. It was the guy's third edit to Wikipedia - I should probably go back and give him a friendly reminder of some sort or another.

Venturing into WP:MYSPACE territory here, but are you into the live side of Zappa? --Badger Drink (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what "live side" means? --HJensen, talk 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just the live material... Buffalo, Wazoo, YCDTOSA, etc... --Badger Drink (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Djokovic

Hi, may I ask why you undid the ball-bouncing comment on the Djokovic page? I feel that there needs to be something said about it even though it's unsourced. Practically every commentator at this year's French open talks about it. Even now, with his match against Mathieu, Woody is talking about it. Sandman30s (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced and therefore could not be verified. As verification is a cornerstone of wikipedia, it cannot be in the article like that. Find a ref. --HJensen, talk 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis names

In case you hadn't seen them already, here are four items that you might want to look at: 1, 2, 3, 4. Redux is not around right now, and various administrators are prepared to block and revert people who attempt to rename tennis articles and players according to the English alphabet. I've given up the cause because apparently not one administrator other than Redux is prepared to support the English alphabet in this respect. Tennis expert (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have seen it, and posted my opinion there now. I think it is a sad situation. The Djokovic article took months to get the English name after some sensible admins stepped in and overruled a group of nationalistic Serbs (of which one did some tennis edits) that claimed this spelling was just "wrong" and oppressive. I think these people forget that this is the English wiki, not the Serbian wiki. Good God, I could start a lot of hassle if I want to implement native Danish names on articles on the English wiki. I could start by changing "Copenhagen" into "Kobenhavn" and call any attempt to undo it for illiterate, disrespectful, and so on. I think that analogy fits quite perfect. --HJensen, talk 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ----

Yes I can, because that is the only right spelling. If you think we should change to Djokovic, than we must change all other Serbian, Croatian, Bosnik, and Polish names. Open new voting for all non-English names if you want to make something. Whitout that this is only double standard. --Pockey (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea about wikipedia policies. Read the talk-page discussions as a minimum starter. Just because you don't "like" something, you cannot go against consensus. --HJensen, talk 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I have. I am user almost 5 years and I don't want to adore settement of one very small group of users. If you open one real voting where we should see comments of Serbian and Croatina speaking users, i will adore that whit delight. Voting will be soon, but it is going to be much better if you open it. Regards, --Pockey (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If so experienced, why then ignore consensus reached on a talk page of an article? It is well known that one is not allowed to do that (future votings pending or not). --HJensen, talk 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Your voting is not legitime. Small group of users can't change sach a big thing. You must reopen voting. --Pockey (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There never was a "vote" on the Djokovic page. Consensus was reached after a long process involving many, many editors. Do you actually have any idea about what I am talking about? I am talking about the Djokovic article. Nothing else. For that article, a consensus was reached. Read the talk page(s). You are deliberately acting against established consensus, which I think is against wikipedia policy. Or do you have special privelegies? --HJensen, talk 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't vory. Soon or later all Serbs will have the same standards here. --Pockey (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry to convey this to you: This has nothing to do with Serbs. You seem to be pushing some nationalistic agenda by that statement, which is not very charming. But anyway, please don't disrupt established consensus. --HJensen, talk 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand. This has nothing whit nationalism. I am the last person here who is nationalist :). Aldought, Đoković is Serb, and his name must be teat here like other Serbians. If he is a tennis player, that does not mean he is ultra-extra man. Everything else is double standard. Regards, --Pockey (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if he is a tennis player, Serb, or even Martian. The current consensus on his article is that one should use the English spelling of his name. There is no such thing as "must be teated (sic)". That is just your opinion. Your opinion does not carry ay more weight than others. And you do know that his is the English wikipedia and not the Serbian wikipedia? Right? Hence, it is legitimate to discuss what representaiton one should give a name in English. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)