User: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)