Talk:Nikolay Davydenko

message: Davydenko recently signed a deal to wear Dunlop clothes and use their rackets , but he is still using his Prince racket while testing out the new Dunlop frames. I'm not sure how to rewrite the equipment section because he still uses Prince.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.164.103 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deal with Dunlop

message: *The tennis career section, especially the year-by-year breakdown, is more or less a cut'n'paste of Davydenko's profile on the ATP official site. I've started rewriting it. Macavity7 13:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: *I've also removed a lot of the ATP site-style ellipses - apart from any copyright issues, they are just hideous and obfuscating - and put in Wiki- and reader-friendly dot points. Still needs work though, since it's still heavily reliant on the ATP site. I'm not sure every single appearance in a Futures final by a player of Davydenko's caliber merits a mention. Macavity7 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennis Career section

message: Under playing style the first sentence says "Davydenko employs an aggressive tanking game although he is capable of playing an all-round fix. His main strengths are his ability to retire, lightning foot speed,bank balance and return game."  Later it says "Davydenko's best tank shot has to be his backhand which he can hit out at will, cross court and with extreme angles or dolly it into the net if needed."  Later in the last sentence under trivia it says "...due to the fact that he throws more tournaments per year than any other player..."
I don't know how to fix this stuff but it's controversial to say the least.66.65.88.136 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously how can anyone suggest the recent events should not be mentioned in the article. While it would not be fair to label him a cheat, to whitewash any mention of the controversy is absurd. As stated above there is nothing controversial about mentioning the allegations, nor the fact Betfair voided the market, as these facts can be verified. If he is later cleared of any wrong doing, that information can be added to the article. I'm not going edit but DanielSong you need to stop reverting valid edits. 212.140.167.98 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DanielSong looking at your edits I see that you have been reverting a lot of real vandalism on this page, and that is to be commended, but you  must stop reverting valid edits. 212.140.167.98 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism

message: Why did sum1 remove the the sentence that Davydenko and Arguello are innocent? There is no proof of them of any wrongdoing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.173.63 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out; could not find it in references. Put in a few new reference, which now backs what is written. I think it is fine now.--HJensen, talk 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I placed them in footnotes to be in conformity with the rest.--HJensen, talk 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Davydenko's Innocence

message: Can someone fix it up like it was before but just with 2008 year added please???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.173.63 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Davydenko's Grand Slam and Master Series Table

message: I do not understand the reason for application. I think that this is an interesting issue. 
As far as I am informed he was born in Ukraine. How he got russian citizan? 
Or is he born as russian?
He left his country and have lived for many years in Germany. So this can be a reason for decideding to be german. This is possible. 
Hoever it is not possible to get citizan of two EU countries. 
This means that you can not be German or Ausrian citizan, at the same time. 
I have heard, that he moved to Austria/Pörtschach. He has a house there and is managed by his older brother Edward and 
Ronnie Leitgeb. 
A very interesting story...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.132.104 (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Davydenko´s citizenship

message: Who keeps editing that section by removing parts of it? 
I pretty much wrote up the whole Davydenko wikipedia page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.173.63 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Davydenko's Playing style

message: The article might benefit a bit from adding a link to Davydenko's schedule, especially because:
:He is said to play so much.
:He seems to be skipping the two grass tournament segments leading up to Wimbledon, though he is listed as being expected to play at Wimbledon.
I did not find his schedule on the Web.  Thanks for any ideas or info.  Bo99 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not here, as Wiki should provide verifiable facts (thus dealing with the past), and generally not information about schedules pertaining to the future, which can change.--HJensen, talk 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tentative idea, but it seems strange to think that Wiki cannot state a supported, verifiable fact about intent, e.g. country C plans to launch a mission to Mars on date D in the future.  I did not find any such ban in the Verifiability guideline.  Perhaps you would be able to find some evidence of such a ban?  Thanks again  Bo99 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: schedule?

message: Sorry but this section is completely down to someone's idea of what is a "highlight".  There are no criteria defined and even if there were, it would be entirely subjective.  I propose this section be removed and placed on the talk page until someone with the expertise is prepared to re-insert information into the prose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion, what objective criteria should an editor use to determine which information should be included in a Wikipedia article?  If not "highlights", then what?  Tennis expert (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no expert in these areas, but deciding on what a particular player's highlights are is entirely subjective and non-encyclopedic.  We should be aiming for (1) "engaging prose", not bullet point lists of someone's idea of a highlight, and (2) a summary of the major events which would be of interest to a broad audience, not intricate detail designed to entertain tennis fans only (e.g. "... in 5 sets, having held a match point." really is over-the-top.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This proves the bankruptcy of your theory.  Deciding what is a "major event" of "interest to a broad audience" is a subjective task, just as deciding what to include in any article (tennis related or not) is a subjective process based on editor consensus.  And given that you are not well-versed about tennis, your opinion about whether a five-set match that included the saving of multiple match points should be included in an article does not have the weight you apparently believe it is entitled to.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In anyone's book, that is intricate detail, excessive to the point of trivia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't.  And your insisting that only you know what should or should not be in a Wikipedia article is disruption and a regrettable element of ownership.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I'm trying to get one of the tennis bios peer reviewed with GA or FA in mind.  It will be instructive to hear from others with an outside view who aims for articles of the very highest Wikipedia standards.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know.  Daniela Hantuchova.  What a joke.  That article has innumerable problems.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, among those being a rambling, non-summary style and a reliance on intricate and "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" facts that only appeal to serious tennis fans or experts. Hopefully any changes and recommendations for that article will help set a positive precedent for the rest of the tennis biographies to follow. AlonsornunezComments 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point of view Tennis expert, "What a joke".  I'm trying to start improving these articles using the tools available to us, such as peer review, and all you can offer is "What a joke" - how unconstructive would you like to be here?  At least some of us are trying to see a way of getting a tennis article up to a reasonable Wikipedia-wide accepted standard.  Maybe you'd like to help instead of just sniping at us.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The joke is that you chose an article that is far below the standard of other tennis articles.  A reasonable person would have selected an article that was closer to perfection, whatever that is, instead of an article of a woman that some consider to be "hot".  I don't know what you selection criteria are but I hope hotness isn't involved.  Tennis expert (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I am favor of improving articles.  If improving an article results in it achieving good or featured status, so be it.  But I will oppose the dumbing or cutting down of articles to reach that status.  The purpose of this encyclopedia is to present reliable knowledge to the public, not comply with obscure technical writer rules established by a small unelected group of good and featured article reviewers.  Tennis expert (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't want to help get articles to GA or FA?  You want tennis articles to be independent of the way the rest of Wikipedia works?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what I said.  Tennis expert (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That will depend on what the peer reviewers say, obviously.  Tennis expert (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That, I'm afraid, is not obvious.  If you personally disagree with what is brought up in the peer review, you will simply dismiss the findings as produced by a "small unelected group" or similar, preach "established consensus", use the BRD essay to systematically revert any reversion you personally disagree with and the project will lose more good writers as a result of their edits being treated no better than vandalism.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rambling Man, at what point does an editor's continued disruption in the face of community teamwork and article-building become too much? What avenues does one pursue? Hopefully, a peer review will be enlightening to some and will help to build unity around getting some FA quality work done, but I fear that more stonewalling is likely. AlonsornunezComments 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You let fear and pessimism and assumptions of bad faith run your life too much.  Tennis expert (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're probably right Alonso.  But we should continue despite the opposition.  We may just get a good or featured article out of this project.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Yearly highlights section is inherently POV

message: The very first sentence of the first section, Personal Life, seems to have had content cut out of it in one of the moves mentioned in earlier discussion.
"Davydenko was born on the belief that Russia would afford more opportunities to become a professional tennis player."
Perhaps it was - born in Ukraine but family moved based on the belief - etc.  In any case it is meaningless as it stands and should be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.98.127 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence incomprehensible