Jump to content

Talk:Maria Sharapova

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMaria Sharapova was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 23, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 2, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 23, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 21, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 11, 2012.
Current status: Delisted good article

No personal life section

[edit]

Who she dated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.150.123 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Με τον άντρα ονοματι "Hakobian Lev"' 2A02:85F:F535:1500:29DD:670:B142:91DC (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with the Career history fork content?

[edit]

This article was too detailed, and I and others trimmed it down. Tennis expert objected, so I created the Career history fork from a prior version of the article to keep him placated. The fork was deleted and reinstated. Not understanding why it was reinstated (albeit as a redirect), I started rewriting the Career history into bullet form (so as to avoid duplication with style and content of main article) when Chidel re-established the redirect while I was working on it. Would anyone care to start a discussion on what should be 'merged' back? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biography - Early life

[edit]

What's the point of the "Early life" sub section? there are no other sub-sections, so I think it should be removeded. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree - leave that section alone. Naki (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ma-REE-ya YU-rye-vna Sha-RA-po-va

[edit]

Why is there a pronunciation guide for her name? What's the point of this? It's all fairly phonetical. Why are English-speakers not expected to understand how to pronounce the name "Maria"? It's quite childish. I think it should be deleted. Agreed? EttaLove (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is Sharapova, which the TV announcers consistently mispronounce. I have never understood why they do this — it's forgivable to give an approximate pronunciation to a name that's actually difficult to pronounce in your own language, but there's nothing difficult for Anglophones about putting the stress on the third-to-last syllable, so the telly-critters' "Sha-ra-POH-vah" is just weird.
(On the other hand, putting the stress on the fourth-to-last syllable, as in Kournikova, is indeed tough for English speakers, so that one is more comprehensible.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I think that according to Slavonic names pronumciation, shouldn't it be SHA-ra-po-va? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the IPA transcription of her name, to be so much more precise (and accurate, for that matter), and also so that the article doesn't look ex-TREE-mly AM-u-tyuh. Note, however, that I'm not Russian, so the IPA might be slightly incorrect. 79.67.246.166 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) If Sharapova does indeed have the second syllable stressed, then the name would be pronounced Sha-RA-pah-vah. In Russian, the vowel O is always pronounced Ah unless it is in the stressed syllable. In which case, the pronunciation guide in the article needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagi2000 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stress is on the second syllable but the pronunciation is Sha-RAP-ah-vah.Historian932 (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has gone and changed it to some caricatured "American" pronunciation, as if that were somehow in any way useful or relevant. I don't really know Russian IPA, but it should be changed back.--96.63.227.15 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sharapova's current weight

[edit]

A 6'2" tall, large framed and physically well developed woman cannot possibly weigh a mere 130 pounds. According to a modeling web site I visited recently Maria Sharapova weighs 68.5 kg. That sounds about right, and that is why I edited her page, which stated her weight at 59kg. However I cannot now find the website for verification. So, we will just have to rely on common sense! Victoroyer (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We constantly have editors and vandals altering the weight stats of prominent sports personalities that I no longer have faith in any of the figures people put in here. Anyhow, it's fairly trivial detail and subject to change, so there really is no justification to giving a weight within one decimal place, if at all. I see two approaches to the problem: either we insist that this information be cited from a recent source, or we should remove the data altogether. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.celebrityshack.com/view/celebrities/sports-female/Maria-Sharapova/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.55.203 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


there is absolutely NO way Sharapova is 59kg at 6"2. come on guys, thats ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.226.110 (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sharapova may have weighed 130 lbs. five years ago, but anyone who sees her now can clearly see she weighs 30-40 pounds more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.222.149 (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation ('pro-NUN')

[edit]

I'm not going to revert another edit, but the 'pro-NUN' should not be on the page. Only an idiot could think that the word 'Sharapova' was English and WP:PRON states clearly that IPA should be used, and as the sole transcription, for pronunciation of foreign, viz Russian words. Don't add the 'pro-NUN' just because you as a user don't understand the IPA; learn it! Also, if you're going to ignore guidelines, do it properly. 79.67.246.166 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct English pronunciation has the stress on the second syllable. We should give the correct pronunciation in a way people can understand. Otherwise readers who don't know IPA will not see the difference from the erroneous pronunciation used by TV announcers. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IPA is too elitist. There's no way most people could learn the well over 100 symbols in IPA. There should be a pronunciation in English alphabet too. QuentinUK (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't resist the opportunity to point you to [1], where she is Sharapôva in English, though more like Sharápova in Russian. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sharapova speaks American English like a native (which she almost is). I doubt she goes around saying: "Well, actually my name is pronounced like this..." Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.59.78.162, 16 December 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Change Los Angeles Lakers to New Jersey Nets, for Sasha Vujacic

69.59.78.162 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sort of. I see Sharapova's fiance Vujacic has moved from the LA Lakers to the New York Nets. But "New York Nets guard" is kind of cryptic for an international encyclopedia, so I've instead changed it to "NBA basketball player". Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharapova-waving.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Sharapova-waving.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 30 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Someone remove that horrid picture that was obviously put up by a troll. Dreadful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.205.66 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012?

[edit]

Not sure if it's just me but I can only view 2012 section when I am logged in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgiBear (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem seems sorted for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgiBear (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

I guess winning the career grand slam is not a significant achievement because it is certainly missing from the introduction. We need to add it in and link it to the section of the article on the Grand Slam page! This is the second best crème de la crème in the game, just short of doing it in a calendar year. She is also the first woman in the open era to get a Career Grand Slam from four Grand Slam wins (also the second person to do so in the open era and the fourth person ever to do so).HotHat (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire introduction is far to long. Lot's of it is replicated throughout the article. I'm going to cut some out, though if anything thinks something should be kept, please change it back! :) (Kyleofark (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The lead meets the criteria imho. Regards.--GoPTCN 12:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Images?

[edit]

I counted 16, pretty much one for ever sub-section of the article. I know she's a beautiful lady, but is that a little much? 216.185.77.30 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they do not stack each other or are violating the image policy, I don't see why not. Note that she is a tennis player, but only occasionally a model. Regards.--GoPTCN 12:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarpova?

[edit]

Nothing on Sugarpova yet in the article? Fixer23 (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarpova merge suggest

[edit]

There is an individual article with title Sugarpova. Suggest to merge the topic with this article as the subject Sugarpova has no scope as a separate topic. --atnair (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wiki policy on companies? I assume that most businesses are not notable on their own? Wilbur Chocolate Company and The Hershey Company are stand-alone articles for multiple reasons, but it seems that Sugarpova has only one reason... Maria Sharapova. A merge might be best here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; the company is essentially a vanity project for its founder. Absurdist1968 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the US open, this article should be redirected to an identical one but entitled "Maria Sugarpova" if the Florida Supreme Court agrees with her request for the official temporary name change. Count Iblis (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian not really "Russian"?

[edit]

According to the article "BELARUSIAN ROOTS of Maria Sharapova" her parents are both Belarusian, this should be cited more explicitly than just saying her parents came from Belarus, no?Historian932 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Her parents, Yuri and Elena, are from Gomel, Belarus. Concerned about the regional effects of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, they left their homeland shortly before Sharapova was born." There is also a source link to a Russian article if you want more info (and you can read Russian). Since this is an encyclopaedic article/summary on Maria and not her parents, this seems like enough to me. What more pre-birth roots info would you like to include? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

[edit]

59kg? Really? That sounded light for someone who is 6ft 2in so I used a National Health Service BMI checker (http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx) which worked her out as dangerously underweight. My brother is a guy, is 5ft 10in and weighs about that and he is skinny guy. I don't understand why there is such reliance on one source, even if it is from the WTA website. If it said she was 200kg would you accept that? I am not removing the weight purely because it says not to unless you have a valid source to say otherwise. However I do think this sounds incredibly wrong Cls14 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong. Tennis and celebrity sites say she is closer to 6'4" and 75kg. I think the WTA only weighs a person once in their careers so she was probably that height and weight when she turned pro. Trouble is we have seen no other reliable source to change those infobox figures. If you can find a good one (not a blog) let us know. Women tend not to talk much about their weight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense dictates then that it is wrong. But we have no sources to say how much she does weigh. Rather than leaving wrong information on should we perhaps not remove the weight bit completely? Cls14 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps put a qualifier that says "59kg (in 2003)", her first full year in the pros, and when the WTA would have done the weigh-in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But is there a source for that parenthetical, or are you just taking an educated assumption that it is a 2003 figure? Personally, I'd just get rid of the field; weight changes often enough that any source will soon be out-of-date, and unlike the combat sports or rowing, "weight" has no actual bearing on competition for a tennis player. (Yes, weight matters in tennis, but only in a athleticism/fitness standpoint, not in weight classes or a lightweight boat competition.) Courcelles 03:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WTA usually does that your first full year on the circuit, and I think that was her first year. But I have no problem with it being removed. We know it's not correct today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am going to be bold and get rid of the category completely as we all agree it's wrong and we can only assume (although it's likely) that it is her 2003 weight Cls14 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA?

[edit]

I have made some clean-ups and now think that this article is near GA-status. Do you think it is ready to be nominated there? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worth nominating, although peer review might have been a better first step, would you agree? I'd also consider doing individual season articles for her like they have with Serena and Azarenka but I realise these take an awful lot of work. Spiderone 10:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is nowhere near ready, not in the last few sections, though it could be with a sprint of hard work. (Like thre reviewer in GA5, I see the same thing, the further down you go, the less good it becomes, but the work can be done.) Courcelles 14:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Maria Sharapova/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will start this review over the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
Early life
Juniors and early career
2003 - First tournament titles
2004 - Winning Wimbledon
2005 - World no. 1
2006 - US Open champion
2007 - Shoulder injury and fall out of the top 5
2008 - Australian Open champion and recurrence of shoulder injury
  • Green tickY
2009 - Shoulder surgery and rehabilitation

Unsourced material

[edit]

I have taken the WP:BOLD step of removing all unsourced material from the article. This should make it more compliant with WP:BLP as these are not simple facts like "sky is blue" or "Paris is in France." This information is problematic to remain given the BLP issues. :( Beyond that, it is hard to assess copyright issues when you do not know the sources of information. I ask that unsourced information not be added back to the article. --LauraHale (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." You can not just remove content that you feel is not supported by the references. I already explained that the official site contains a record of all stats and games.--Tomcat (7) 11:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably a little overboard to remove all unsourced material because of its quality. Please come comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Review_shopping. I have tagged the page with {{Refimprove}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a tag there. I have CHALLENGED this material. Please pick one option: Tags for all unsourced information, removal of unsourced information, adding a tag at the top that informs people there is a need to fully source this. Because right now, you have had two different editors challenge the lack of sourcing. Given that a B article is supposed to be fully sourced and you RE-INSERTED large chunks of unsourced challenged material, I am dinging the assessment back to a C. This article is nowhere near meeting a B criteria with 19000 KB of unsourced material. --LauraHale (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got ECed By User:LauraHale else who tagged it before me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem when commenting. Either solution works. I do not care which option Tomcat wants, but there needs either be a clear indication material is not sourced by tagging in some way (I prefer fact tags as research has shown they are more likely to get cleaned then the bg one a tthe top) or removal of the information. Tomcat cannot have the option of neither, especially since they think the article is GA ready when it does not even meet the criteria for B class, which is pretty much fully sourced. (This does not even get into the issue of unsourced material that talked about her emotional state. How can you do a thorough copyright check when the thing is not sourced?) --LauraHale (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link me everytime you mention me and there is no reason to put a banner if I am working on the article. Stop pretending me to improve the article. Thanks.--Tomcat (7) 11:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013

[edit]

Hello Im a big fan of maria sharapova but her current ranking is not number 3 its number 4 please may you change it because its incorrect and people may get confused and other people that will find this out will say wikipedia doesn't have the correct information so please may you change it Ploop311 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

[edit]

The world ranking on no3 is not accurate. Sharapova is currently no 4 in the world following a shoulder injury she obtained in 2013 and not participation in wta events during the last 5 months of 2013 82.3.92.31 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014

[edit]

hi again maria is no 3 again an li na 4 change it because it annoies people Ploop311 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done however the request was more annoying than the ranking. Be more polite in your requests. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

[edit]

Besdelnik1 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Good day everyone. Change please the stress in the family name. This is right /məˈriːə ʃærˈəpoʊvə/. --Besdelnik1 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The IPA stress symbol comes before the stressed syllable. As you've written it here, that would place the stress on the second A in the name. As written in the article, it's correctly on the PO. See Help:IPA for English#Key. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I think the article's main picture for a tennis player should show the player playing tennis.

I mean I guess instead of the current one (upper body purple dress) Sharapova's boyfriend could also take a picture of her in the bed and upload it to Wikipedia, but would it be the most appropriate picture?

I hope my point is understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.15.218 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I restored the longtime infobox picture we put in by consensus many years ago. --Mareklug talk 22:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

too many details

[edit]

Every year has the yearly main article,so did it need so many details in every year summary? I think it can combine to four main parts： Early Year, 2004~2008,2009~2010,2011~present, they're different professional life of Sharapova.--Shiouloo (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but then you can say that pretty much with every tennis bio. I don't feel she's any more detailed than Serena or Li or Nadal or Djokovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tied for what ?

[edit]

The last sentence in the third paragraph of the introduction reads:

"Also, by winning her second French Open title at the 2014 French Open, she became only the 12th women in the Open Era to win 5 or more grand slam singles titles, and she is now tied with Martina Hingis with 5 grand slam singles titles in the Open Era."

Tied for what? This needs to be filled in by someone who is knowledgeable. (E.g., "tied for the fourth-most grand slam titles earned by a woman in the Open Era" or something like that.)Daqu (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

[edit]

14.201.101.169 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2014

[edit]

and she does not know sachin tendulkar Vinod7668 (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good for her?? Sachin Tendulkar is not mentioned anywhere within the article at the present time, so this comment doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. If you would like to make a edit request, please do so in the form of "please change X to Y", providing any necessary sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 11:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:NeilN#Maria_Sharapova_edit_on_Sachin_Tendulkar might shed some light. Needless to say, I oppose any mention of Tendulkar right now. --NeilN talk to me 13:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems a minor issue, about as appropriate for this article as for India or Sachin Tendulkar (i.e., not at all). —Kusma (t·c) 14:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sachin Tendulkar issue is trending in facebook and twitter. Plz go to the facebook page of maria sharapova. It is very wrong to say things happening in her own facebook profile and in general in twitter is just an Indian matter. Besides I added that - those commented against her are Indians. it is important, relevant and I have given credible media sources from India and Britain to verify the content.Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia' and bluntly, we don't care about the news of the day. Come back in a month if the issue is still being talked about in newspapers. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not against WP:NOTNEWS. Its not an ongoing event in the news. I don't think we have to wait for a long time to include an important incident like this in the article. I am not sure wikipedia had a "one month after news policy" like you said. Sorry friend i have to say this is deliberate blocking of information.Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my (and others) point of view, this is a trivial incident and utterly unimportant to Sharapova's biography. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I hadn't heard anything about this. Seems irrelevant/trivial. I'm sure she's never heard of lots of cricketers - I'm not aware of cricket being a major sport in Russia or the US, so it kinda stands to reason she doesn't know who he is, even if he is more popular/famous/whatever than most other cricket players. I'd agree that it doesn't need to be in the article, or even deserve to be included. NiciVampireHeart 16:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And If she talked the same about David Beckham that can be included? It should not be included becoz sharapova's ignorance about sachin is excusable? So strange - Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said if she didn't know who Beckham was it should be included? --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Becoz some editors are blocking a genuine information that should be included in this page. It's sure that some of us came to a conclusion that since sachin is not famous in Russia so sharapova shouldn't know him and the controversy arised out of it should also be ignored. I am sure this section will never be "allowed" in this page - Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then let us review the entire Wikipedia and come up with article/content that is still relevant after 1 month of it. If we go by your 1 month argument then wiki will not be encloypedia it should be latest news. Do you still talk about what date Maria was born? What day she won her first title? Those are not 1 month but 10 years old information and should not content on her page..--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of logic that drove you to add the same info to the Dalai Lama article? [2] --NeilN talk to me 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly you got it now. And the discussion here is Maria Sharapova and GOD ( Sachin) so lets keep that to it. You didn't answer my previous question. I hope you have realize that importance of Maria's comment and would have better sense to reinstate article on her page--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(off topic) Let's please keep religion out of this conversation.  NQ  talk 18:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that example is to show other editors how off-the-wall the edits you want to make seem to be. Your GOD comment is only icing on the cake. --NeilN talk to me 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic? Where is the answer to my question of removing all the content from each and every article that people are not talking about. your 1 month old policy!--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the "(off topic)" tag was my (not Neil's) tongue in cheek response to your GOD comment.  NQ  talk 18:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Neiln your action is as ignorant as Maria's comment. It seems that defending Maria is something that comes from your personal liking to her..--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do enlighten me about the "importance" of Sharapova's comment. As far as I understand, it's not as if she went 'Sachin, Who?'. She was informed in a post match press meet that this particular cricketer was in attendance at the match and was asked if she knew who he was. She simply replied, '"I don't." How is this worthy of being included in a BLP ? If Tendulkar was asked about Kevin Martin, I'm sure he would have said the same thing. Like @C.Fred: said here, are you open to adding a section in Tendulkar's article about how he has not had that lasting a legacy, since he is not that well-known outside of India after his retirement?  NQ  talk 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone enlighten you about this? the importance of the incident is not decided by you or me. If sharapova's comment went unnoticed then its ok. Whether sharapova should know about sachin is not relevant. But her comments are reported by media around the world and it became a main topic of discussion in the social networking sites. Fans of sachin aggressively commented on her facebook page and it became a controversy. Its important, relevant and reported by media all around the world. What are you saying? Its not important becoz sharapova was not supposed to know sachin? Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reasons for not including it have already been discussed above.  NQ  talk 19:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons that makes sense to only those who don't want that section to be included - Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume things what would have Sachin said if asked about certain Kevin Martin. It has not happen yet and the day it happens I would be the first person to include that on Sachin bio. And saying the same thing in two different way: Sachin, Who? and I don't does not change the meaning. And if you think Sachin has not left the lasting legacy please go and add it to his bio. Who told you he is only known in India? He is known in Australia, New Zealand, America, West Indies, Pakistan, Arab and even Obama acknowledge his achievements https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZngdL909h4w --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I would be the first person to include that on Sachin bio." And I would be the first one to remove it. It is clear your opinion on what belongs in a biography differs substantially from what the general Wikipedia community accepts. --NeilN talk to me 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The addition would be extremely undue weight. Sharapova gives 1000s of interviews, many with controversy. In January she flirted with an Aussie journalist that made headlines. She commented about gays that made headlines. You say he is known in America, but if you mean the USA I would bet that 99.99% of us have no clue who he is. I've never heard of him. I'm sure he's massively popular in cricket but with all the interviews she gives there's always someone who makes a big deal about her comments. We are not a news service here. If there appears to be longstanding news on this subject we can re-look at it at the appropriate time and discuss the addition. There's no hurry. And even then it would likely be 10 words and no more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If sachin said he don't know ronaldo or david beckham and that become a controversy like this and reported by media all around the world. What's wrong in adding a controversy like that in sachin's page? "I would be the first to remove it"? Why are you threatening other users when they state their side in a discussion? Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're not a celebrity magazine. And the only "threat" I made was a warning when a living person was unnecessarily disparaged. [3] Wikipedia is not the place to air petty (or other) grievances. --NeilN talk to me 19:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was asked to me and I replied and not like you to drop a communication. And its not mine but your own thinking that differs from billions of people on this earth. I am yet to get your reply on 1 month activeness of news or action? Do you still talk about Maria's day of birth?--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography. It includes standard biographical details. --NeilN talk to me 19:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sharapova's date of birth is relevant to the article because it is a useful piece of biographical information about her. We do not really get an understanding of her by turning the article into a catalog of which other sportspeople she is and is not aware of. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts.
Thus, there's no reason to mention Tendulkar in this article unless he and Sharapova have worked together in some capacity, or unless this issue generates such prolonged, widespread coverage in news media that it becomes significant. And I stress coverage in news media: mentions of this issue in comments on Sharapova's Facebook page does not rise to the level of significant coverage, nor do mentions of this issue in some other fan-editable website that was cited as a source in the attempts to add the material to this article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what you people are saying. how can it be classified as a trivia? The question is not about her awareness about a certain sports person. Its about the incident which became a huge controversy that is actually celebrated by media all around the world not only in India. the aggressive comments in the facebook page is not the reason to add the section. Those comments led to the news and controversy. Some of us always say to talk just to block the edit from happening. So sad..Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that this isn't personal. Wikipedia has a strong BLP policy that must be adhered to, and as such the incident has no place in the article as of now.  NQ  talk 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, here are some articles about Indians. [4], [5] Can we add the content to India? --NeilN talk to me 20:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what constitute your understanding of news media? CNN, BBC, FOX? Here is the news media coverage http://ibnlive.in.com/news/i-dont-know-who-is-sachin-tendulkar-maria-sharapova/483248-5-22.html http://sports.ndtv.com/wimbledon-2014/news/226398-maria-sharapova-blasted-for-not-knowing-sachin-tendulkar http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/03/who-is-maria-sharapova-sachin-tendulkar http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-28142116

and here is full list for your knowledge https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=QQa3U_L6N6zV8ge8hIGAAQ#q=maria+sharapova+sachin+tendulkar&start=0&tbm=nws I hope you are not expecting a military invasion sort of coverage to judge the impact of her comment--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess.. Not enough..Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that "prolonged coverage"? No, it is not. --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not heard about him that speaks about your ignorance and you are within your rights not to know him as long as it does not make headlines news in half of the media world. But current situation has and thus need mention. If you say 99.99% does not know him then you are saying that president Obama the most powerful man on the earth is a liar when he said why his country productivity goes down by 5% when Sachin bats! And I don't think President will lie to world and his countrymen--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on the coverage, it seems like we'd need a sentence like "Sharapova's Facebook page was defaced after a July 2014 interview when she stated she was not familiar with retired Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar." Is that really signifiant in the big picture about Sharapova? —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, President Obama did not really say that, however most of the internet including news media seems to think that he actually did. See here  NQ  talk 20:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(off topic) Found it ! Origin of the alleged Quote  NQ  talk 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@neiln why are you hell bound on longevity of the coverage. you need to look at impact. Which news in the last 1000 years has been covered daily for 1 month? And I don't understand your 1 month logic! I reiterated again if we go by 1 month logic of news coverage there would not be any content on Wikipedia and you and I would have not been talking now. Even dropping of single atomic bomb did not get coverage for 1 month but we still mention it due to its impact, don't we? --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSISTENCE is the relevant portion of the notability guidelines. "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." It's too early to say conclusively that the event either has or has not gotten that sort of ongoing coverage; however, it certainly doesn't look likely to be the subject of continued ongoing analysis and discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the bombings of Nagasaki or Hiroshima did not get reported on a month after they happened is just plain wrong. [6] I'm not saying the incident has to be reported on every day. However coverage has to exist after the initial event occurs to judge its importance. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section I added was too small. Just the relevant facts are included. The sharapova's comment and angry fans response with adequate sources. At least take a look at it.Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is a consensus somehow (highly unlikely as of now) to include the said section, why should it be added here? Shouldn't it go to Tendulkar's page? Afterall, it talks about the behavior of irate fans of his defacing Sharapova's facebook profile. (Not that it has a place there, again see WP:NOTNEWS)  NQ  talk 21:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by this how in this world is Maria endorsing some trivial brand has lasting impact and coverage and is matter of discussion but we have that on her page!! Well now I can see clear picture and I can smell discrimination here--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just see the endorsement section. It is full of irrelevant information about products she endorsed. No undue weight there? Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tendulkar#Business_interests, Tendulkar#Commercial_endorsements --NeilN talk to me 21:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that there are information in certain articles which comes under this category of undue weight and you just care about this edit alone right? Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@neiln Well the incident occurred even before Maria was ousted of this year Wimbledon and you and I are still talking about it!! Whereas I bet you don't even know or talk about whom Maria lost to this year? So why have that too on her page? I would say get your facts and logic right before you take such action in future and decide by yourself on editing others inputs. You are making no sense at all--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC) @Rameshtna909 well it is highly rated and discuss by neiln in the society that he lives in hence it is there with high weightage!!--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the article to find out, "At the 2014 Wimbledon Championships, Sharapova reached the fourth round, where she lost to German Angelique Kerber, the ninth seed, in three sets." --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You included that because media is analysing it every day? Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Neiln media located in 10x20 yard home--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@neiln till now I was having doubt about your logic ad understanding but now I have really serious doubt on your reading ability as well!! Get this read by someone who can read English Tendulkar#Controversies--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now that we're reduced to insults it seems there's nothing much to add. I'll keep an eye on the article but won't respond unless a new argument is made. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when providing a proof and valid justification came to known as insult! Now when you I showed you controversies on Sachin page much less impact then that of Maria comment on Sachin you are backing out of it. Act like a man of reason and don't run away. If we can include a pity controversies like local tax exemption on Sachin's page why not Maria's global controversies that effected billions of people? --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you have an issue with the Tendulkar article, go discuss it on that talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Personal attacks here and here amount to insults. And please stop saying it "effected billions of people"!  NQ  talk 21:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why discrimate between those two? You were the one who removed the section on Maria and you need to reason and when provide with appropratite justification which I have done number of times, you have to restore the edit.--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way wikipedia works. If something new gets added and then reverted, its up the the editor who had added the new material to convince others on the talk page that the new info is relevant. You need to convince your fellow editors and so far you haven't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what I am trying to do. But if the other editors do not see the reason and feel the impact of certain things just because they or their part of society is not involved in it and still they take action of removing the edit is not something that a reasonable editor should take upon himself/herself. I have given enough justification with proof to top 15 media coverage showing the impact of this controversy and still its not enough then I am not sure what we are searching for more here? --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there is certainly no fault in trying. I've certainly tried to get things changed and have lost many battles. Some I win. You give it your best shot and if you fail, you move on. You may never agree and you might always try again to change minds, but not by sheer volume of words. Your website links will "NEVER" be accepted by the way, and hurts your other causes. The main thing is wikipedia is not a blog or newspaper. There is no hurry here. If these items you wish to add are as important as you feel they are, they will still be very important a few months from now. You'd even be able to sit back and wait and tell us all "I told you so" in September when the press is writing new articles about it left and right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinaiyer1976: Well, your edit was reverted because you were spamming by inserting external links to your the website (EKhichdi.com) to every other article you could find. See contribs. Also see here. We are discussing about Rameshnta909's edits being reverted owing to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. This is not a discussion about your additions to the page. I don't see your edits being restored, as it does not meet WP:RS  NQ  talk 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all who told you that those are my personal own sites/pages. I follow that site like any of us do with CNN, Google etc and you could say that's my favorite. And my edit and Rameshnta909 edits had same goal n purpose. Restore his or mine it serve the same goal--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinaiyer1976: A quick google search shows your close association with the website (See here) Anyway, that's neither here nor there. (I've crossed out the reference to "your".) Like Fyunck(click) mentioned, the onus is on you and/or Rameshnta909 to justify the need to add this content in accordance with sound Wikipedia policies. Until, then the edits probably wont be restored.  NQ  talk 23:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should close this discussion as there is no consensus among fellow editors.Rameshnta909 (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to close it, but yes, there is consensus, against including the material. Perhaps that was what you meant — that there's no consensus for the material? Bishonen | talk 10:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@rameshnta909 I think you meant there is consensus to add your edit. It desrve a mention on Maria's page if we can have controversy section Sachin. We will not atleast me will not give up on dicremtiation here --Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's consensus against (do not add) or no consensus (stay with status quo and do not add) but it is clearly not a consensus to add. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred where is the consensus to NOT add?--Tinaiyer1976 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said there is a consensus not to add it? I stated and I quote- "There is no consensus". Becoz some of our friends are deliberately trying to block it. Some editors are just stating the wikipedia policies and filtering the edits. I just opted out of the discussion becoz I thought I am wasting my time here. I still want to include the particular section and i will not change my stand becoz of tutorials from wikipedia's so called "scholars".Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear what the consensus is. You simply cannot include the section if it goes against Wikipedia policies. It's that simple.  NQ  talk 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include details of individuals another individual doesn't know. Ask enough notable people who Sachin is, and you'll get a few who don't know him. I know plenty of people who know every single football player who have played in the Premier League, but would struggle to name ANY Indian cricketer. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a cricket fan, I will point out here that to a lot of Indians, someone saying that they don't know who he is is shocking to the level of a foreigner asking an American who Barack Obama is. That's why we're seeing such a concerted effort to include the fact here. That said, I agree it's trivial in the grand scheme of things and shouldn't be included for now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I'll just speak to the the concerted effort to include the fact (though I think the Barack Obama comparison is a little problematic too). There's Rameshnta909, a bona fide user, and there's Tinaiyer1976, an SPA now blocked for tendentious editing and disruption (full disclosure: by me). There seems little doubt that the others are Tinaiyer all over again. I've blocked Dmitri001 as a blatant block-evading sock, see below, and I just noticed another one-edit flyby account higher up on this page, Vinod7668, who opened this thread. That account shows the same surprising awareness as Dmitri of such Wikipedia arcana as edit requests, and I don't believe in him/her either. Tinaiyer has been pretty concerted, yes. Bishonen | talk 09:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The Obama comparison is not a good one simply because of the tremendous disparity in the depth and breadth of coverage. How many times has Obama appeared on the front page of a foreign newspaper? How many times has Tendulkar appeared on the front page of a non-cricket playing nation's newspapers? Of course that doesn't mean we should be inserting "x doesn't know who Obama is" in x's biography unless there's a long lasting impact. --NeilN talk to me 13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think how ridiculous you both thought my suggestion was. That's about how many Indians, particularly those who haven't had a great deal of contact with Westerners, would regard not knowing who Tendulkar is. So I'm not surprised that someone tried to add it here, although obviously I think we're in agreement that it's trivial stuff that doesn't belong in the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2014

[edit]

Maria sharapova is the one who doesn't know who Sachin Tendulkar is.... Dmitri001 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good for her. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that doesn't fill articles with trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Dmitri001 as a blatant block-evading sock of Tinaiyer1976 per WP:DUCK. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Images

[edit]

I was surprised to see the lack of recent images of Sharapova in this well-written article. According to WP:GACR, good articles should be illustrated when possible. I'd like to add these images. Any thoughts? Bede735 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sharapova at the US Open, August 2011
    Sharapova at the US Open, August 2011
  • Sharapova at the WTA Tour Championship in Istanbul, October 2011
    Sharapova at the WTA Tour Championship in Istanbul, October 2011
  • Sharapova at the French Open, May 2013
    Sharapova at the French Open, May 2013
  • Sharapova at the Italian Open, May 2014
    Sharapova at the Italian Open, May 2014
All those images? No. There's already eleven images in the article. I'm not opposed to replacing images or adding a few more but each image should show something somewhat unique. --NeilN talk to me 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is eleven a lot? Is there some MOS guidance on the appropriate number of images for an article? I would think that the appropriate number of images for an article is a function of the length of an article and the quality images available to illustrate that article. Bede735 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a function of length. Usually 2 or 3 images is enough. This isn't a glamor magazine or photo exhibit on a tennis player. It's an encyclopaedic summary of Sharapova's career. The only pic that has value imho is "Sharapova at the US Open, August 2011." That's a good shot and could replace a different article image. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No guidance on number but WP:IRELEV has "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." We have closeups of Sharapova on the court. If more are to be added they should show something unique. --NeilN talk to me 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WP:IRELEV and your caution on overwhelming an article with images. In this case, however, each of the images above illustrates her in competition during important matches addressed in the relevant section of the article. What's unique about these images is that they illustrate her in competition during specific milestones in her career—not simply replicating images of her hitting a tennis ball, preparing to hit a tennis ball, or commenting on her failure to hit a tennis ball with sufficient accuracy. Tennis is a visual activity; the article should reflect that. Bede735 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to one image being added to each one of the currently imageless sections of the article. --NeilN talk to me 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Big objection to simply adding more of the same. Per Tennis project consensus we try to keep it to 10 or less. It's not etched in stone but I believe it's part of the guidelines. the photos must convey some extra information too. No most tennis articles are about tennis and most players have 2-5 pics. Sharapova is massively popular and has two extra pics on her cannon powershot commercials and her candyline. We don't count the infobox pic, but even the shots in there now start to get repetitious and ordinary in nature. If you find a truly great new public domain photo, by all means be bold and replace another pic and see if it sticks. try to space them nicely and on different side of the article. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both sound like reasonable approaches. I'll add a few (above) and remove a few to better illustrate the article. Feel free to remove any with which you disagree. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the added images show different aspects and are not repetitious to the ones already published they could be added provided the total number stays reasonable and relative to the article size. The current images show most of her shots but an image of a backhand shot is still missing. FYI the shot labelled "Sharapova at the US Open, August 2011" is NOT from the 2011 US Open but from the 2011 Cincinnati Open (final).--Wolbo (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there was a backhand pic in 2004 but it was recently replaced so I put it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

[edit]

I request you to give me the permission to edit the page "Maria Sharapova'. Skipper Roberts (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not the place to request additional user rights. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2015

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, I, Skipper Roberts, request you to give me the permission to edit the page "Maria Sharapova". I promise I won't make any copyright violation. Kindly grant me the permission to edit this page.

Yours Sincerely, Skipper Roberts

Skipper Roberts (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. But please don't add content such as these to the article. - NQ (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015

[edit]

Dear wikipedia, I, Collin Fluffles, seek your permission to edit the page Maria Sharapova. I promise I won't violate the page. Kindly grant me the permission to do so.

Regards, Collin Fluffles

Collin Fluffles (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Fluffles, please see See WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Your user account must be more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits before you can edit the article. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, I, Kukkucupcake18, seek the permission to edit semi-protected pages , such as Maria Sharapova. Kindly give me the permission to do so.

Yours sincerely, Kukkucupcake18

Kukkucupcake18 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking information is incorrect

[edit]

Maria Sharapova is currently ranked No.4 in the WTA Ranking, not No. 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.34.14 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maria Sharapova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Update grand slam results with quarterfinal finish at the 2016 Australian Open

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Maria Sharapova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Maria Sharapova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masses of trivia

[edit]

I've just deleted a lot of this from the Sugarpova section. The Endorsements section is full of it, if someone has a few minutes or more to spare... Boscaswell talk 06:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling up on the same thing from other sections

[edit]

I have no idea why a few editors want to double up on the same thing in multiple sections. It was reverted of course and needs to be talked about before re-adding. It's one thing to write something fairly derogatory about someone, but if the sources are there we follow those sources. But to write it in two different sections is undue weight! I'm not sure if the whole drug section is a bit too long and undue weight already but as long as it doesn't continue to grow it's not a big matter. But flowing it into the candy section is trivial. Do we start talking about diabetes in every article that has to do with candy bars? No. This is simply a section on her candy business. But before it gets added back in it needs to be discussed. Goodness, Djokovic says something unfair to women and we aren't allowed to add a single sentence about it without it getting deleted. Here some want to double up on remarks. Let's keep things on an even keel folks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that it wasn't completely doubling up (and it could have been worded a bit better so as to prove this), I thought the information was necessary to include because it spoke of blood sugar levels, which I believed held some relevance in the Sugarpova section. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was doubling up, but discussion of the addition is well and fine. I assume we all want the article to be complete and the best it can be. Now, I still don't think it needs to be mentioned again at all, but if it was added it would go under her "personal life" or perhaps a "health" section, not her candy company. It was also written as "Sharapova said that one of the health issues she had been using the drug meldonium to treat for ten years was diabetes,[173] which can result from high blood sugar levels." Well that's incorrect. She said the she took the drug because of some heart concerns and that she has "a family history of diabetes." Big difference there! This was written as if someone said to themselves... my god, she has diabetes and she runs a candy company... I better include this contradiction. That's not what we're here for.
If it got mentioned again at all it would be under some health section that simply said Sharapova has said her family has a "history of diabetes." It wouldn't need anything more. We have to be very careful about how this gets framed on wikipedia. We have to talk about it for sure, but it wasn't illegal like heroin. It was banned in tennis, and for that she'll be severely punished "by the ITF." But it was totally legal in many countries. She was under a doctors care and had a prescription. From everything told to us so far this was not Lance Armstrong. We just have to be careful and treat this encyclopedic, not like a blog. Summarize what happened, make it short and "sweet" (pun intended), keep in mind wikipedia weight guidelines, and make sure it's 100% factual with many many sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We know you thought it was doubling up - there's no need to double up on your point, Fyunck.
I agree totally with 4TheWynne. The fact that she cited diabetes as one of the things she needed to take meldonium for, albeit "only"because of "a family history of diabetes" and yet she is responsible for a coy. which sells sugary "foods" is most definitely noteworthy. Juxtapose that with her seriously considering changing her name to Sugarpova, and .... I rest my case. Oh, and by the way, it IS true that one of the health issues she says she took meldonium for for ten years is diabetes. It's just that she took it for "a family history" of it. If someone takes a drug, they take it for to treat something. In her case, it was to treat a propensity in her family for debates. Allegedly. Boscaswell talk 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Combining her family's diabetes and her marketing of sugary drinks to make or suggest a point is original synthesis, which is not permitted. Unless there is a reliable source saying this? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WADA substance controversy - really getting bloated

[edit]

Every time I look, this section is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Like a 50's horror movie. What's gonna happen when a ruling comes down? Double the size? It's already WP:undue weight in my opinion. We don't need everybody's take on the issue... just the facts and a couple key quotes. I mean no one cares what Carl Frampton says. It really needs a trimming. The things that meldonium does or doesn't do really belong in the Meldonium article , not here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've stripped it down a fair bit and removed anything that I didn't think was relevant, and kept some of the opinions which stood out, but I don't want to become subjective about all of this, so I'll leave it to you guys to decide if the section looks fine now. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... I wasn't going to touch it either... too much controversy. You did a great job. I guess the only thing differently that I would have done would be with the quotes from other tennis players. I'd have to think a bit on how I'd handle it. (I sit back and stare at the ceiling for two minutes) Capriati is a drug user herself. I probably would have lumped Capriati, Azarenka and Cibulkova together in a sentence that said "Jennifer Capriati, Victoria Azarenka, and Dominika Cibulkova also showed little sympathy for Sharapova".[180][188][189] ... and let the 3 links to their quotes speak for themselves if readers wanted to see. The rest I think I'd leave as is. Again nice job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section is look fine now actually and I like it, but why the statement from Kristina Mladenovic has been erased? (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/12/kristina-mladenovic-maria-sharapovapa-cheater-tour-simona-halep) it should be include on that section. She's maybe not popular as another female top players but her opinion about Sharapova is reliable. Politsi (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We really don't need a quote from everyone. A summary and cites from a few notables would be adequate. It would be also worth keeping in that Sharapova is, by the same accounts, not that popular among fellow professionals, which may balance their lack of sympathy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response partly to Fyunck, the reasons why I made this edit without incorporating Capriati as part of that are, firstly, because she is a former player as opposed to Azarenka and Cibulkova, who are not (which makes sense), and secondly, because the verbal attack that she made on Twitter was so significant that I felt even the stripped-down version of what she said/did belonged on its own. I even had a look at her Twitter at the time when this was first reported, so I have an idea of exactly what she said. Anyway, that was my reasoning, but apart from that, I basically went by what you suggested. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edit by you perhaps at that section. It's good!. Simple but straight to the point. And I wondering what's gonna happen if Sharapova read her profile in here. But she deserve to get the consequences, and also another (a lot of) Russian athlete who also use Meldonium. Politsi (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck: Oh dear. Turn away and work hard on something else for a few days and look what happens. I absolutely definitely 100% do not agree with deleting "The things that meldonium does or doesn't do", because it removes any semblance of balance. We have a lot of space given over to Sharapova saying why she took meldonium, about what she says it does or doesn't do. Funny that they have not been trimmed, eh? What happened to WP:NPOV?
I am not, however, arguing for her arguments to be trimmed right back, I considered trimming her quotes a few weeks ago but determined that to do so would be putting to put a slant on it and would be unfair to her. But where we have her saying I took it because I was told it does this, and at length, then we need to have back in the sentences which discussed what it is used for and what it does, because otherwise there is no balance. Yes, that discussion also belongs in the meldonium article, but. \what was there before deletion belongs in this article. Most readers are not going to go elsewhere in Wikipedia, they are going to look only at this article. The article is now unbalanced and therefore the deletions were wrong. I have spent a lot of time working on this article, a lot of what has been deleted was written by myself, though there were other editors involved, but anyone looking at the revision history will see my name a lot, and so I would appreciate it if anyone who makes such substantial changes pings me when they propose to do so. It is not hard to do that and Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project. It is not possible to monitor every article I work on, I have a life as well. Thank you. By the way, yes, the section was getting long. But the subject of her suspension is massive. Every section about her career is long. This is in effect another section about her career and not something to be made little of. The trimming of the reactions by other sports people paragraph - fine. That was getting too long. Well done on that. Boscaswell talk 09:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne: Is it acceptable to give no time for discussion at all after a suggestion is made on Talk before going ahead and deleting something which is likely to be controversial and which others have worked hard on? Please explain. Boscaswell talk 09:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is all pretty new material, so one could also look at it as before it should ever have been added it should have been discussed. So there are two ways of looking at it. This is a collaboration and it's why I brought it up here. IMHO this is not the article to discuss all the merits or dangers of the drug. That is for another article. If readers are really interested in what the drug may do they will click the link and find out. Over the course of her entire career the weight given to this was getting ridiculous and continuing to grow. We don't even have a determination as to what punishment will be handed down. Marin Čilić's section on his drug use is six sentences... and that includes all the punishment and appeals. Viktor Troicki was four sentences including his appeal. Martina Hingis is five sentences long including the punishment. Some of these people don't even have separate sections for the drug stuff, it is simply melded into the full year of tennis. Sharapova's section is MASSIVE in comparison, and that's without even a hearing and result. I still think it might be too large but 4TheWynne did an excellent job of trimming it to a reasonable level. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boscaswell, I went by a couple of suggestions by Fyunck and avoided trimming her own quotes. Again, after I made the edit, I said I didn't want to become subjective about all of this, and I would leave it for others to deliberate on. Nothing's been set in stone yet. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck I don't dispute that the sections on others are far shorter, but a. Sharapova is a massive figure in the world of tennis, and more importantly, b. it's conventional for matters which become historical to be subject to trimming, severe or otherwise. We haven't reached that stage yet, it's still a current event. Also, Wiki wasn't as well-used or as well-edited at the time of the earlier misdemeanors? The main area of the section which had been continuing to grow a few days ago was quotes from tennis players and others. That *was* getting crazy. And probably still warrants some trimming. The work on what I have now reinstated was done during the days after the initial revelations. I take you point over it being better to put things to Talk before putting them in, in an ideal world...., but you probably realise that it's more or less impossible to establish a measured Talk discussion during the frenzied days which follow major revelations, as I've discovered during the past week on the Panama Papers. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne Thanks for that. All the best to all. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But we are not a newspaper that puts every detail of "current events. It was far too much bloat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck I set out in great depth why I re-introduced what I re-introduced. When deleting it, all you could say in your Edit summary was "much better as it was". And all you could say here was "too much bloat". The amount I re-introduced was only about 35-40% of what has been deleted by 4TheWynne. So what you have carefully constructed is an article which sets out the reasons why she took it and leaves out any discussion of what meldonium does or doesn't do. Only wanting to include her reasons is unbalanced and suggests violation of WP:NPOV. Therefore, I have reverted your edit. Boscaswell talk 04:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I saw no one agreeing with you. What you added was the same bloat that was removed. And that new stuff under the candy section was ridiculous. Write out here what you think is vital and we'll all discuss it. There are 4 editors who agreed with 4TheWynne's changes, and only you who demand all the trivial stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with doing this, and I appreciate the support, Fyunck(click), but is it worth going for an RfC? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly could. What's mind boggling to me is I tried to add a "single sentence" about Djokovic's comments about men deserving more prize money. It was crushed by a single editor and no one would support me. A single sentence still has not been added. This article seems to be the opposite. I can never figure out wikipedia. The thing is we only have one editor with a problem... Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had already done what you have just asked ("write out here what you think is vital"), Fyunck. Just page up and you'll be able to read it. I'm sure you can't have done so already as otherwise you wouldn't be asking me to do so again. I have written out in depth why I believe that what you have just deleted again should be in. I have made the points over and over, but you do not engage other than to dismiss what I would like to include as bloat. I am following WP:NPOV. You only seem want to include Sharapova's opinions. You have not yet answered that point, which is of prime importance and fundamental to Wikipedia, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.
This isn't the Djokovic article. Please leave out any sentiment you have about that one when you consider this article.
You are the only editor who has agreed with yourself over your deletions. 4TheWynne has not been categorical. The others have not seen my entreaties.
Would you like to reconsider? Boscaswell talk 07:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part about discussing it instead of ramming it through against consensus. It contains Sharapova's statements to the press, it contains multiple attacks against her by her fellow players. It provides links to the substance meldonium where readers can find out all details about the substance. It contains the fact that WADA has banned meldonium and that it's not licensed in the USA. It contains the fact she has been provisionally suspended by the ITF. It contains what companies have severed ties with her. This could be more info than all other tennis players with suspensions combined. If it was like most it wouldn't even have a separate section... it would simply be contained in 2016. It was bloated. 4TheWynne took on the responsibility of helping us trim the thing, and I think he did a pretty good job... as did others in thanking him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I think other articles such as Djokovic's or even Bob Hewitt's rape conviction are interesting comparisons about the way wikipedia handles these things. A sentence such as Djokovic came under some criticism in March of 2016 for saying that male tennis players deserve more tournament money than women was nixed while here we have a separate section getting bigger and bigger by the minute. When she has her hearing and gets slapped with her punishment it should probably "replace" items already here rather than simply add on. But right now I see 4TheWynne's edit as a good compromise between bloat and a summary of the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boscaswell, I never said I wasn't being categorical – again, I said I didn't want to become subjective. I still agree with my edits. I was only trying to trim it down – I was not trying to include only Sharapova's opinions and/or quotes, and I don't believe that that's all there is left of importance in the section. Therefore, I don't agree entirely with your point about WP:NPOV. I still think that the best course of action would be to start an RfC. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, 4TheWynne. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question has been edited to one paragraph and two paragraphs. We have the current version:

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence, however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis. Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat several health issues, including diabetes and low magnesium,[170] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Her lawyer John Haggerty said, "Unfortunately no one from Maria's team looked at the 2016 banned list, but had they done so, they would have looked for mildronate and not found it on the list".[171] However, a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) summary document, titled "Major Changes – 2016 WADA Prohibited List", outlined the addition of mildronate.[172][173] It has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times in 2015 that meldonium was due to be banned,[174] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

and we have a longer version:

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence,[168] however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis.[169] The Latvian manufacturers of the drug, Grindeks, told Associated Press that "treatment course[s] of meldonium preparations may vary from four to six weeks [and] can be repeated twice or thrice a year.”[170] The company said it "cannot improve athletic performance",[171] while the drug's inventor Ivars Kalviņš said that he didn't think taking it should be construed as "doping."[168] But he also said that it "[optimises] the use of oxygen".[168] It is advertised as giving a mental focus, and having an ability to increase oxygen movement to muscles could therefore have a positive effect on stamina and endurance.[172]

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat several health issues, including diabetes and low magnesium,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Her lawyer John Haggerty said, "Unfortunately no one from Maria's team looked at the 2016 banned list, but had they done so, they would have looked for mildronate and not found it on the list".[174] However, a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) summary document, titled "Major Changes – 2016 WADA Prohibited List", outlined the addition of mildronate.[175][176] It has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times in 2015 that meldonium was due to be banned,[177] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

What if we used this instead of either of those items:

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence,[168] however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis.[169] The drug's inventor Ivars Kalviņš said that he didn't think taking it should be construed as "doping",[168] but he also said that it "optimises the use of oxygen".[168]

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat magnesium deficiancy, an irregular EKG and family history of diabetes,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Her lawyer John Haggerty said, "Unfortunately no one from Maria's team looked at the 2016 banned list." It has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times in 2015 that meldonium was due to be banned,[177] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

Thank you for that, Fyunck. I really appreciate your work on this ^^^^^. In the hours between my last comment here and this moment, opening up again to look at what was here, I'd been thinking that a re-write along the lines that you've come up with would be the answer. And you've done one, which looks pretty good. So please, your suggestion is great, please go ahead. Thanks again. Boscaswell talk 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but let's make sure others agree. We don't want someone unhappy like you were. As you said this is a group effort and we want to get it right. Does anyone have a problem with this or suggestions on how to make it better? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, my suggestion is this, which is broadly as yours. Fyunck, but with one sentence dropped and another added and a few other minor ce changes. My suggestion is half a line longer than yours.*gasp*

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence,[168] however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis.[169] The drug's inventor Ivars Kalviņš said that he didn't think taking it should be construed as "doping",[168] but he also said that it "optimises the use of oxygen".[168]

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat magnesium deficiency, an irregular EKG...expand abbrev.? and family history of diabetes,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. The addition of mildronate was outlined on a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) summary document, "Major Changes – 2016 WADA Prohibited List".[175][176] It was reported that all tennis players were warned five times before the ban on use of meldonium came into force,[177] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

...and then, following our trimming exercise, we continue with another major quote from Sharapova herself. *sigh* :-)

Over to you. Boscaswell talk 14:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EKG is a very common term and it's what Maria used. A simple EKG should suffice. The other change I'm not so sure about. Most other problems such as this don't need the exact document that tells of the drug's banning. That's trivial. And you want her lawyer's quote removed to insert it? If others agree we could do the substitution but it should read:

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat magnesium deficiancy, an irregular EKG and family history of diabetes,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Mildronate's addition was outlined on a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency summary document, and it has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times that it was due to be banned.[175][176][177] On March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

How does that look? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks, Fyunck. :-) Boscaswell talk 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's interesting is this section may become no more than an astrix since WADA may revert its ban to only athletes who have it in their systems after March 1, 2016. This could very well lift Sharapova's ban. But we aren't a newspaper, so we just have to wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aries009 sockpuppet- I know there are Sharapova fans here who trying to clean up or minimize the negative impact of Sharapova's doping violation with false narratives and incorrect headings. This is very irresponsible, disruptive and should STOP. The event that occurred is a "Doping Violation" and should be correctly titled as such. Not "WADA Substance Controversy". WADA did not initiate the event or cause the controversy. Sharapova did. So why is WADA leading the title? This seems like a ploy to mislead readers and it is wrong. Also it should be clearly stated that it was CAS that reduced Sharapova's suspension to 15 months. Not the ITF. They are two different organisations. So this line should be more factual and say "On October 4, 2016, the suspension was reduced to 15 months by CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). The doping violation narrative itself on the article seems to be heavily saturated with a lot of Sharapova quotes and Sharapova perspective of the event, as if it everybody else did something wrong except Sharapova herself, who actually committed the crime. Again, an attempt to mislead readers and reduce the negative impact of Sharapova's crime. Where is the neutral point of view in that? Where are the quotes and perspective of the ITF tribunal who actually investigated and ruled on the case? Their perspective is not important? This event needs real account of what happened. Not what Sharapova fans want readers to know.

What ever validity your point may have has been lost by your complete failure to assume good faith and casting of aspersions on other editors' motivations. This is not a constructive contribution to this discussion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aries009 sockpuppet-Judging by Escape Orbit's ignorance and complete failure to grasp the basic simplicity of my point, means he or she is exactly the problem and one of the distruptive editors that I'm referring to here. Folks who come here to twist facts and logic into their own bizzare false narratives, because they are obsessed fanatics of that certain athlete. Before you question my point, how about actually read, think and use your brain, assuming you have one, to deconstruct my point. It's really really simple. STOP the bias pro-Sharapova editing that is saturating her page! Edit with truth and facts. Not alternative-facts. Get it??

Fatality1, you need to watch your tone – right now, you're the one who's editing disruptively. The editors who do the most work at this article to keep it as neutral as possible, such as myself, are not simply "obsessed fanatics" of Sharapova, as you say. You could just as easily be a Sharapova-hater, and you are certainly giving off that impression. The only "basic simplicity" to your point is that you need to assume good faith, as Escape Orbit said, and not just make these ridiculous claims that us editors are biased and "twisting facts and logic into our own bizarre false narratives". The WADA substance controversy section, due to the work that's been put in by a number of experienced editors, is one of the better-written sections of the article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aries009 sockpuppet- "I need to watch my tone"? Are you threatening me, 4TheWynne? Because that sounds a lot like a threat. So for you lecturing me on my tone, you need to check yourself. You talk about editing in good faith and neutral point of view when you or your so-called experienced editors have completely twisted the Sharapova's doping narrative with falsehood, such as using a misleading header that says "WADA substance Controversy", as if trying to lead the reader to assume or believe that WADA instigated the incident or somehow caused a controversy out of nowhere, which is completely false. Sharapova was the one who was caught doping and admitted her doping violation, so the title of the doping story should suggest as such. The incident is NOT a WADA Substance Controversy. It is a "Doping Violation" and should be titled as such. There other misleading parts of the article, such as her incorrect/inflated prize money, no context given for her ranking suspension, leading readers to think her ranking was just suspended for no reason, and no statement about what organisation actually reduced her ban or why her ban was reduced. So before you come at with your threat or unfounded accusations, check your manners and your check your behaviour. Fatality1 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not threatening you, Fatality1. What I will say, however, is that – in your most recent comment alone – you've given me enough evidence to suggest that you are a sockpuppet of Aries009, who seemed to have the very same problems with this article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aries009 sockpuppet- So whoever disagrees with your disruptive editing is a sockpuppet? That is your logic, 4TheWynne? It can't at all be because you are a self-proclaimed Sharapova fanatic who might have questionable motives or a disruptive agenda towards her article that needs to be checked or questioned? No? Well, you are certainly allowed to have your own opinion, however ludicrous or idiotic it may be. I was simply making a suggestion here about the false narratives that I have seen on her article before you engaged with your threat, rudeness and idiocracy. And if multiple folks are seeing and saying the same thing as me, then I can't be the one with the problem, can I? So I will tell you once again in case it wasn't clear the first time. Check your attitude out the door and check yourself! Fatality1 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does this edit contradict neutral point of view?

[edit]

The consensus is that this edit does not cause the WADA substance controversy section of the Maria Sharapova article to contradict neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this edit cause the WADA substance controversy section of the Maria Sharapova article to contradict neutral point of view? The edit in question is a small portion of an overhaul that I made to the section. The relevant discussion can be found above. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - I don't think it does, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be tighter with some tweaks here or there. It could even have more and better info in a smaller space if we tighten things up. I even made a suggestion right above this RfC. Of all tennis players that have been banned for substance abuse I think this article by far has the most written about it...and all those other players have had their hearings and punishments handed down and included in the prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No IMO the current text is neutral. I think all 3 of the blocks in the section above are neutral, but I think the last one is the most concise and encyclopedic. John, AF4JM (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) (in reply to RfC)[reply]
  • No The text, as I see it and as it currently stands, does not violate the rule enforcing neutrality. -The Gnome (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

[edit]

I request you the permission to edit the page 'Maria Sharapova'. I won't do unneccesary edits.


Joliekukku (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many Grand Slam Match Wins has Sharapova?

[edit]

The Number of 180 given in the statisticsection seems to be wrong. Sharapova has 46 Wimbledon-Wins. So she has 179 Grand-Slam-Wins without this years Australian Open and 183 with it. What number is correct? --Intimidator (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something does not cross-foot. It's 180 wins adding down the rows but 179 adding across the columns. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said she has 46 Wimbledon-Wins and not 47. --Intimidator (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the numbers of wins by year is right; it's the total for Wimbledon that's off? —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WTA (assuming it's correct) they give her 183 wins. It includes this year's 4 wins at the Aussie Open. The ITF also includes her wins at the Australian Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the WTA page, I agree with dropping the Wimbledon number to 46. Any objections to that edit?
I'm mixed on what to do with this year's Australian. However, the ITF has it in her stats; I'm inclined to say include but put in a note. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the prize money and the ranking points are gone, but the wins remain. But another problem comes up with your links. At WTA she is credited with 601 wins. The ITF has her with 588 wins. --Intimidator (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows what the WTA and ITF will eventually show. It's kind of fluid. As for the wins, there are events sanctioned by the ITF that aren't with the WTA and vice versa. Although usually it's the WTA with the smaller total. It's why we use them as sources, but overide them when we can show they missed something. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Sharapova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maria Sharapova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Sharapova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Sharapova&oldid=1212972129"