![]() | Maria 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Who she dated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.150.123 ( talk) 00:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
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)
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)
Problem seems sorted for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgiBear ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
Nothing on Sugarpova yet in the article? Fixer23 ( talk) 09:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I will start this review over the weekend.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
personality rights}}
--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
04:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
14.201.101.169 ( talk) 13:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
and she does not know sachin tendulkar Vinod7668 ( talk) 06:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. Nici Vampire Heart 16:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@C.Fred where is the consensus to NOT add?-- Tinaiyer1976 ( talk) 14:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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).
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maria sharapova is the one who doesn't know who Sachin Tendulkar is.... Dmitri001 ( talk) 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request you to give me the permission to edit the page "Maria Sharapova'. Skipper Roberts ( talk) 11:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done Not the place to request additional user rights.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
11:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Update grand slam results with quarterfinal finish at the 2016 Australian Open
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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.
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??
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Rankings_Stats/Singles_Numeric_2003.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | Maria 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Who she dated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.150.123 ( talk) 00:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
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)
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)
Problem seems sorted for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgiBear ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
Nothing on Sugarpova yet in the article? Fixer23 ( talk) 09:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I will start this review over the weekend.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
personality rights}}
--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
04:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
14.201.101.169 ( talk) 13:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
and she does not know sachin tendulkar Vinod7668 ( talk) 06:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. Nici Vampire Heart 16:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@C.Fred where is the consensus to NOT add?-- Tinaiyer1976 ( talk) 14:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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).
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maria sharapova is the one who doesn't know who Sachin Tendulkar is.... Dmitri001 ( talk) 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request you to give me the permission to edit the page "Maria Sharapova'. Skipper Roberts ( talk) 11:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done Not the place to request additional user rights.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
11:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Update grand slam results with quarterfinal finish at the 2016 Australian Open
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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.
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??
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Rankings_Stats/Singles_Numeric_2003.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
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)