| Revision as of 15:35, 1 May 2008 editTennis expert (talk | contribs)24,261 edits Undid revision 209459020 by Dorftrottel (talk)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:38, 14 August 2009 edit undoTennis expert (talk | contribs)24,261 edits ←Blanked the page | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <table style="float: table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td valign="top"><!--left column--><div style="{{Round corners}}:1ex; text-align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: #ffffcc; color: #red">'''Leave your message at the ''bottom'', followed by a signature. I will reply on ''this'' talk page so as to maintain continuity in discussions. Be sure to monitor this page for my response as I will ''not'' notify you on your talk page. Contributions to this page, especially but not limited to unsigned comments, will be deleted or archived at my discretion, in accordance with ]. See ] and ].'''</div> | |||
| </table> | |||
| ] | |||
| == My point == | |||
| Actually, I went to look for citations myself, thinking that might be the better solution to this issue and, while I could find bits and pieces of it verified, I didn't see any one long reference that covered everything that I could have just tacked on to the article as "references" (I didn't look that hard admittedly, but still). I may have misspoke when I said that it needed to be cited, but it certainly needs references. After all, adding a reference for something can't be a detriment to an article, right? | |||
| If one checks my log, I've only warned four individuals that a block was imminent (yourself included) and blocked only two since I've become an admin, one of whom was a vandal-only account that was later blocked indefinitely (not counting admin training of course). In a case where ] replies, and the individual is not making any attempt to discuss the issue (commenting only in edit summaries, which cannot be directly replied to, removing messages left on talk pages), then I feel the warning of a block is appropriate. Note that above my comment in my RfA, when asked why I needed the admin tools, I responded that I wanted to use them for '''Protecting the biographies of living people''', which I feel I was doing in this case (the policy also applies in cases of "possibly living people"). If this discussion had been had before, the whole message could have been avoided, but instead you chose to revert without discussion and revert my attempts on your talk page to discuss the issue. I would have even been happy to add the reference(s) myself if you had pointed them out. If the information is so easy to obtain, then that's the best argument I've heard for referencing something. ] only applies when it improves the project - I don't see how less referencing can achieve that end. If anything, ] applies in the sense of avoiding the exact wording of the policies that you pulled apart. My interpretation is not erroneous, just not to the letter - I think it can be agreed that when an article is without references, that it is unreferenced, hence the tag. Cheers, ] 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not even quite sure how to respond to an argument that boils down to "the best way for a limited number of tennis article editors is to not reference them." I'm not asking for a citation for every fact, but certainly a general reference for her accomplishments could be provided? And quite frankly, ] outright states that: '''"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.'''" So it's not my job to find references for all the articles that people couldn't be bothered to reference, despite the fact that in 99% of cases they must have been looking at some source (ie. A reference) to make sure that they got the information right in the first place. If anything, my job is to remove all of the material. Let's not forget that '''uncited or poorly material may be removed at any time'''. In fact, Jimbo himself says: '''"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."''' So this doesn't fall under the scope of "negative information about living persons", but it is certainly within the aegis of "all information. So yes, I do tag all of the unreferenced articles that I encounter with an unreferenced tag, because I'm ]. If I were to follow ] to a tee, which says that verifiability, not truth, is the core of Misplaced Pages, then I would just go and delete all of the information, thus depriving people of it, which, as far as I'm concerned, is against the improvement of the project, hence WP:IAR. But those knowledge-thirsty people who read the articles have a right to know that the article is unreferenced as well, and those who task themselves in referencing articles have an equal right to know where their talents would be best used. | |||
| :And when you delete someone's message without responding to them, then do the exact opposite of the point that was made without discussing it, then the message IS message ignored, whether you believe it or not. Cheers, ] 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Roger Federer records page == | |||
| Tennis expert, | |||
| please do not start edit wars. Take a look at the edit I made in detail and if you feel a need and have a good reason to restore it back, talk about it in the discussion. | |||
| I know you think, at least from your name, that you are an expert on tennis, but you can't just undo people's edits. You only do that to vandalisms. | |||
| Many of those "records" are comparisons to other players or the women, which is really for a blog, not wikipedia. And others are redundant, and already mentioned basically in the same article here. So be careful about simply undoing for whatever reason, even if you put those records there in the first place. | |||
| ~ ] (]) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::well for one, the part that says he was in the finals of all four slams two consecutive years. | |||
| and dude seriously, you cannot undo my whole edit! you are starting a revert war, and this is unacceptable. if you don't think parts of the edit are correct, you go and fix those, not undo the whole edit. Also, you cannot just pick and choose random trivia numbers as records. Some of these are basically made up facts: they are facts that happen to be interesting, but there is a difference between a fact and record. | |||
| If you want to talk about Federer's greatness, make a blog. But don't just put any statement that sounds interesting that Federer has done. You have to be mature about this. I worked for like half an hour editing this, and you just undid it without even seeing each edit I made. Some places, it is mentioned that he broke the record, but it doesn't need to say the previous record was: - this is why it's a record, nor does it need to say held by - once again, it's his record now. Let's leave that to the blogs. For crying out loud, you even undid my correction of a typo. Do you understand? | |||
| I can't emphasize enough that you cannot just undo someone's edits because you think the first part of it is wrong or something. You need to take care with the article and find the parts that need to be fixed in your judgment. If that means typing the paragraph again, or copy and pasting from the previous edit, that's what you have to do. You don't just undo it. That's for vandalism. Do not start revert wars - it's against policy. ~ ] (]) 08:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You also don't want overshadow the accomplishments of other great players with Federer's success. you seriously need to be careful about making this article a blog. It's fine to show his excellence, but you have to be careful - encyclopedic. ~ ] (]) 08:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Now I just undid your edit, and put back a few notable things I'd taken out before. Remember this article is not your property. Don't go and undo the whole thing again. I took out redundant records, fixed a few typos, moved a factual reference, and combined two. thank you ~ ] (]) 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't know why you are talking to me about good faith clauses. You undid an edit of mine that had within it 5 corrections of bad typos, among other things. and you did it twice fold. I was just saying that there are other ways to fix an edit, especially a large one. I called you on having ownership of the article simply because of the undoing of a large edit that had very much improving parts in it. Other parts you didn't agree with you could put those back in yourself. But to undo the whole edit is what was the problem. That's what I am saying. If you want to have the last word on it for whatever reason, that's fine. But I'm saying you cannot just undo an edit you haven't reviewed in full, or else you'd see there are pertinent parts to it. If you want to do that, go ahead, but make sure to re-correct the typos the previous editor had fixed, at least. Does that make sense? You don't need to argue with me, this is getting old. I hope you even read what I am writing rather than just responding. ~ ] (]) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| i dont understand whats wrong with exactly 11, since fed and nadal streak began at french open 2005 and ended at us open 2007, so exactly 11 consecutive Grand Slams won by only these two in this period and nobody else, as 2005 AO was won by Safin and 2008 AO was won by Djokovic. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :How would a reader know that no other pair in tennis history won 11, 12, 13, etc.? You know it. I know it. But we're not writing just for you and me. By the way, please SIGN your posts on my talk page! ] (]) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Martina Hingis== | |||
| A class is reserved for articles that have passed through the ] and been granted GA status. You can find more information ] <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, please leave me a message the next time you revert my edit <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Navratilova? == | |||
| Hi Tennis Expert, | |||
| I just saw a revert on federer's records page about navratilova. I've always been curious about this 1984 Australian Open result. Why doesn't it "count"? It seemed unfair to Navratilova I thought to not include it just because it was at a different time of the previous year. Can you shed some light on it? My understanding was that that AO was the 1985 one, but held at the end of 1984 that time. I may be incorrect. ~ ] (]) 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::very interesting... Thanks for the info ~ ] (]) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sharapova== | |||
| Chill mate, I was, in fact, reverting the previous edit done from an anonymous IP, using Twinkle, assuming the user was vandalizing the article. Since your edit came at almost exactly the same time, twinkle reverted it as well. As soon as I reloaded the history page and realized there was your edit in between, I restored the previous version. Now as for my request, it is a common practice on here, so I'm surprised my comment offended you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh believe me I will, I always do, unless I'm reverting vandalism. The fact that you've never heard of this before is irrelevant though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sharapova's Australian Qualifiers == | |||
| Ahh.... I see. Thanks for noting that. I will check now then to make sure all the math is right, because before it had 6 extra wins on the first year, which was wrong, just 3 I guess. | |||
| Keep it up and always be friendly (nothing to do with you :) ) | |||
| ~ ] (]) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whoa!, I'll add that in hidden text so no one edits that. You do your research well lol. ~ ] (]) 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sharapova again== | |||
| Please read my last comment on the talk page, we can't leave it that way. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Thanks, but I know the rules. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Ana Ivanovic == | |||
| This Montenegrin-emigration website about Montenegrins in Belgrade: http://www.montenegro-canada.com/articles/article/4428701/74863.htm | |||
| Btw she is of the Ivanovics from ] a suburb of the Montenegrin ]. During the ] hers sided with the Bloc for common state with Serbia, which resulted eventually in ending the pleas for her playing for Montenegro and under its flag as well. --] (]) 11:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tennis Article== | |||
| Excuse me they are called "Ball Kids" that is how they refer to them on the TV - and that comment saying "I don't know much about tennis" is extremely harsh and rude. Especially when I was only trying to help. Your comments please. --] (]) 17:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :They are called ball boys, ball girls, and (rarely) ball kids. You have changed and reverted the ] article over-and-over, despite being told that the article was correct as it was originally. That's not being helpful, and basing an edit on your casual watching of television isn't helpful, either. The article is well established and often edited. If "ball girl" were incorrect, something as obvious as that would have been changed long ago. ] (]) 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ivanovic timeline== | |||
| Sorry for messing it up, I use the WTA wesbite as my definitive source on these things and they haven't included it (I was vaguely aware that she'd played a few Fed Cup ties). I assumed the 3 wins on carpet were from an exhibition or something of that nature and had been added by an over-zealous fan - players such as Ivanovic and Sharapova are prone to having things like that done, it goes hand-in-hand with referring to the players by their first names. There's a tendency for these articles to descend in to fan pages or go above and beyond what is required, so I apologize, that's all I thought it was. ] (]) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem! I agree totally with your sentiments about these articles becoming fan pages. Some of the pages for lesser known/current players are especially bad, but I don't have the time or energy to revise and monitor them. I'm concentrating on retired female players and a few well known current players. Best wishes! ] (]) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Flag icons in tennis article results tables== | |||
| Excuse me, but you continue to change the work I have done. By having the flags, it makes that column more uniform, instead of writing the state and country each tournament is held in. If you click on the tournament, you can find out all that information. You mentioned the issue with color-blind people, but you can always roll across the flag, and I don't think we should change our entire articles for that. ] (]) 23 February 2008 <small>—Preceding ] was added at 01:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Excuse me: (1) Neither the articles nor your contributions are "yours." See ]. (2) The way you are using the flag icons is inconsistent with the vast majority of tennis articles on Misplaced Pages. You have not attempted to obtain consensus. (3) Your insensitivity to color-blind people is truly and remarkably disturbing. (4) I suggest that you read carefully ]. ] (]) 02:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::First of all, I never said the articles were mine. I was merely commenting on the work I had done. As I have seen up top, I am not the only one who has had a difference of opinions with you. If you want it your way, fine. Write the county the tournament was in for all I care. I thought that when it said, "flag of brazil", people would realize that the tournament was in Brazil, but I guess there are a lot of dumb people in the world and need it spelled out for them. I appreciate your work. ] (]) 24 February 2008 <small>—Preceding ] was added at 15:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == RE: Protection request == | |||
| Hey there, nice to meet you! The reason I declined the request for ] is because it hasn't been disrupted that much in the last few days. The one problematic editor has been warned; try taking the dispute to the talk page in the meantime. Protection shouldn't be used when there's only one editor pushing a POV. If you have consensus to keep the page this way and he keeps pushing, then I'll block a bit for disruption. We'll see what he does now that he's been warned. Cheers, ] ] 13:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :While concerning, still not bad enough to protect; there's only one editor. I've dropped him another warning; honestly, however, I don't see what's so bad about his edits. They seem fine. Of course, I have no idea about the subject of the article, and he isn't citing sources, but he seems to be editing in good faith. ] ] 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, he is uncivil. If he keeps ignoring requests, I'll block. Also, if you think he's a sockpuppet, check out ] if your concerns are strong. Cheers, ] ] 07:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, I'll semiprotect for one week and we'll see how that works. You're right about the dynamic IP address. ] ] 07:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No problem, just don't forget that you now owe me money. Just kidding, just kidding. Also, feel free to notify me if these suspected socks act up again. Cheers, ] ] 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Martina Hingis == | |||
| Per ], stand-alone years should generally not be linked. You said "Our practice in tennis articles is to link the years." Can I see some sort of a talk page or a Misplaced Pages article where I can see this consensus? ] <small> (])</small> 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Your edit summary read like an argument of ]. Linking stand-alone years is considered overlinking. ] <small> (])</small> 14:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The consensus is hundreds of Misplaced Pages tennis articles. I suggest you have a look at them. ] is a guideline, not policy. "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." ] (]) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A consensus is a general agreement. Misplaced Pages manual of style is indeed a consensus according to what you have quoted. Does de-linking the years defy common sense? Again, ]. And guess what, a majority of tennis-related articles don't have the sources that match the size of the articles. You can call that a consensus because a majority of editors, no doubt, added little sources to tennis-related articles. The practice in tennis articles must be to add minimal amount of sources. This is not the meaning of a consensus. ] <small> (])</small> 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::De-linking the years "defies common sense" (your standard, not mine) in this context because it goes against the consensus of the editors of tennis-related articles. The sourcing requirement is a "policy," (]) not a "guideline." Sorry you don't see the difference. ] (]) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. So where is the consensus? Guideline or policy, those who have edited tennis-related articles obviously decided to add minimal number of sources, right? Seriously, where is the consensus. ] <small> (])</small> 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am not going to argue with you any further about this because you're changing the subject. Editors cannot arrive at a consensus for something that violates applicable "policy" without first changing the policy, unless the "ignore all rules" policy (]) somehow applies. Yes, tennis articles are seriously under-sourced. You and I have no disagreement about that. ] (]) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your argument would have been compelling if there was actually a consensus. Flashing other articles that do not follow the Misplaced Pages guideline does not seem like a strong argument. I will offer you a equally weak evidence; I have never seen an editor who edits tennis-related articles and argues against following a Misplaced Pages guideline. | |||
| ::::::It is not just guidelines that should be approached with common sense. The same rule of thumb is also applied to ]. The articles that have little sources must have been approached with common sense too. ] <small> (])</small> 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you don't want to argue with me any further, that's fine. I see that you will not be convinced by those mere guidelines that I have cited. ] <small> (])</small> 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you aren't pleased with all those guidelines that I have cited, may I present you with ]. And yes, rules refer to policies and guidelines. ] <small> (])</small> 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Which way do you want the links? == | |||
| I've noticed that everytime I put in links to things at Tennis Statistics you change them... and you are not consistant in how you change them. What is your vision in how "not losing a set" should look, because it may be different than mine. I first linked all the slams to their home site, you changed it to the first time mentioned. Fine. I added a first time mention block of names and you re-add the slam home link to all of them. You then add a link to Borg's wimbledon '76 home site but unlike the other players you don't link it to Borg's home "draw" page. This is wacky confusing. All I want is consistancy in a framework and though you thankfully correct my many errors you are also adding inconsistancies. By the way I still think the Moody Brinker addition is wrong since Brinker not used in any other stat page or encyclopedia. It's one thing to add a married name while a player is active... it's quite another to add it when a player gets married long after she retires. Are we gonna do the same for Chis Evert Norman? ] (]) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I change your edits just to torment you.... Nah, seriously, nothing should be linked more than once within a section of an article. Other tennis editors seem to like links to the draws of each Grand Slam tournament, where available. All I've done is tried to accomodate their preference (not mine). I don't know what you mean by "Borg's home 'draw' page." ] (]) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you goto the Borg 76 Wimbledon link you can see the entire draw... it's not just the Wimbledon 76 page (which exists). On either side of that link you have Nastase 73 French and Borg 78 French. Those links do not link to a draw page but the main 73 and 78 pages. The draw pages exist but the links don't go there. Which should it be? My personal choice is not to link to the date at all because I would have it just the player's name and then all slams he/she won with no set lost. I'm about to add another 30-50 ladies to their list and it's getting rather big with the same names listed over and over again. Or maybe the men can have it your way and the ladies, because it's nothing special for them, should have a name listed once and then the events she performed the surgery. Just my two cents. ] (]) 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Ivan Lendl == | |||
| Please may I ask why you undid my change? It is trivia after all. ] (]) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : added uncited information and had unencyclopedic commentary. ] (]) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course it was cited - I cited wikipedia's own tennis statistics page. ] (]) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Citing Misplaced Pages is not a valid citation. ] (]) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Beverly Baker Fleitz== | |||
| It is Wikicivility to leave a message on the editor's talk page when an article is reverted for a reason other than vandalism. I would appreciate it if you would do that. As stated in the Edit summary, the edits were to improve the article by removing repetitive grammar. Virtually every sentence starts "Fleitz (verb) ...", which violates basic writing principles taught in elementary school. I understand your comment about a list. Perhaps we can discuss this and reach a compromise somewhere between a list and repetitive grammar? I am watching your talk page so please feel free to reply here. ] (]) 12:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm happy with the article as it was written before your edits, but I have no problem with your revising it so long as the article is not transformed into a list. I'll take a look at what you do. Sorry, I don't notify people when I revert their edits. That's the purpose of watch lists. ] (]) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article reads much more smoothly with the recent edits. Thanks. ] (]) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == SI templates == | |||
| I need some feed back on the templates. Did you remove them because you don't like them or because they are trivial to her career?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Your template is a massive addition (aesthetically) to an article about a professional tennis player. At most, you should add a simple "see also." ] (]) 05:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In your browser was it showing in collapsed form?. It is suppose to, which may be the problem.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == About the Sony Ericsson Open == | |||
| The Sony Ericsson Open is just the sponsored name! The official name is the Miami Masters. If you do your research you will find out that a few years back the ] was called the Nasdaq 100 Open. Sony Ericsson is just the current sponsor and has a contract that runs thru 2010 or 2011, not sure when exactly. And although the tounrmanet takes place at Crandon Park in Key Biscayne the WTA consider this a tournament that takes place in Miami and that's how they state it in all of their official media information. If you don't believe me just go to their site and read it for yourself. | |||
| Here's the proof: | |||
| WTA Tornament Schedule: {{unsignedIP2| 11:40, March 18, 2008|190.10.76.226}} | |||
| :The official name is the Sony Ericsson Open. The name of the Misplaced Pages article is Miami Masters. And the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. Those are the (inconvenient to you, apparently) facts. ] (]) 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The tournament does take place in Key Biscayne, I'm not disputing that, what I am saying is that the tournament for all WTA and media effects is promoted as being played in Miami and the tournament's OFFICIAL NAME is the Miami Masters because it is part of the Masters Tournament Series and a Tier I event of the WTA tour. The Sony Ericsson name is just the current sponsored name just as a few years back it was called the Nasdaq 100 Open. I will contact the press office of the tournament for you if you need any more proof. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::Yeah, go contact the press office. Maybe they can teach you how to sign your comments, too. ] (]) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't really care what you think, I just want the location of the tournament corrected thru wikipedia. But just for fun I will contact the press office, I happen to know someone there. What will it take to convince you? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Ana Ivanović == | |||
| Please do not enter current status at the end of current 2008 section. It is sufficient only to enter information after a tournament is complete. Please remember that ]. These topics are more relevant at ]. ] (]) 03:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You should bring this up in the article discussion page. I'm not the one adding the information. I merely reverted your unexplained deletion of it. Established editors seem to prefer that the information be in the article. ] (]) 04:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hullo == | |||
| Hey there. I dropped a warning ]; hopefully that sends the message. If he makes any more uncivil comments, please drop by again and I'll deal with it. Oh, and thank you for keeping your cool through this situation; that's very admirable of you. Cheers, ] ] 05:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC) | |||