Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 24 September 2006

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Steroid allegations?

While I don't think this page should spend too much text on the issue, I think that the allegations that Mauresmo may have used steroids are relevant. The previous attempt at doing this got reverted away. Does anyone have thoughts about how to do this well? --Rkstafford 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother mate, the wiki nazis that work round the clock supressing information they don't like will only revert it.

Relevant? They're completely unsubstantiated, comming mostly from homophobia. You could write down "Some people are jerks towards Mauresmo because they're insecure.", that's much more relevant. BKmetic 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no credible allegations against Mauresmo and there never have been. End of story. Metamagician3000 03:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

There is far too much trivia relating to 2006 accruing here. I intend to keep weeding it out to try to keep the article in some sort of proportion. In particular, it is not helpful to someone who wants to know about Mauresmo to be told that she could have returned to number one a week earlier if she'd won a particular match back in March 2006 or whatever. That was of topical interest at the time, but such interest does not last forever. As of tomorrow she'll have held down the number one racking for the 28th consecutive week. Try to keep a sense of proportion rather than being focused on events in the relatively recent past that were topical for only a very brief time. It would be better for more people to go back and put in useful information about the last few years, rather than keeping every tiny factoid about 2006. (I am responsible for the current structure of headings, etc., and I can see plenty of scope to expand and improve the material under the earlier headings.) Metamagician3000 03:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I suggest that other users work on creating a balanced article rather than revert warring over trivia. Whatever happens in today's final in Beijing will be much more notable than this stuff - indeed her wins over Serena Williams in the US Open and Lindsay Davenport in Beijing are now more topical, since these are the players who have done most to block her success in the past. There is endless trivia to be added but not everything topical at a particular time is encyclopedic. Metamagician3000 04:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not "suggesting." You're dictating. You changed factual aspects of the article, that in your opinion are "trivia," without discussing it first. And now you're all upset about the reversion of your changes. You want to discuss the "trivia"; yet, your initial changes and subsequent reversions indicate that you are insisting on the changes. I'm reverting your changes pending a meaningful discussion of them. That's only fair to the many users who have worked on the article since the last time you contributed to it on July 26, 2006. Tennis expert 05:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you assume good faith. I made a series of edits mainly to try to get a better sense of proportion into this article and to avoid vagueness, repetition etc. Some of the material I removed in that process was possibly written or worked on by me in the first place, at a time when it was topical. I saw no reason to write anything on the talk page as there had been no activity on this talk page to speak of, but I did give good edit summaries to show why I was making the changes I did. My edits were obviously made in good faith.

If you want to make edits that include putting back some specific material, by all means do so. I don't object to that. But you have made no attempt to edit. You simply keep reverting. This means that any grammatical improvements etc that I have made are lost. I warn you that your next revert will be in breach of 3RR and you may be blocked from editing the encyclopedia for it. I have the power to block you myself but will not do so, as it is not acceptable for an admin to block someone with whom he is in a content dispute. However, I do suggest you use the current version as a basis on which to edit the article, rather than continuing to revert out my work.

You should also be aware that it is not acceptable here to attack the other person rather than to discuss the importance, etc., of material. Your comments about my motives and attitude are directed at me personally and verge on uncivil. I suggest you simply edit the article, and I won't even mind if you restore the extra sentence about the Sharapova match and the one-week delay in regaining the number ranking. If you restore those sentences in the process of actually editing, I'll accept for now. My edits were not made with the intention of upsetting anyone or of standing no matter what. If you'd edited the article rather than reverting out my changes, I would have been okay with it. However, I do take the view that the 2006 section will need to be abbreviated sooner or later. I am, of course, prepared to negotiate about how when the time comes. Metamagician3000 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In my initial reversion of your edits, I saved the one and only grammatical correction you've made during the last two days. I never blindly revert anything. You need to shore up your facts before you publicly accuse someone of mindless reverts. As for the more-than-three-reverts-in-a-day rule, here it is: "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages article within a 24 hour period." I was never close to violating the rule, which I assume you already knew given that you're an experienced administrator; so, I'm wondering why you warned my about it (or the fact that you're an administrator given that you're not allowed to use your powers during a content dispute, which means that those powers are irrelevant here). Are you trying to intimidate me? Tennis expert 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles