Jump to content

User talk:Bloom6132/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bloom6132, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Jimmy Connors ATP Birmingham

Hi the records are for individual Grand Prix Tour tournaments in a career and not the most of all time on the men's tour that information is here ATP World Tour records and here List of open era tennis records this is an individual record for this players profile only. --Navops47 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this. Bloom6132 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed Connors' record for titles at ATP Birmingham for several reasons. Firstly, it is in line with the deletion of Djokovic's titles records at Dubai and Serbia. These records are not notable, as the tournaments are at the ATP 250 level. Only Grand Slam, Year–End Championships and ATP Masters 1000 title records are notable (see Rafael Nadal, Andre Agassi and Michael Chang's articles. Furthermore, the tournament at Birmingham occurred only 8 times (1973–80). Barring a sudden and unexpected revival of the tournament (highly unlikely as the Atlanta Tennis Championships are still being played), this seems to be a pretty "phony" record, as no player has been able to humanly challenge Connors' record of 6 titles for thirty-one years. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The record is in line with this article here List of open era tennis records if we use your criteria for selection 70% of players on that list would not be there either Roger Federer included, as far as notability is concerned if the record or number is mentioned and or recorded in any independent media sources for that period (2 only ) it qualifies for inclusion I have already found 4 newspaper articles. --Navops47 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi also in line with these guidelines Wikipedia:NTENNIS#Tennis thank you --Navops47 (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That applies to tennis players, not tennis records. The subject at hand is records. If we were to use your criteria, Moya's 5 titles at the Croatia Open Umag, Fed's 5 titles at the ATP Halle and Nadal's 6 titles at Barcelona would have to be counted. I have not seen any news source (online or print) ever list Nadal's Barcelona titles as one of his significant records or Fed's titles at Halle as one of the reasons why he considered the GOAT. Take this article as an example. The only title records they list here are Grand Slam, Year–End Championships and Masters 1000. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In case you don't know there is a big debate going on with tennis project members here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis about the future of all 35 exisiting tennis record articles being reduced/merged into much fewer new articles possibly just 10 maybe less. It started under Template: years in tennis but has its own section now. The list of open era records maybe going anyway and the ATP World tour and WTA records feel free to join the debate particluarly if we go ahead an decide what stays or goes bearing in mind these new articles will include record holders from possibly 1877-present and not just after 1968 or 1990 --Navops47 (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. Much appreciated. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Visa requirements for Canadian citizens

Great work! Thanks for improving the page; good sourcework. Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anytime! I'm glad to be of help. Bloom6132 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Career baseball records

I don't agree with your edit removing the "career" qualifier for records achieved over a career. I understand the convention you are proposing is for readers to assume it's for a career unless it says otherwise, but I don't believe that this is standard and implicitly understood universally. Note that MLB.com and Baseball Almanac both explicitly specify whether a record is for a career or a season. Rickey Henderson's article explicitly distinguishes the two as well, but it achieves it by having separate tables. While a baseball fan could guess by looking at the size of the numbers if they are for a career or a season, a casual or non-fan would not be able to. Even a fan wouldn't be able to distinguish averages like ERA and WHIP. Let me know your thoughts.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Copying your response from my talk page to keep the thread in one place.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bagumba. I understand your concerns regarding the clarity of distinguishing career and single-season records, especially in regards to non-baseball fans who may visit the page. However, I'm basing my rationale off precedence in the featured article of Mariano Rivera. In the records section, there is no mention of "career" records. It seems that denoting "Most saves" is enough to imply he has the most saves ever. In contrast, a single season record can be distinguished by the fact that the stat is followed a small script year denoting the season in which the record was achieved, along with the note "in single season." Thus, it would appear to be fairly clear, provided the reader refers to the year next to the stat to determine a single-season vs career record. Hence, if no year is provided, it becomes obvious that the record is an all-time career one. Cheers.—Bloom6132 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good for Hoffman's and Rivera's articles to follow same style. I still think its better to make it explicit that its a career record. Space is not an issue for a short word like "career". While its good to be terse, it still needs to be concise. It doesn't seem concise if I have to read something like "Lowest ERA", and wonder if its for a season or a career, until I hunt down an entry they does say "in a season" and then guess that everything else that doesnt say anything must be for a career. While Rivera is an FA, so is Henderson's. Not saying we should go to Rickey's format, but we should make it explicit which records are for a career. FA doesnt mean it cant be improved. Also note that Rivera Yankee's records table does explicitly mention career e.g. "Highest career strikeout-to-walk ratio". Go ahead and respond here. I'll add this to my watchlist.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I fully understand your justification in terms of being concise in distinguishing career vs. single-season records. Now that you've brought up the mention of "career" in Mo's record (previously unbeknownst to me), it appears that adding this distinction for Hoffman's records will only improve the clarity of the article. May I suggest that the wording be embedded into the description rather than come after (i.e. "Most career saves" as opposed to "Most saves, career"). That way, it will be more coherent and flow better, instead of getting broken up with commas. And just a sidenote, Henderson's page has only good article status; it's not yet an FA. Rickey sure wouldn't be happy about that, would he (after proclaiming, "I'm the greatest of all time!"). Cheers.—Bloom6132 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll need to pay closer attention to the difference in those little marks between GA and FA :-( I'll update Mo's page and see if it sticks. As for "Most saves, career" vs "Most career saves", I guess I have an affinity toward the format of "[Most|Highest] <statistic>, [career|season|game]" like in the NFL record book. Saves from subjective opinions about sentence structure at the cost of being slightly cryptic perhaps. Well, its also more compact for tables, and helps with editors with poor grammar if we make it a baseball MOS. I'm not as adamant about this, and wont change unless you buy in. —Bagumba (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver

As part of "Wikipedia Loves Libraries program of events at libraries and archives across North America around October 2011," please check out the new Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver page for people interested in a meetup this October 2011 at the central branch of the Vancouver Public Library. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks. -- A. Kupicki (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

Like your MUFC (1-0 up at Swansea today) & gun views.

BTW, please remember to supply a brief wp:ES unless using the wp:minor flag.

Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Core Four

I noticed that you nominated Core Four for GA status. I thought about reviewing it, but I feel I'm too close and want to avoid any appearance of impropriety. So I'll try to help you with the review. I think the article needs a good deal of work before it can pass. Fortunately, you likely have a bit of time to work on it while you wait for a reviewer to pick it up. One suggestion I have is that this article reads like a blurb on their individual careers. It doesn't talk about how they interact with each other, or how they regard each other. It could also use more information about how they were individually acquired, how they played in the minors together, and what their legacy is. The information is there, but it's too succinct. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help and feedback. Much appreciated. Bloom6132 (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy to help. This is a good source you should incorporate. Also, you should join the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Bloom6132/Archive 1. Please accept this kind invitation to join WikiProject New York Yankees. Click here to join.

GAN for Core Four

Hello. I reviewed your nomination of Core Four as a good article. Unfortunately, I had to fail it due to several major concerns that I hope you will take the time to review and address. You can find the review here. –Grondemar 04:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Grand Slam Tournaments

Hi this was discussed by wikki tennis project members some of whom felt that its incorrect to use the term Grand Slam as it applies only to winning the Grand Slam . I was told the four GS events are Grand Slam Tournaments this was the reason it was added when referencing records achieved across the four GS events for a player can you please revert your edit thankyou--Navops47 (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Connors

I see you have split the Jimmy Connors page. It needed to be split as it was over 90k in size but you moved a bit too much or left his main page too sparse. As with the Federer article we really need to keep the GS table on every main page. Eyes of readers look for that even if they don't need all the stats. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Added the GS table back onto the main page. Thanks for clarifying. Bloom6132 (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No prob... it looked kind of sparse without it. I moved it down and shortened it similar to Federers and McEnroes. cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the drop down boxes I don't know how you do them and there much better to use--Navops47 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for tidying up player records after me--Navops47 (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm glad to be of help. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Jimmy Connors career statistics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ocean City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WTA tour records

Hi I have been attempting to bring these WTA Tour recordsin line with these ATP World Tour records with the help of User:Mrf8128 if you have time can you go over and see what's missing, incorrect or correct also I added section tags for expansion don't know if you have any of those stats cheers --Navops47 (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

You are invited to an edit-a-thon at the Prophouse Café on Sunday March 25, as part of Women's History Month events all over the world. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal

Your recent editing history at Rafael Nadal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page did not appear until around 3:30pm (UTC+8), as I was still logged in but not active. That was a few minutes after I made my last edit to Rafael Nadal's page. I am sorry I did not see it earlier, as I would have stopped my editing immediately had I seen it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it happens, no sweat. I note you've been encouraging the other editor to discuss this further, preferably on the article talkpage, so that's a good thing. Keep it up. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Guillermo Vilas

Vilas won 58 matches at Roland Garros not 56. He won 4 matches in 1972 not only 2 as ATP says. ATP is full of different errors this is one of them. Voo de Mar (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open

Hi, please note that the article 2004 Estoril Open has been nominated for deletion along with the subarticles Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Environments not Surfaces

Hi Bloom been while, yeah those indoor records were added because we recognise winning streaks outdoors (environment) or both as well as (surface) and also winning percentages outdoors and indoors (environments) on the ATP World tour records page maybe they should be removed now? --Navops47 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again Navops. The reason why I removed the records from "environment" for Ivan Lendl (66 consecutive indoor match wins) and Boris Becker (5 Masters Series indoor titles) was because there is no mention of the consecutive outdoor match wins or most Masters Series outdoor titles record on any tennis players page (i.e. complimentary records to these two). As for the ATP World Tour records article, I think that outdoor/indoor environment records should still be kept, since they encompass only the most essential & general aspects (total titles overall, W% and total match wins). But when it comes down to more specific aspects (i.e. consecutive matches won and Masters 1000 titles), I believe that we should stick to surface only, since they appear to be the more important than environment (tennis articles seem to focus more on Roger and Rafa's surface streaks, without making any mention to environment streaks). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WP Tennis Goals

Hi Bloom6132, I recently added a section on our WikiProject Tennis talk page with a few questions and suggestions about the project's goals as they are currently formulated (see WP Tennis – Goals). Looking for a bit more feedback than received so far (it's a bit quiet over there) and would appreciate if you can drop by and give your thoughts so we can hopefully (further) improve our tennis project / goals. Thx!--Wolbo (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about edit changes. At the time I started editing, her records said nothing about being only in the open era. I made several changes and I guess during my editing you added open era. So my edits would be incorrect. Personally I wouldn't have all these open era records, I'd have historical records or at worst 2 sets of records, by in this case i simply didn't know you were adding the open era sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I understand the fact that the Open Era addendum wasn't up there at the time. I added it because every tennis player with record tables/boxes have this addendum. But now that you bring it up, I do agree with your suggestion of including historical records or 2 sets of records. Maybe we should bring it up in the WikiProject Tennis talk page. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidental Revert

sorry about that, i misclicked :( KATANAGOD (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. I understand. But now that this has been brought up, I'd like your opinion regarding my edits. Would they be regarded as too "radical" and thus viewed as vandalism? Or is my explanations in the edit summary enough? Bloom6132 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, your edits are fine, I'm currently watching a countervandalism channel (#cvn-wp-en) on Freenode, (the edit you made was simply cleaning up the page but the bot that's reporting edits counted the large removal as page blanking) and I simply clicked the wrong button as a habit >_< KATANAGOD (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Federer Records

Hello! You say that italics are to be used only for consecutive records. Yet, to quote the Federer page directly: "Records in italics are currently active streaks." There is no wording that suggests italics can only be used for consecutive records - simply for those records which are being broken in the present. Can you please provide evidence from the Federer page that supports your reverts? Thank you. Schpinbo (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "active streaks" MEANS consecutive records. Therefore, it can only be used for current consecutive records. If it wasn't, it would read "active records." If the RF page were to use your logic, every single one of his records would have to be in italics, since they all can be potentially extended in the present. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
But that's not true. The two mean different things. Let's take the example of Federer's five consecutive Wimbledon championships. That is a historical, as opposed to current, run. Which means that particular record could never be italicized. My logic holds, therefore. By contrast, the 24 grand slam appearances record is CURRENTLY being set. Even if those appearances are not consecutive, that number is going up - it is actively changing. Schpinbo (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't make any sense. "Active" means current and "streak" means consecutive. Defined in plain English. Italics denotes a consecutive record that can/will continue to be set. Don't believe me? Check Nadal and Djokovic's articles and see for yourself. This formatting has been in place for at least two years now. What don't you understand about this? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it would seem that the emphasis on "streak", as opposed to "active", makes your point. I would personally like to see the page make a distinction between historical records and records currently being broken - and viewed the use of italics in that light. But that would be a different matter, admittedly - not the one being addressed here. Schpinbo (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. You might want to bring up the matter in Fed's talk page if you would like it to be addressed, although I doubt anyone goes on anymore, as the last edit was back in February (by me). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at List of ATP number 1 ranked singles players shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I only reverted/undid 2 of his edits just today. No 3RR violation there. I even opened up a discussion on the talk page. However, this IP address user undid my edits without going to the talk page (as I had instructed in the page history) and is unwilling to even negotiate. In total, he's undone 4 edits within the last 24 hours. He's the one who should be warned and blocked if he continues to refuse to talk. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say you'd violated the 3RR, I just advised you that you were close to it, re-read the warning. And yes, I've warned the IP in exactly the same way, and will be keeping a close eye on things from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Federer's walkovers in Grand slams (3 out of 244 games played) had escaped my verifications... You just strengthened my "faith" in wiki, haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.219.98 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Oh and I deleted the source that I had previously input (just after the French Open as I remember) because I thought that it was incorrect. I had checked the page of the tournaments in which he had those walkovers, but too quickly apparently. But anyway concerning the source: For easy money I'd love to bet that the journalist only checked the total on the wiki article about RF, so his article is not much of a source. The correct sources about the 244 total (so far) can be found in each of the pages related to the relevant 40+ championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.219.98 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Order of records: total vs. consecutive

Hi, why do you think consecutive should go above total, when it comes to the weeks at number 1 records in Roger Federer? I think total is the more important record, and it is common to list it first, e.g. his 24 Grand Slam finals record is listed before the 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals, etc. Also, in articles such as ATP World Tour records total numbers are listed before consecutive numbers everywhere. Even though the Steffi Graf article you refer to may have the weeks at #1 the other way around; for her French Open finals the total is listed first. Gap9551 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a matter of preference. Total may be more important, but specifically in Fed's case, it's his consecutive weeks at No. 1 that is more impressive. Arguably, his consecutive streak will stand the test of time, while his total weeks record might still get broken. But you're also right in pointing out that total always comes consecutive. Might we make the weeks at No. 1 record the only exception? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, I'll just swap the Graf final records then if you're ok with that. Gap9551 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

30–30 club and 20–20–20 club

You've done great work at these articles. The first, I'll wait to comment until the FLC. I'm thinking of joining the discussion on the latter, though I'm not sure which side I'll come down on. Your work has changed my opinion on the article overall, though. I had been thinking of taking it to AfD a year ago, and now I'm thinking about supporting it as an FL. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Laver's quote about Federer be included in the 2nd footnote of the RF article?

Hello, Bloom. I noticed your comment on Ajoykt's talk page and thought I'd add another here. As you probably know, Rod Laver over the years has been pretty quiet about who he thinks is the "greatest of all time"; indeed, he himself has been deemed the GOAT by many a tennis expert and commentator. Yet during Wimbledon recently he came out and said he thinks Federer's the best player ever. Here's the link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon-2012/interviews/Roger-Federer-greatest-of-all-time-says-Rod-Laver/articleshow/14691290.cms I think a reference to Laver's quote should be made under footnote 2a of the Federer article. The reason is that some ardent tennis fans still hold Laver to be the GOAT, and his opinion on the subject is more than a little relevant. What do you think? TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Laver always says you have to judge by eras, but makes an exception for Federer to call him GOAT. That source would be pretty significant, so go ahead and add it as a ref to the footnote if you'd like. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I added the Laver reference, but somebody came along and deleted it. I put it back this am (7/20). Can you keep an eye out for that footnote for me? Thanks. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When does the week begin?

Hi - it's nearly Monday in my part of the world. For the majority of the world's population it's already been Monday for a few hours. According to the International Date Line it's been Monday for almost half the day already. Perhaps in your part of the world it might not be Monday for a few more hours and therefore it's really, really important to change those world number 1 week totals when you're in Monday and not one second before. But, nevertheless, it's Monday even if the Western hemisphere is still enjoying Sunday afternoon. The upshot? If some Federer enthusiast wants to add on weeks even though it's still Sunday in your part of the world - just remember: maybe he's a Federer enthusiast in New Zealand. And International Law is on his side. So, like, just cut him some slack and let him do his updating a few hours ahead of your time zone. Cheers.86.162.204.194 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As per here, consensus has been made stipulating that the ATP No. 1 list will be updated only when the ATP website updates their rankings. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Federer - greatest of all-time?

Hi Bloom. I'm writing about the opening sentence in Roger Federer, which says that he is "widely considered the greatest player of all time." Let me preface my comments by saying that Federer is among my top-three favorite players ever and I do feel that he's the greatest player of all-time.

However, when I read that opening sentence, what immediately struck me was the inappropriateness of the term "widely considered." One who cares about accuracy and objectity in this project would ask, "Widely considered BY WHOM?" Well, that question should be supported by the sources that are cited. But what the sources show is that a few former tennis "greats" (Laver, Kramer, Sampras, Agassi and Lendl), plus two lists from sports sites (Tennis Channel and Sports Illustrated) rank him as #1. Those are all great sources. But even so, they do not support the claim that he is "widely considered" the best ever. "Widely considered," as it's used in the sentence, clearly implies that it's widely considered by the people of the world. Why not remove the "fan language" nature of the sentence and just state the facts (what we know for sure; what can be sourced)?

My suggestion is simple: Be specific in that opening sentence by narrowing the focus and sticking to the facts. Remove any trace of subjectivity. Rather than saying he's "widely considered the greatest player of all time," say something like, "he has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several former tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras."

As as you get more sources for other tennis greats (or sports sites) who think Federer's the best ever, simply add them to the sentence. (I'm pretty sure that John McEnroe also said Federer is the best ever.) Including the names of all the greats in that sentence is powerful and certainly encylopedic. Readers will look at it and say, "Wow, look at all those amazing players who think Federer's #1." And then of course readers can link to the sources if they want.

No editor can argue with my suggestion because it states facts only, which are properly sourced. It removes all the vagueness, subjectivity and fan language.

By the way, I think the John Lloyd sourcing is very weak and shouldn't even be included among all those other guys who are legends. Lloyd was basically just an average journeyman. And let's be honest, his opinion on this matter carries very little weight. Only the most ardent tennis fans even know who he is. And some of them may only have heard of him because he married Chris Evert. Haha. I think he won a couple of grand slam doubles championships, but that was about it.

Also, link 7 (Times UK) doesn't even work; it goes to their current home page.

The editors who support that sentence in its current form need to understand and accept the fact that there are MANY people who do not think Federer is the best ever. I don't personally agree with those people, but that's the point. It's their opinion. Just like my view is also an opinion.

I would be very surprised if you haven't been getting a lot of editors who change the wording of that sentence, which in turn prompted a lot of reverts? Am I correct? If I am, then it makes my point even stronger. If you take my suggestions, it will prevent the revert battles because the statement will be focused, factual and sourced. As it's written currently, it's just encouraging editors to fight over it.

Anyway, I hope you'll have the opening sentence changed. Have a great week! --76.189.114.180 (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yep, you can add McEnroe to the list. He said of Federer, "To me, he’ll always be the greatest, most beautiful player that ever lived."[1] --76.189.114.180 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm technically not "the owner" of this article. No one owns any articles on WP. But it's great to hear from a fellow Federer fan who also agrees that he's the GOAT. There has indeed been a lot of debate over this on the Federer article's talk page. I personally won't be able to make a unilateral change until consensus is made. I do agree with you that it is a shame that the first sentence labels him "the GOAT." To me, that seems like an extreme statement. The previous version sounded much better, stating "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time." That adds more credibility IMHO. My advice would be for you to make an account so that you can join in the discussion. It'll give you more say in how things unfold in the article. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I know you're not the owner. I wrote you because you apparently have a passion for editing tennis articles and are heavily involved in it. I'm asking you to take my comments and use them in whatever way you need to so that the sentence will be changed. Thanks for showing me the previous version of that sentence. Very interesting. It was MUCH better the original way, although, as I said, it needs to be supported by cited sources. So when you say it's "extreme," that's an understatement. Of course it's extreme. It violates Wikipedia standards because (a) it's purely subjective, and (b) it's not sourced. And what makes it worse is that it is the opening sentence of the article! Unless there are citations to multiple, credible polls of people in the world who rank him as #1, the GOAT statement needs to changed. Just change it. Any editor who thinks the GOAT statement is acceptable doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards. There's no administrator in the world who would allow the current phrasing to stand. By the way, you can also add Bjorn Borg (and Martina Navratilova) to the list. Borg said the following and Navratilova agreed: "For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game."[2] So the updated sentence, with the two new sources I gave you, can be, "he has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several former tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras." --76.189.114.180 (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC) 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI... I've posted my thoughts on the Federer talk page. If you want to reply to me, please do so here or on the Federer talk page. Thanks. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Great. I was going to mention and make light of your comments on the talk page, but looks like you beat me to it! :) Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks. You can reply there and we can start the consensus ;) --76.189.114.180 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "widely considered the greatest of all time" is justified

Hello again, Bloom. I've responded to Number 76 above on the talk page of the Federer article. He sounds a lot like that guy Schpinbo; he seems keen on arguing just for the sake of arguing. (Of course, I could be mistaken.) In your estimation, how many people have to say Federer is "the greatest tennis player of all time," or some equivalent, before the phrase "widely considered the greatest" is justified? If you Google the phrase "Federer greatest ever," some 4,690,000 results come up. Are those not enough? Do we need 10,000,000 Google references before we can say "widely considered"? I don't think so, and I've posted Webster's definition of "widely" on the talk page as a guide for the discussion. I do think there are those who truly despise Federer and are not at all pleased that he continues to be heralded as the game's best (greatest) ever. Thanks again, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think IP 76 means well. What he's saying is that we have to justify who are the people saying Federer's the greatest. Under WP:WEASEL, "widely" and "considered" are both weasel words (individually). It doesn't matter how many Google references say Fed's the greatest. Wikipedia policy clearly lays out that such words should not be used. Why can't we use the old version (i.e. ""Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time."). It is more specific and all-encompassing. That's more of a compromise. Federer fans like you and me can legitimately call him the GOAT on WP, while not violating WP:NPOV. I'd refrain from using "widely considered" because many articles get deleted for that very reason. An article I was working on got nominated for deletion twice in a little more than a year simply because it said "considered" (i.e. implying subjectivity). What do you think about this? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Many months ago I expressed my preference for the sentence, "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time," but lo and behold, somebody deleted it for this, that, and the other reason. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Who did that? I'm happy to hear that it wasn't you who did! Whoever did that does not know anything about WP policies. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure who did it. One of the shortcomings of Wikipedia is that nothing is ever finally resolved. There will always be a quarrel about something, no matter how picayune. For instance, there was a time, not too long ago, when people objected strenuously to any mention of Federer being the GOAT, despite the fact that dozens of current players and legends are on record saying as much. I suppose the discussion has evolved somewhat: nowadays people are only haggling about adverbs in the opening sentence! Thanks again, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
TennisAnalyst, I'm not sure why you continue to turn this issue into personal insults about me ("he seems keen on arguing just for the sake of arguing" and "he doth protest too much"). And if you had read my comments, and as Bloom well knows, I am a huge Federer fan who believes strongly that he's the best of all-time. He's without question my favorite current player and has been for a long time. And he's in my top-3 ever. So please stop trying to discredit me. I am only concerned about having an accurate encyclopedia and doing things the right way. Bloom has repeatedly said multiple times that he agrees with me about the weasly words, but for some reason you seem to be ignoring him. As he correctly told you, Google coming up with a million or even a billion results for "Federer greatest ever" is meaningless on Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires each claim, especially contentious ones, to be sourced. If there are really four million results, then why don't you add a bunch of citations (from reliable sources) to the article of quotes of highly regarded people in the tennis world who say Federer is the greatest of all time? So far, we have just a handful of players who actually said that, plus two websites. That's it. Again, you won't address it, but why are you opposed to just following Wikipedia guidelines, toning down that opening sentence, and then having a section that includes quotes from all the great ex-players who said he's the greatest ever? You've given absolutely no valid reasons in line with WP guidelines as to why that sentence shouldn't be changed. All your arguments are contrary to the way things are done on WP. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

People are trying to delete the "Federer is GOAT" line in 1st paragraph

Bloom, I'm afraid my earlier suspicions have proven to be correct: one or more people are trying to delete the "greatest player of all time" line in the Federer article, despite the fact that there are numerous footnotes supporting the statement. Can you keep a watchful eye out for the mischief? TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I wish anyone committing such tennis-sacrilage/WP vandalism could get a lifetime ban. Oh well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
TennisAnalyst, I'm not sure why you're being so dramatic, claiming "mischief". Stick to the facts. We are having a good faith discussion about an important issue. No one has tried to "delete" anything. Not that I've seen anyway. And if you read my comments on the Federer talk page, you'll see what the footnotes really say. The only issue, as you well know, is about saying he is "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time." An administrator who's an expert in WP:WEASEL has already confirmed in the discussion that it violates the Weasel. Anwyay... Bloom, will you please reply to Slakr, who just posted on the Federer talk page. He's an administrator and apparently doesn't know that the opening sentence used to be different for a long time. Can you let him know, and give your thoughts on my proposed text change? Thanks! --76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bloom, when you have a minute, please check the "view history" for July 24. Somebody named Slakr deleted the "GOAT" reference in the first sentence as well as the footnotes. I think the wording you indicated before for the lead paragraph is perfectly fine. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bloom, Slakr is an administrator. He's been editing for five years and is an expert on these types of issues. Apparently, you have a history of edit-warring in this article. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was addressing myself to Bloom, not to you. And neither Bloom nor I have a "history" of "edit warring." Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No one said Bloom has edit-warred. An administrator, Slakr, said that YOU have a history of edit-warring ("Given your recent editing history, it would appear that you're engaging in long-term edit warring")[3] --76.189.114.243 (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bloom, just so you know, this is what Slakr told Number 76 on his talk page: "I don't engage in edit wars, and had I noticed that others had previously edit warred on the page, I wouldn't have even gotten involved." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha, when Slakr said "I don't engage in edit wars" he was talking about himself, not about you TennisAnalyst. He told you on your talk page that you have a history of edit-warring. It's interesting how you go around to everyone's talk pages and trash talk about me. My interest in this whole matter was improving an article. Yours is insulting me and offering zero worthy contributions to the discussion. Pretty sad. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the accidently revert on M&M Boys - not sure how I managed to do that. I hope it I didn't mess you up.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. It didn't mess me up one bit. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of M&M Boys

Hello! Your submission of M&M Boys at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Forget it. Looks like a glitch with DYKcheck. Passing.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bloom6132. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
Message added 15:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

20-20-20

While the FLC has been long-winded, and we are in agreement that the dissenters have generally not presented actionable objections based on policy or guidelines, it would be best to maintain an assumption of good faith on others' parts. I've been consciously trying to defend the article as some might view a nominator's comments as having a conflict of interest. It's unfortunate that a baseless "size matters" POV permeates in the discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I kinda lost my cool. It's just so frustrating how people have been opposing this FLC on size alone. I mean, within the time of this nomination, I was already able to get another list promoted to FL. So using that as a recent example, the two lists are comparable in terms of prose, just not in list length. And I would like to thank you for all your tireless efforts in defending this list. I greatly appreciate it, and it is one of the only reasons why I haven't withdrawn this FLC. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We've all been there. You could just WP:REDACT it. If this FLC doesn't go through, it would be worth posting the FLC to Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria as a poster child for improvement of the criteria. I'd expect that by now, an admin would have just promoted and ignored the meritless argument, or just say no consensus. But WP is made up of volunteers and there are no real deadlines. It doesnt help that new reviewers are not seeing the Baseball Digest articles that are now offline. About the only thing I can see improving this would be to find more offline sources, esp if they discuss the entire group, but I think people would still subjectively pound on the size.—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Golden Spikes Award

Good job on Golden Spikes Award so far. One suggestion I'll make prior to FLC is that you should add a keyed symbol for members of the National College Baseball Hall of Fame. It's probably more relevant given this is a college award than the Cooperstown HoF. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful advice! I'll get right to it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for M&M Boys

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you see this yet? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I did. Pretty amazing stuff now that the page views have reached five digits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a nice accomplishment. Want to add it at WP:DYKSTATS, or should I? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you should get the honor do it, since you're the one who helped tweak the hook to its final wording. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say you should, since you did more of the expanding than I did. Either way, no matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(BTW, if I'm not mistaken, this hook's time on the main page overlapped with 0:00 UTC, which means according to the rules that today's page views count to the total as well.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Golden Spikes Award

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hi there. I was hoping you might want to weigh in on the definition of an active player, where a thread has been opened at this talk page and in hopes of forming a consensus for other articles, at WikiProject Baseball. Since you're involved with a lot of article lists, I'm thinking this would make your life easier (for the article list you'll undoubtedly be nominating for FLC in the future!). Zepppep (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Zepppep (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

20-20-20 club

Sorry the FLC didn't go through. Here's a wild thought to address the others' merge concerns: What if 30-30 club also included a list of the less stringent 20-20 members. Then we could also add 20-20-20-20 as a stricter form of 20-20, then mention 20-20-20 as a more lax 20-20-20-20. That might even address the trivial mention concern, which is what I think the one reviewer who kept saying it was "routine" was trying to get at. Even for 20-20, I didnt find much that was online that was more than a trivial mention.—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. We did our very best, but it's a shame that some users based their opposition by subjectively interpreting criterion 3b. Oh well. Anyways, the idea of 20–20 doesn't appear too viable, since the 30–30 list is already very long (and will only get bigger, since there were a record 4 members who joined last year). And you're right, it is pretty trivial (usually mentioned for catchers and second basemen, who aren't known for stealing bases or hitting home runs). I originally thought the 40–40 club list could potentially be merged with 30–30 (since there are currently only 4 members), but it is mentioned so frequently and extensively that, IMHO, it should deserve it's own article. What do you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I would guess the same arguments in 20-20-20 could be applied by opposers at 40-40. If we could point out non-trivial coverage of the group that goes beyond mentioning the group members, it would just leave the subjective "too short" opposers. The other option is to shoot for an FA if more prose is added, perhaps with more overview on each member's season.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I started a post mortem on the FLC at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#small_size_and_merging.—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my RfA. Look forward to continued collaboration at WikiProject Baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

30–30 club FLC

Hello, Bloom6132. You have new messages at Giants2008's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Giants2008 (Talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tennis Records Open Era page

Hey, i saw your addition to the Tennis Records Open Era page - thanks, esp for the Vilas numbers; that's quite an important stat... As for the title, i understand what you did, but i still think it's important that the words Tennis Records come first. So i'm going to undo it if you don't mind. Glad to get new editors on board though, i created this page as a (hopefully better) alternative to ATP world tour records, mainly since they have this strange cut-off year of 1972, instead of 1968 when the open era started. Cheers Kendu020 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with the original (and now current) title is that it is essentially grammatically incorrect. The title I moved it to makes more sense, as it is based of ATP World Tour records. To make a long story short, the direct noun (i.e. the organization) should go before the subject. Plus, the capitalization of every word is unnecessary. If you insist on keeping the current title, then I suggest renaming it to "Tennis records of the Open Era." What do you think? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand - maybe your suggestion is a better idea, so that sounds good: Tennis Records of the Open Era (Men's Singles). Do you have more experience in moving pages? I can do it as well, but it's become a bit of a mess now with 3 or 4 redirections. Also i don't know if page view statistics can be saved with moving pages? If you know a proper way to move it, would you mind doing it? Thanks! Kendu020 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll do it. Just one last thing. Can I use the name "Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles" (exact capitalization and punctuation). Usually, titles should not include brackets. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine as well. Thanks! Kendu020 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Way to go!

FA status for the 30-30 club article? Nice job! Zepppep (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It did take a long time, but it was worth the wait. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not own pages you edit

While it's cute that you've made over 90% of the edits to the "List_of_Major_League_Baseball_hitters_with_two_grand_slams_in_one_game" page, you do not own the page. The statement "Two grand slams guarantees a team to win" is false, and adding something like "generally" is unnecessary editorializing. Yes, 8 runs is a lot, and yes, most teams who score 8 runs win the game, but such a statement is completely unnecessary. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you say I performed "original research," but it's pretty clear you consider yourself the owner of the page and do not tolerate any edits to "your" pages. Knock it off. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude. Chill out will you. I justify my edits to every page I modify. That's why I said it "generally allows" a team to win. 8 RBIs by one player justifies that. I never once claimed ownership to that page. In fact, ChrisTheDude has also made a substantial amount of edits to the page as well. Stop falsely accusing me of owning pages or else I will definitely report you! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you twelve years old? Feel free to "report" me for removing completely unnecessary statements like "generally enough to win the game." 8 runs is a lot of runs and is usually enough to win. No shit, Sherlock! Where would we all be without this valuable tidbit of information? Since your first edit to the page on Apr 4, you've made about 75 of the 110 edits to the page. So closer to 70% rather than 90%--or does that constitute original research???

One of the many reasons Wikipedia is a sewer is because certain editors absolutely refuse any sort of editing to their writing, which kind of defeats the purpose of "editing," and rather act as if they own the page, just as you've done with this page. I removed your patently false statement and corrected it with a factual one, yet you insist on restoring a completely unnecessary statement about "generally enough to win the game." That statement is also redundant to the factual statement "every team with a player hitting two grand slams in a game has won the game." 68.81.192.142 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Personal attacks, check. Edit warring even after I warned you not to, check. Swearing at me even when all I've done is talk to you in a civil manner, check. You're building up such a good reputation of camaraderie that soon, I won't even need to request that you be blocked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that your reverts could also be considered edit warring when the area was a known point of contention. Consider WP:BRD in the future and look over WP:DR. Also, using caps or referring to "you" as in this edit summary can be considered inflammatory.—Bagumba (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for anything unsavoury that might have transcended from me during the discussion. It's just that his personal attacks against me were the worst insults I have ever had to endure. And yes, I will read over the said pages. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unassisted triple play, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otto Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloom6132/Archive_1&oldid=1254615159"