Demon Hill

Can't use Damon Hill as a user name, so this is the next best thing.Demon Hill (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Aussie Open importance

We have to be careful when adding importance to tournaments. Wimbledon has been BY FAR the the most important throughout it's history. It's actually closer now in importance then it ever has been. The French championship was less important in the 40s and was nothing in the early 20s. the ITF didn't think the US was a Major until 1925. In the 50s-60s the most important events for the pros were not even any of todays slams... they competed in the pro slams. Davis Cup was more important than most of the Majors in the 40s-60s so at different times in different eras we have changes in the sport. To single out the Aussie in this article isn't fair nor is it supported by the sources you listed. Some of the world's greatest players competed at the Australian championships in the 50s-60s while they skipped other Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please

Resist the impulse to make substantial edits at articles that do not include citations to accompany your edits, even if you are an expert in the area.

Particular articles are plagued by content additions without verifiability (in violation of WP:VERIFY, and approaching if not achieving violation of WP:COPY and WP:OR), to the point that all or nearly all of the text of the article is unverifiable.

Even if you are en expert, the next editor arriving—to follow the pattern set, of content addition without attribution or verifiability—will likely lack your expertise, and your intellectual integrity (with regard to no making changes without expertise). If such patterns are allowed to develop, the value of the article, and eventually, the encyclopedia, diminishes, and their futures are at risk. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This editor has not edited for over three and a half years. I don't see what the point of this message is. Dustin (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)