User talk:Evlekis/Archive6

Montenegro - Please do not modify; you may start from fresh on my current talk page.

Phoenix

Tex with X Ray Spex (talk · contribs) I am quite sure that we have one infamous resurrection here. Quietly keep an eye, as i will also... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No doubt for me anymore, but wait a bit. More material will be only useful to us! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am informing admins off wiki, so clues will be kept, as we agreed. Dont mention anything else, i know all the clues. Lets have something to recognize him in the future... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

FPR

Hi. Is this edit really necessary? What has the reader of the article on Ivan Katalinić gained by knowing that he was born in FPR Yugoslavia? And in case he finds himself asking the same question and clicks on the link he will find an article titled "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Does not really make sense does it. Timbouctou (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is a bit of a sticky one I must admit. You're well aware that we observe historical accuracy and you don't need me to tell you that Yugoslavia changed its long name on a number of occasions and all in conjunction with constitutional changes. FPR applies to the 1946-63 period though for some reason, it doesn't warrant an article at this stage. If you click on Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, it will take you to Kingdom of Yugoslavia yet it existed as the former from 1918 to 1929. Of course, my preference is for a plain Yugoslavia for anything up to 1991 (and 1992 for Montenegro and Serbia) then opting for FR Yugoslavia for the period to 2003, however you will find that even this article redirects to Serbia and Montenegro despite it only having this name for the final three years. S&M was how it was recognised in some quarters but FRY had de facto status as did it in both public activity and to people in general. Back to the original point, I've been told on more than one occasion by various editors to be specific with Yugoslavia. I know that as WP stands, the FPR as well as the shortlived Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-46) are both presented as birth countries for persons born in that time. The main problem, Timbouctou, is that although many of us prefer historical accuracy, I fear there is no written policy on this, just a consensus. I've never seen users warned or blocked for consistently replacing the old state with the modern-day republic and I don't honestly know how to tackle this issue: all I can say is one thing, if you really believe SFR should represent every period from 1943 then you, I, and every other editor to favour this presentation need to get to work and make amendments across the entire site. Forgive me if I have missed something. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Notecing this in my watchlist, how you say, I´m a talk page stocker this time :) The thing is that there is some unofficial agreement (at least Timbou and I agreed) to simplify country namings in order to avoid confusing unfamiliar editors on this issue. We had agreed for some time now to use only Kingdom of Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia for the "old" Yugoslavia, and skip and sacrifice the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and FPR Yugoslavia to avoid unecessary confusion. We further agreed to use FR Yugoslavia for the 1992-2003 period, although we didn´t discussed the option to replace it with Serbia and Montenegro, however I would not support that for country of birth naming. Also, Timbou touth of using simply Yugoslavia for the SFRY, and using initials only for FR Yugoslavia, but I was not much convinced, so we ended up agreing to use: Kingdom (1914-1943), SFRY (1943-1992) and FRY (1992-2003). What do you think Evle? We touth that just for infobox purposes the Kingdom of SCS and FPR Yugoslavia would just be unecessary and probably confusing for the vast majority of people unfamiliar with Yugo history. Do you agree? Would you suggest something else?

Timbou, I hope I made a correct resume, so if you feel I missed something, or unpurpously missinformed, please correct me. I have made some similar editing agreements in the past with Timbouctou as well, and he is definitely a great editor and a huge help in keeping numerous articles free of vandalism. I just never noteced that we haven´t informed him about this. FkpCascais (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi FkpC, yes I have no doubt in Timbouctou's wisdom and he is certainly a fine editor. It is also good that the two of you have reached agreements of such issues as you both edit passionately on soccer matters; your combined knowledge is an asset to the site. I'm more than happy to add my name to your list for simplicity and present Kingdom of for the 1918-WWII period and SFRY for the ensuing period up to 1991/92 but I take it that this will apply only to footballers. To have to deploy this term on every political figure or actor may be a difficult task. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we discussed it only for football biographies, basically, only for infobox presentation. But I´m not 100% convinced and the "agreement" does have problems when it comes to people "correcting" it, not meaning about you, but there are numerous IP´s who edited things without knowing about this, and how could they? Anyway, if you disagree please say so, and we could/should allways search for the best possible option. PS: About my previous comment, I did meant you (Evlekis), refering to numerous times we discussed in past footy issues, I can´t remember now, but for exemple, the last time we agreed to use comma (,) instead of point&comma (;) when separating cyrillic version of name from the date of birth in lead sections, remember? PS2: On an unrelated issue, I was thinking of contacting you to tell you about us having to drop the place of birth from the lead section between parentessys because it seems to go against WP:OPENPARA (see point 3.2) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, so seems that people want to have only date of birth in between parentessys in lead (plus cyrillic version when needed), and place of birth in article text, exemple, Section:Career; Template Templaton born in Zulu City in Zululand started his career in Zulu United... However, I was thinking of opening a debate again on that, but there is mch oposition mostly from anglo-saxon editors who want to see the less possible ethnicity and birthplace mention in the leades sections. FkpCascais (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Yugoslav designations in the info boxes my opinion (which I'm aware others might not agree with) is to use the most common name for the country. And since the common name is already used for article titles per WP:NAME we should go with whatever the article on the country is titled. Consider North Korea which never in its history had the adjective "North" in its official name but almost every single biography of people from there calls the country that. So IMO 1918-1940 is Kingdom of Yugoslavia, 1940-1992 is SFR Yugoslavia. This is something Cascais and me agree on. However I assume from what I read that neither Cascais nor Evlekis would support calling the 1992-2006 country "Serbia and Montenegro" - but I would. The reason why the article is titled "Serbia and Montenegro" is because it essentially was Serbia an Montenegro during all those 14 years, a country totally different from the communist Yugoslavia which was Serbia, Montenegro plus 4 others. This is the same logic upon which we ignore that Kingdom of Yugoslavia was initially called SHS (they changed name but it was the same country) and FPR/SFR (again, the same thing). With S&M you have the opposite - the name stuck but the country changed so it makes perfect sense to call the country by what it was called after they finally dropped the old name. There is no doubt that in retrospect as time goes by the fact that it once had been called FR Yugoslavia will become essentially irrelevant just like the SHS name is today when speaking about the 1918-1940 period. Now I'm not for starting revolutions to speed this up and I don't see it as a big problem anyway, but once this process does happen this whole thing with prefixes will lose its purpose and "Yugoslavia" will come to mean "communist Yugoslavia" so the PR/FPR/SFR/FR distinction will disappear by itself, and with it the debates on accuracy vs. common name. Everything I'm saying here refers to biographies I dabble with, which mainly concern footballers, actors and an odd politician every now and then because I see no reason to insist on historical accuracy in their articles. In my view this is generally what our policy should be by default for everyone but I am well aware that for people from other walks of life the exact political circumstances of their birth or death might be of more importance so in those cases I think it should be solved on a case-by-case basis. As for the birthplace in the lede - if there's an infobox which already gives it I see no reason to keep it. It is just another piece of information more over which IPs love waging edit-wars. P.S. Sorry for the lengthy post :) Timbouctou (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But Timbou, there is one, but very heavy argument why we should use FR Yugoslavia until 2003, and that is that I had very often heard people saying that "I perfectly remember seing Yugoslavia competing in late 1990s" refering to FR Yugoslavia in 1998 World Cup, or 2002 Euro, and that is why we should use it, because otherwise that people will be very confused about which Yugoslavia was that then. On the other hand I do intent to open a debate on the Serbia and Montenegro article, and if I am not wrong, it was basically our friend Direktpor that did that without calling anyone to participate on the renaming when it happend... FkpCascais (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I find wrong that Yugoslavia would/should/will be associated only to SFRY, and I would completely want to avoid any discussion of the kind "which Yugoslavia is more Yugoslavia than the other...".

About birthplace in lead, I mentioned it to Evle because we had agreed not to include republics in the infobox but if necessary in the birth date and place part in parentessys in the lead, so that is why I said it... I definitelly support having the republics mention in text, and that seemed a good solution back then, but as now seems that even the cities would have to be droped out from the lead, it will have to be changed all to the text itself. FkpCascais (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

About FR Yugoslavia, resumingly, if it didn´t competed on important international competitions, we could discuss it, but since it did competed under that name that is why we cant. So, if we have to use FR Yugoslavia down at the national team section, for consistency we should use it in birthplace as well. That doesn´t happend with Kingdom of SCS, for exemple, because it only participated in 1930 World Cup, and already under the name of K.of Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As for birth dates I see no reason to mention them in the lede if there are info boxes (and there are standardised info boxes for pretty much any profession you can think of). And as for those entries, I remember reading the policy on that and it specifically said that birth place and country are obligatory and national subdivisions optional. I'm more inclined to just put "City, Country" instead of "City, Republic, Country" but both are allowed. I don't see why they shouldn't be. As for FR Yugoslavia - your argument is exactly what I had described - you are forgetting that the national team had competed in three Olympics (1920, 1924 and 1928) as "Kingdom of SHS", at the time when Olympics were the biggest tournament in the world because the first World Cup was held only in 1930. So if we were living now in 1931 instead of 2011 you would be giving me the same argument against using "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" as you are giving against "Serbia and Montenegro" now, even though only 12 months ago "Yugoslavia" had competed in the World Cup. Of course, someone might say that I am arguing for WP:CRYSTAL here - but I'm not. I only think we should stick with the most common name and if there's already a policy which determines it for us via WP:TITLE then somebody else had solved the problem for us already. When those articles move we should follow them. If Direktor moved the article practically himself than it should not be a problem to move it back would it. Timbouctou (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No Timbou, you can´t just remove FR Yugoslavia when in fact that was the name used for 11 out of 14 years of existence (almost 80%). Sorry, but that would be just too confusing for laics, just as we can´t write down at national team section the absurdity of, exemple: 1993-1998 Serbia and Montenegro 11 (3). Yes, it is too recent, and there is too many people knowing about Yugoslavia competing in those tournaments... Beside, Serbia and Montenegro was a name used for only 3 years, but yes, again 1 World Cup. I just haven´t raised the question yet on the article itself because I am not sure about wheather I stand on what I think it is right, basically because I havent weight the arguments for both sides yet, but for sports issue, I have no doubts that FRY is a naming not to be ignored. Sorry to so strongly disagree on this. :(FkpCascais (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't plan to do anything about it so you can sleep peacefully, but I was asked about my opinion so I said it. If you ask me the FR Yugoslavia situation is way more confusing to laymen as compared to my interpretation of it and that is exactly the reason why I think it will prevail eventually. It just boils down to what you said yourself - the only reason why FR Yugoslavia is still in records by that name is that the name change was too recent and it is still in people's memory (although that is also very debatable - I know for a fact that when people in Croatia or Bosnia or Slovenia say "Jugoslavija" they mean "SFRJ" 98% of the time, and the percentage is probably even higher with people outside this area). And btw the kingdom was called SHS 50% of its entire existence and its team competed in three Olympics. And the name just disappeared into thin air, in any context, including the sporting one. Timbouctou (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, you mean that calling FR Yugoslavia as Yugoslavia is confusing as people confuse it with the big Yugoslavia, right? So, basically either way we have a confusing situation for laics :) Hey, you should complain to Milosevic, who had the brilliant idea of continuing with alledged Yugoslavianiasm and singing Hej Sloveni when it didn´t made any sence for far too long time back then...

Just one thing, you may say that most people basically everywhere (not only in ex-Yu) may associate more the old Yugoslavia to the name Yugoslavia that the FRY, but don´t make the Kingdom pay the price because wherever people say Yugoslavia they do include the initial period as well. I think... FkpCascais (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Timbouctou and FkpCascais. I don't think it is important who headed the post-1992 Yugoslavia campaign. It's true that Yugoslavia to most people in and out of the region pertains to the vast territory from Slovenia to Macedonia, but I don't believe we should submit false information to compensate for people's general ignorance. I for example always - if discussing the Milošević country - say Federal Republic of or if talking to people in Croatia or Bosnia, "Savezna Republika". Naturally for the locals this causes no ambiguity but for persons outside of the former YU and especially in Western Europe, they just think FRY means the whole outfit. But I say again, one's ignorance is his own fault and the world is full of it. To give you both an example, you will be shocked by the number of people who believe that Yugoslavia was nothing more than a Soviet invention, created by Moscow in the aftermath of WWII as one of its sattelites and the end of Communism spelt the end for the country. I mean, these people have some knowledge, they know WWII happened and they know of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet influence; they also know YU was a communist country. A former friend of mine with whom I went to school (English, no surprise) believed Tito was a Russian who had been installed by the Kremlin to administer YU and when I invited him to Montenegro in March 2009, he even asked me there "are there still Russian troops here from the old days?". Where do you begin when trying to set people straight!! I've mentioned to some "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" for the pre-WWII period and they stare blankly. "Eh? Kingdom? Are you sure? How come? Communist wasn't it?? Sorry, after WWI did you say? Eh? I'm lost!!" But just to get back onto biographies of footballers. You two edit heavily on players in and around the former territory so I cannot see anyone getting away with disturbing the status quo. I'm happy to have Kingdom of YU (not SCS) for 1918-WWII and SFRY for the time after up to the 1990s. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your user page

I simply had to tell you that you have most interesting user page I have ever seen. I often think about things you wrote about ethnicity and map upside down. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you Antidiskriminator. I forget people do actually look at that article which I do update from time to time. I have to be honest, it is a very tongue-in-cheek presentation designed in some ways to parody the real pages and in others to poke fun at some political stupidities but this includes mocking sensitive things, e.g. the upside-down map not only a concept for how man perceives north at the top but also a fake source that Kosovo is not a country!!!! I need to be careful with stereotypes because it may look to some as if my actual editing is leaning in one direction when I try hard not to be biased. Thanks for noticing! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just need to be bold. Evlekis, your user page sucks! Its full of POV, very tendencious, self-promotional, totaly up-side down, too folclorić, against all rules and standards, squizophrenić, claustrophobić and dilusional. You make fun of all of us there. Bad exemple for any new wikipedians. Btw, the people from Ebanje would never do such things! West Pizda doesn´t deserve at all to be treated the way they are. Your prejudice against chancellor Mr.Idi U Kurac is just too evident. It is shocking to see that you have no capacity at all to edit your user page in a NPOV manner. You maps are totaly manipulated, and the way how you deal with the Rock'n'Roll Revolution is intolerable. You have no consensus for your edits there. And worste of all, you are not supported by any sources! I think you should be topič baned! You know shit about President Caralho od Ebanje and why he killed those 548 knullars. Also, please stop edit warring! Also, now that you have the support of Antidiskriminator over this issue, I´m warning you that I wan´t allow myself to be ganged by the two of you over this. I will report any behavior of this kind from now on. For God sake, please read Wikipedia:Principles before creating next time a brilliant user page such as this one. FkpCascais (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What brought this mood on so suddenly? I have never encountered problems with Antidiskriminator and I was unaware that you may have; it is not my intention to form a block with any one user against another and besides, the examples within the userpage you cite are all fictional. There is nothing to know about anyone because none of it is real. I thought you knew this because you pointed it out a very long time ago when you spotted the Portuguese expletive. I don't know what else to say. Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Don´t you dare to say that the Rock'n'Roll Revolution is fictional! It was the most important revolutions ever to come! I tend to form an alliance with President Idi U Kurac and turn over the regime dominating the world right now. Your user page world looks much better than real world, and we will use it as basis for a plan to do things in future. President Caralho of Ebanje suspects about our plans, and has acted strange lately... I suspect you and Antidiskriminator work for him, and may reveal our intentions, that is why I gave you the warnings before. An editor capable of making such a wanderful user page is allways a danger... OK, I can´t go on with this anymore... :) All the best Evle, I touth you knew I allways touth your user page rocks. I don´t know Antidiskriminator but he seems a great editor, so I also touth this could be a nice way of knowing eachother. PS: Was there any kind of voting for the best WP user page? You´ll certainly have my vote. FkpCascais (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Мине ту.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What a relief!!

You had me going there! Not having seen your recent edits I feared you and Antidiskriminator may have had some edit wars. I even thought you assigned the fictional characters to real people. You can do something similar, make up a joke football story about a player costing half the Earth and then not delivering the goods; have a manager who has been a spy for the rival team and all that nonsense!! One season things get so bad that the manager comes out of retirement to play on the pitch and the young 16 year old takes over as caretaker...any silly thing! Just make it look like an article, if you struggle with the language, I'll go over it for you, I'm sure you'll give me permission if recent change officers notice me editing. I really didn't know whether to take you seriously!!! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear lord Evle, how could you think such a nonsence comment as mine earlier could be serios? I mean, its so silly, I just touth it was extreme fun and nonsence saying those things about your userpage. "You are not supported by any sources!" hahaa, how could you source that? "People of Ebanje would never do such things!" or worste "You have no consensus for your edits there (at your userpage story)" I mean, how sillier could my comments be? I really touth that in case any doubts were left, my last sentence would explain everything: I´m telling you all that stuff and finish my comment by saying "your brilliant" user page... Or saying that "You should be topič banned", (what topic?! Your user page?! and Topič?) come on, that was funny :) I think you should re-read my comment, now knowing I was totaly joking (and don´t miss the accents at begining) and you´ll see the total nonsence they are. :) No, I wan´t even try to do something so great as your user page, I couldn´t even come near something similar in excellency. I touth you knew this well, so I was sure you´ll understand the silliness of my comment back there. FkpCascais (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I just touth it would be fun to use all the usual comments from article discussions into your user page story. It was kind of parody about the kind of stupid argumentation some users do in discussions. I never remotely touth you would take me seriously. It was kind of exactly the oposite; instead of saying how wonderfull your page is (as Antidiskriminator already did) I wouldn´t copy him and i will tell you exactly the most silly oposite: how it sucks! It sucks and is anoying for being so good! PS: Never again take me so seriously, I am as stupid as I can get! Kind of president Idi U Kurac... I read some stuff in something like "Wikipedia:Fun department" or some similar name I can´t find now, and I didn´t find anything remotely interesting... FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ratko Mladić - Serbian script

Hi. Serbia's constitution use Cyrillic for it's official government purposes, but both scripts are equal in Serbian language. Moreover, Latin is more widely used in everyday life. I made this edit because it implied that Ратко Младић is only Serbian writing - which is not. In Serbian his name can be writen as Ratko Mladić or Ратко Младић. That's why i made description of Ратко Младић as a link to Cyrillic script instead of Serbian language. --Lošmi (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Evlekis! FkpCascais started this discussion at WP:CRO about how to describe the Cyrillic version of Serbian names in article leads ("Serbian Cyrillic" or just "Cyrillic"). Since you edit a lot around Balkan articles I thought you might want to participate in it and share your opinion. Best regards! Timbouctou (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bleiburg

Why do you insist upon "lethal agenda"? Is there anything wrong with just "agenda"? Does the word "lethal" honestly add something new when you read the full sentence? Is there anything wrong with course of action which is exactly what it was? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I second Evlekis' comment. The sentence reads like something out of a propagandist newsreel ("The Axis-appointed Ustaše government in Zagreb headed the Nazi puppet state the Independent State of Croatia and had its own lethal agenda for Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti-fascist Croats.") One can easily imagine an enthusiastic narrator reading these words in a film theatre some time in the late 1940s, perhaps adding in descriptions such as "bloodthirsty" or "criminal". Notice the inflation of unnecessary adjectives - "Axis-appointed" government headed the "Nazi puppet state" (as opposed to other non-Nazi puppet states?) and had a "lethal agenda" (as opposed to non-lethal ones?). Moreover, it is simply unnecessary as the very next section talks about Jasenovac and about atrocities committed by the Ustaše. As if the reader would not otherwise realise that concentration camps have a tendency to be lethal for most of its occupants. Such redundancy should be avoided. Timbouctou (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would remove "Axis-appointed" and replace "own leathal agenda" with "state policy of genocide". That much is undeniably factual and can be easily sourced (e.g. Budak's statements). Its strong wording, but how else does one describe a policy of wholesale massacre of hundreds of thousands of people? The rest I'd leave pretty much as is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I favour anything you suggest as long as it takes the punch out of the comment, the whole reason I removed the original piece about Germany being horrified was to neutralise the facts. I can't help but to infer that this comment was more an affectation than actual information: the victor states of WWII including the German post-Hitler governments paint a bleak picture of the 1933-45 Germany and for this "wicked regime to find its own self shocked by how bad others can be" can only play into the hands of those whose position was to attack the Axis in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am not an apologist for the Axis and my own relatives mainly fought as Partizans. I just say - as Timboucout mentioned - that adjectives for all logical reasons need to be used sparingly on Wikipedia just as in any decent, reliable and worthy report. In the first place they expand sections when not offering new information, in the second, they often present a POV on the part of the editor. Our job here is to present the facts and in as few words as possible. Every one of us has our own political ideas and preferences, governments we support or oppose, etc. but when reporting facts, even from bitter wars, we need to be tactful and concentrate on what it was that took place. The reader can make his own mind up. This was the purpose of my editing, it was never to produce mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Morning Evlekis

Noticed your concern about the parking fines section, so have done a bit of detective work. The explanatory notes to the Bill says this about the Schedule :

• "

Clause 56: Recovery of unpaid parking charges 203. Clause 56 gives effect to Schedule 4 which makes provision in certain circumstances, for the recovery of unpaid parking related charges incurred under a contract from the keeper of a vehicle"

It then goes on to say :

• " The scheme

provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper of a vehicle may be made liable for an unpaid parking charge that has been incurred by the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent in relation to parking the vehicle on the landowner’s land. The scheme is based on the legal analysis that a driver of a vehicle by parking on private land impliedly accepts the landowner’s offer to park (or that of a parking company acting as the landowner’s agent), or prohibition on parking and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions (including any parking charges and the associated enforcement mechanism for those charges) advertised on a notice board at the entrance to and within the land"

I would like to fix the issue you've highlighted. How best do you think all the above info could be summarised for the article?

doktorb _words^deeds 04:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Evlekis. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomić discussion

Hello, just a note to let you know that there is a discussion at Talk:Bernard Tomic#Let's settle this, which you may be interested in participating in. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)