Talk:Phil Hunter

Revert
Mad Jack, what's the point of reverting the article back to the old stock bio version when I was trying to address the concerns of the universe tag? I had not vandalised the article and a wholesale reversion like that is not justified. --Mat Hardy (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont "what's the point me", if you want to ask me something, do it in a way where you respect the person you are directing your text at. I reverted your edits, because they are unreferenced, and mixed with very strange grammar along with spelling mistakes. I am going to further revert you, because Wikipedia guidelines state that the disputed content (which is your edits) stays off until involved edits have come to an agreement. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? So a wholesale revert back to a version that is itself tagged as problematic, unreferenced and nothing more than a cut and paste from a TV show website biography is more constructive than adding the references or fixing a couple of spelling errors? If you were so concerned about the quality of the article, why not attempt to build on it, taking it out of universe style as I was attempting? Tell me what is fundamentally wrong with the copy I wrote that makes it so worthy of complete removal? --Mat Hardy (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)