User talk:HJensen/Archives/2007/September

RfM for Djokovic

I've requested mediation for the Djokovic article here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković and listed you as an involved party. -- Yano 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok! That's fine.--HJensen, talk 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine? Nice of you to contend so but i differ. Frank Zappa was a dull homophobic, misogynist which is why he appeals to 13 year old boys and dull homophobic misogynists. How dare you edit the truth. This isn't Eastern Europe. It's the net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.27.193 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment "It's fine" referred to accepting being an involved party in the issue about renaming the Đoković article. I fail to see what Frank Zappa has to do with this, and your statements are on the verge of incivility.--HJensen, talk 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I seem to have edited the wrong complaints entry. I was trying to comment on the degree to which Zappa influenced Václav Havel. I have no problems with tennis players.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.27.193 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 September 2007

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Arbcom request filed

I've opened a request for the Novak Ðoković dispute at this location. Orderinchaos 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. An admirably balanced description of the situation. Thanks!--HJensen, talk 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to get this resolved one way or the other, so we can move on and talk about tennis instead of linguistics. :) It may well be the consensus or a ruling goes against my opinion, but I can wear that. Orderinchaos 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment on the Arbcom btw - sorry for not clarifying in my initial notice above - anyone (not limited to the parties) can post a statement of no more than 500 words putting forward their view on the situation. Doing as you have (creating the "Statement by..." section) is correct. (Note too that the rejection is a vote by that particular arbitrator, it's if a few of them vote the same way that there is a problem) Orderinchaos 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)