Talk:Lleyton Hewitt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLleyton Hewitt was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
January 19, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Another coach[edit]

During the spring 2007, Lleyton Hewitt worked with Cullum Beace especially during the AMS Hamburg 2007, it was a really surprise when I read on TV, during this tournament, the name of this new coach three years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.106.44 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

"...perhaps the most prestigious of the four Grand Slam in tennis tournaments." - That's too biased. And it was written by an Australian. What do you think? --webkid 15:46, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't able to see this version of the article. But if this pertains to Wimbledon, then the statement has substance. Because of its history, the tradition and the being one of only a handful tournaments played on grass, it is widely regarded as the most prestigious.Joey80 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

What, no mention of the controversy when he seemed to imply that a black referee was favoring a black player, or when he called an umpire a "poof"? Both times he had to apologize publicly. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Hewitt apologised publicly for criticising the black linesman. It's unusual for tennis players to apologise for crticising umpires, and since it was incorrectly asserted in many places that his remarks were racist, he probably considered it foolish to apologise and lend credence to those accusations. Bluey 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he didn't apologize exactly, but at least he had to give a statement denying the comment was meant to be racist. I remember in particular him pointing out that he had grown up in a multicultural environment, as if that proved he couldn't possibly have racist thoughts. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But I don't think it's worth mentioning. Some people misunderstood him, so he corrected them. Hewitt talking about the multicultural environment he grew up in wasn't necessary for that, but I think it was worthwhile anyway to point out to an international audience that Australia is a country which is very tolerant. Bluey 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
         Tell that to the Aborigines!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.166.125 (talk • contribs)
The 5% of law abiding ones, or the 95% of petrol sniffing criminals you mean?

By saying "look at him (umpire) and then look at him (Blake) and you tell me what the similarity is" - there is no need to defend it - both were men of color, and so Hewitt thinks it is his inherent right to dispute calls because they were in collusion because in his "non-racist" mind, the men of color did things he didn't like, by ruling against him, and playing against him? Give me a bloody break! That's all that he meant. Australia is a tolerant country? Yet another attempt to pave over truth and reality. Very tolerant gang violence on the beaches there! Congratulations - you act like the USA, only the USA did things like that in the 1950s, you get to carry it to a new century and millenium.

It's stupid him saying it wasn't racist. Skinnyweed 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not racist, because it isn't applying a different standard to blacks than whites. Had the umpire and Blake shared Greek ancestry, or Chinese, or Korean, or Caucasian, the same sort of accusation could have been made. Racist would be asserting that blacks as a whole are more likely to favor their countrymen. Hewitt's comment was about an individual, not a race.--31 Aug. '06
That's ridiculous. Had both the linesman and Hewitt's opponent been white, would it have made sense to accuse them of collusion? No. He wasn't seeing the linesman as an individual. He was seeing him and Blake as threats to him simply because they were both black. It was indeed a racist sentiment.
Not a valid conclusion actually. But I think attacking Australia in general for that is ridiculous. Also, what you wrote is almost incomprehensible so its hard to debate against it. Hewitt isn't the most socially appropriate sportsman in Australia (or the most inappropriate either, sadly). Its my opinion that Hewitt is a bit paranoid at times and often thinks everyone else is out to get him. I think the 'Blake incident' was actually the result of an assumption that there MUST be a collusion because the calls weren't going his way, and he tried to find some explanation for it - the obvious similarity between the two being their skin colour. It probably does classify as racism, but its more of an assumption that two people of the same racial background would want to help each other. It's certainly not as extreme as many other examples in sport. What's disconcerting really is that it suggests that he himself would consider favouring a white person over someone of a different colour... 219.90.253.40 07:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to say that it may not be racist (although it may be) but its certainly xenophobic to say that all Australians are themselves racist. Its just not true. The Cronulla riots were a disgrace and were very unaustralian. The truth is every country is made up of a diverse group of people, and some of those people are bound to have unsavoury beliefs. The USA has a track record that's no better than Australia's, and to suggest that Australia is less tolerant than USA is laughable. 219.90.253.40 07:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a factual account of the various controversies should be added to this page. People will look for that information and won't find it. A factual account of Hewitt's behaviour has no relevance to racism in Australia (percieved or otherwise). Just need to be careful about NPOV. MrsPlum 09:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed in Lleyton. Australians aren't all racist of course. But he is, I think. I don't understand is that really matters what kind of skin do you have? How many melanin are there? Hewitt is disgusting.--Aishe 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a useless comment and has no bearing on the content of this article.
The controversy is definitely relevent. The way it is reported now seems NPOV and factually correct. CastorQuinn 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? The intro says that he's a convicted muderer!!
Just to add a voice, I also think this should be included. Usually, such controversies are covered on wikipedia. I came to look for an authoritative account of it just now and was confused to find nothing (there used to be a large section about it, which I saw quoted in a thread on an old discussions board). Undoubtedly this was a racially motivated or even racist comment - could you imagine him saying it if they both had ginger hair? He is making assumptions about both their intentions -favouring the black man- and characters -readiness to cheat- according to their skin colour. It is a sophism to argue that he simply feels he is a victim of discrimination, and is responding to it just as a normal person would defend himself: to say this is true would imply he was correct in assuming that the line judge must be biased because he was of the same race as Blake. At the very least, Hewitt's comment conveys an us-against-them mentality which I see as both cause and effect of racism. Even the fact that he spontaneously registered that both his opponent and the line judge were black is to me odd.
It was outrageous that the line judge was indeed made to move on Hewitt's request and it shocked me that this didn't have wider repercussions. Really, this was quite an unbelievable thing to happen considering the year (2001), and it would be remiss not to include it.
WRT NPOV - perhaps to say something along the lines of the comment sounding racist whilst avoiding the accusation that Hewitt himself is a racist would be wise? Although for what its worth, I personally do think him bigoted - earlier that year at the French Open Hewitt referred to the very same umpire as a 'spastic'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dUGXtiMNqk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.49.153 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career easiest wins[edit]

How important is this? Will Lleyton Hewitt be remembered for this? How does this contribute to his career? In any case, not only is this section lacking in any write-up and elaboration, I think it lacks any importance. It will be more worthwhile if we replace it with his Grand Slam singles finals performance (he has four)--like other players' pages. Joey80 08:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this section in this discussion page (in case some editor think it is too important that this be included). Meanwhile, I'll replaced the one in the article with the Grand Slam singles final performances.

<no wiki>==Career Easiest Wins==<no wiki>

Joey80 08:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be too biased, focusing on the negative aspects of Hewitt rather than a neutral perspective.

These results are close to meaningless. Numbers can be VERY deceptive in tennis. A 6/4 6/4 win can be a walk in the park, while a 6/1 6/2 could easily be a very hard-earned victory!--HJ 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article is ridiculous[edit]

The introduction makes the average reader think Lleytin Hewitt is the most notorious tennis player ever.

I admit I'm not a fan of Hewitt and do dislike his personality on court, but the introdcution is NOT what an encylopedia should be. It shoul dbe more neutral than that.

The introduction needs some serious work (by soeone who knows what they're talking about of course)

Billyb 08:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the intro goes immediately into the bad reputation. I'm no fan of Hewitt's antic either, but the opening should be about Hewitt the tennis player, Wimbledon champ, and World No. 1 for two years.
Aree 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - well said! It is written as for some Tabloid paper. Of course, one should not be silent about the matters (and they are mentioned later on, in too much length imo), but as an intro it is just too much. Also, on the fines on not showing up for ATP press conferences: I think there was only one instance in question, where Hewitt refused to pay a fine, since he had appeared to the press conference on time, and left after half an hour of nothing. When ATP then decided to start 45 minutes late, Hewitt had understandable left the building. Btw, I am not a particular fan of Hewitt, but my 10 year old son thinks he is cool - this is mentioned to put in the view that Hewitt has had enormous impact on tennis from a positive, commercial perspective, indeed by being so competitive and energetic. Actually, we will probably witness him mellow down now after he has become a father - he barely showed his fist during Wimbledon 2006!--HJ 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link in the beginning [1] purports to be reference for Hewitt's bad behavior. The story deals with a Davis Cup match between Argentina and Australia, where emotions are always tense. Hewitt and Coria are, even judged by the article, both behaving badly at various instances. So it is a very poor reference if one wants to establish that Hewitt in particular is an agressive player using abusive language (I mean taking Hewitt's side for a moment, I would be slightly annoyed if my opponent, Coria, was scratching his balls (not tennis balls) everytime I should serve). In any case it is not an adequate reference, as it merely establishes that the Argentinians didn't like Hewitt. Big surprise ( ;-) ) --HJ 09:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Blake 2001 incident is also just used as reference in the beginning, and an uninformed reader will find this a peculiar reference at that point. The reference should support a paragraph describing the incident (preferably accompanied by a link to Blake's own reactions, where he tries to make the thing go to rest, and mentions that any talk about racism in such an instance would be ridiculing what Arthur Ashe and Althea Gibson, among others, had been exposed to).--HJ 09:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

last paragraph (RE wimbey 2006)[edit]

i changed the last paragraph to "Going into the 2006 Championships at Wimbledon, Lleyton Hewitt firmly established himself as second favourite after a comfortable title win at the main warm up event to Wimbledon - Queens Club Championships. He survived a five-set scare against South Korea's Hyung-Taik Lee that continued on over two days. He then disposed of Olivier Rochus and David Ferrer before losing in a very unconvincing display to Marcos Baghdatis in the quarterfinals." and had a message saying it would be kept, howcome it has changed back?

=====Found a better picture=====[edit]

http://imgs.pravda.sk/sk_stenis/A050126_P09_HEWITT_LLEYTON_V.JPG

This one doesn't have a watermark on it. Anyone know how to put it up?

One hundred thousand lemmings can't br wrong/ 10:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First make sure it is o.k. to use. Then it should be uploaded to Wiki, and then linked. But be sure to read all the stuff about copyrights. See Special:Upload.--HJ 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Revised structure of article? Please comment[edit]

I would suggest that the article is re-structured. Right now, there is a major section called "Tennis Career". This, however, contains lots of non-tennis stuff (personal life) and all the off-court things. I therefore suggest a section focusing only on on-court tennis activcities. Then a "controversies" section where all the shouting, alleged racism, "most-hated-non-Argentinian-tennis-player-to-play-Argentina-in-Davis-Cup" prize, etc., can be placed. Then, perhaps the personal life stuff could be relegated to either a trivia section (which is almost there in any case), or be put in the very beginning (where usually people's maritial status is mentioned). I would be willing to write it up, if people think it is a good idea. As of now, the article is a mess. Not worthy of a two-time GS winner and 20+ ATP winner.--HJ 09:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on Masters finals performances and GS runner up result[edit]

User 212.189.1.166 has done a lot of constructive (albeit uncommented) edits introducing a Masters finals performances section and GS runner up results. I was just wondering whether this fine work is a bit redundant? I left the following message on the user's talk page:

== Edits on Lleyton Hewitt ==
Nice edits on the Lleyton Hewitt article. I was, however, wondering whether the separate sections on Masters finals performances and Grand Slam runner ups are needed? All information (except for scores in losing finals) are already in the article.--HJ 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments? My suggestion is that the new edits should only stay if the whole results part is rewritten (so it features GS, Masters and Masters Cup, Other ATP tournaments). There should not be repetitive contents--HJ 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATP Tour career earnings[edit]

Completely without discussion at the talk page and without any comments, User:NWill has added this section on August 29. I think this is rather uninteresting additional information. Does anyone else have opinions on this, or is this talk page not to be taken seriously?--HJ 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a difficult issue because only relatively recent players' prizemoney can be calculated, and the earnings are by-the-numbers, not involving taxes. It doesn't seem to be present in many other sports except tennis; but if removed here then they'll need to be removed everywhere - from Sampras to Federer. Australian Matt 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I wasn't aware of how widespread it was. But as an economist I just find these thing downright silly. You mention taxes, and there are lots of other things making these figures only indicative (e.g., allegedly Kurnikova was in Top-5 regarding income, even though she never won an single (no pun intended) tournament; so prize money is a bad indicator for "success"). But I won't touch it. Nice with some response here at the talk page. Thanks! --HJ 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The doubles picture of Hewitt with Philippopous has been moved into the inforbox. I think actually it is better to have no picture, than a picture of Hewitt with another person. Especially since the other takes up same space. I mean, this is not about them as a doubles pair. I therefore think it should be moved down to its earlier position later in the article.--HJ 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV[edit]

I'll be removing several external links of Hewitt's behavior for more of a neutral point of view.--Tennislover 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add io:Lleyton Hewitt[edit]

The article in Ido language is io:Lleyton Hewitt. Please add the link; thank you. io:User:Joao Xavier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.161.187.154 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Outburst[edit]

Didn't he call someone (umpire?) a spastic once? Outrageous, unacceptible, blackly amusing and classic Adelaide Lleyton ROxBo 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable tables?[edit]

What are the point of these? Try sort on dates in the list of Hewitt's victories. It just makes no sense absolutely. --HJensen, talk 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 ticket holder?[edit]

What does "no. 1 ticket holder" mean? Does he have season tickets? If this is some kind of official standing as a supporter, it should be explained here or elsewhere. As it is, it doesn't even sound like English. 216.231.46.147 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree , i say get rid of it too

perfect 5 set record[edit]

i find that incredibly hard to believe. what does that mean? that he has never lost a game when it has gone to the 5th set? I say put a reference in there or get rid of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.192.75 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means he has won the match when it has gone to 5 sets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishello92 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singles and doubles Grand Slam winner[edit]

The article states that, when Hewitt won the US Open in 2001, it made him "and fellow countryman Pat Rafter the only active ATP players to have won a Grand Slam singles and doubles title during their career". That is not true. Kafelnikov was still playing and he also has won Grand Slam singles and doubles. 80.200.42.218 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federer[edit]

"No one beats Lleyton Hewitt sixteen times in a row - not even Roger Federer" Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty[edit]

I think the article should mention something about this nickname and its origin (if known). Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a piece about his nickname to the Personal life section of the article. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lleyton Hewitt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 08:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I am quick-failing this nomination due to the existence of cleanup tags, most notably the 2011 section is completely unreferenced (tagged since 2011) and there are multiple{{citation needed}} tags. C679 08:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References added[edit]

References have been added to the 2011 section of the page. Bodgey5

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lleyton Hewitt/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 03:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my review of this article. In short, there's a lot of work that needs to be done on Hewitt before GA status can even be considered, let alone granted:

  • The lead needs to be expanded.
  • There's nothing about his early life. It just jumps into his tennis career with nothing beforehand.
  • The following sections are completely unsourced and need sources added: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, World Team Cup, Olympics, and the entire rivalries section.
  • Pretty much every year of his tennis career is inadequately sourced. At a minimum, one citation per paragraph is needed, and for a living person, a lot more is needed. Really, the only section I would consider appropriately sourced is the personal life section.
  • A good chunk of the references that do exist are just bare URLs, which barely help at all. Titles, publishers, dates, etc. are needed to flesh out the refs. On the plus side, the references that are in the article are for the most part valid ones.

The referencing issues alone would be enough to fail the article, but I did a read through as well. In short, the article is not at all well-written, and needs a rewrite big time before it can be considered for GAN. Here are some of those problems:

  • "Hewitt might well have followed in the footsteps of his Australian rules football-playing father Glynn. Instead, he became one of the youngest winners of an Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) tournament when, as an almost unknown youngster, he won the 1998 Next Generation Adelaide International, defeating Andre Agassi in the semifinals." These are the first two sentences of the article, and it reads like it was ripped from a book forward rather than written as an encyclopedic article. That chunk needs a rewrite. Plus, do you have any proof he wanted to go into football? If not, that first sentence is dishonest and can't be used.
  • "Only Aaron Krickstein winning Tel Aviv in 1983 and Michael Chang winning San Francisco in 1988 were younger when claiming their first ATP title." Doesn't really fit in with the starting section well.
  • The article jumps from 1997 to 2000 with nothing in between.
  • "In 2000, Hewitt reached his first Grand Slam final at the Wimbledon mixed doubles partnering Belgian Kim Clijsters, his then girlfriend." you mean partnering with? Missing a word.
  • "For his third straight year, He qualified for the year-end " Capitalization error.
  • "His hard work paid off during the Australian summer, when he" Poor tone, remove.
  • "2008 was the first year since 1997 in which Hewitt did not win a title." Can't start a sentence with a number, but more importantly this implies he won a title in 1998 and 1999, and again those two years are omitted. Add them.
  • The structure of 2009 and 2010 is quite poor, with a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. The article needs to be able to flow, rather than just be a bunch of sentences thrown together hoping it fits.
  • "and following up with a five-set epic upset against fellow former US Open champion Juan Martin Del Potro, where Hewitt" Again, tone issue there. Plus that's the only sentence you note the upset in. If it was really that epic there'd either be more detail or a source noting that.
  • Voltchkov said before the match that "Hewitt has no weapons to hurt me." Hewitt responded, "Voltchkov doesn't have a ranking [of 457] to hurt me." Unsourced quote: those more than anything have to be sourced.
  • "Hewitt competed in his third olympics in London 2012 " Capitalize Olympics.
  • There's a lot of comma splicing in the article where you have commas that are not needed.
  • As noted in a few sentences above, the tone is poor in many sections of the article, reading like a blog piece rather than an enyclopedic article. As a result this needs a fundamental rewrite.

Due to the above, I have to fail this as a GAN. Do not renominate the article without addressing the concerns. Wizardman 03:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lleyton Hewitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lleyton Hewitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lleyton Hewitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/hewitt-why-we-love-him-and-why-we-dont-20050131-gdklhg.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lleyton_Hewitt&oldid=1207497783"