many of you may remember my thread some time ago about the wikipedia article i wrote about roger federer's racket, exposing the awful truth that it wasnt' the stock ncode tour 90. i checked back on wikipedia today, and found that the entire section i had written about this subject was removed. so naturally i put it back. now i have been blocked from editing the matter further. im really not sure why.
federer wikipedia outrage
- Thread starter chiru
- Start date
C
cpiddy
Guest
chiru said:
I vaguely remember reading that on the wiki site last month...wikipedia has been knee high in crap the last year because of what has been posted. Often times, they jump when people with deep pockets bark at them.
There must be some Fed fans who disliked your claim and complained - or maybe Wison was crying...
at any rate...post it here?!?! I promise I won't delete
Roger Federer officially uses the Wilson nSix-One Tour tennis racquet. This is the first tennis racquet to utilize nanotechnology, which according to Wilson's promotional literature is twice as strong and twice as stable as traditional racquets, yielding 22% more power, as well as added control and a greater life span. This racquet's 90-square-inch midsize head (relatively small in comparison to modern racquets) and its 12.4oz strung weight classifies it as what is commonly known as a "player's racquet." Such racquets usually have small sweetspots and require a skilled and fast stroke to create a great deal of power, but the drawbacks are compensated by better control and feel. Federer's debut on tour was with the Wilson ProStaff 6.0 Original 85, which he replaced with a Hyper ProStaff 6.0 95, followed by the ProStaff Tour 90, which was replaced finally by his current racquet.
There is a great deal of speculation amongst tennis enthusiasts, however, that his racket is not the standard nSix-One Tour 90 but rather a custom built racket that is painted to look like the nSix-One Tour for promotional purposes. Proponents of this theory cite slight differences in the racket he uses on court compared to the stock nSix-One Tour. One such visible difference is seen in the handle (or pallet) of Federer's racket, as it is significantly shorter than the handle of the stock model. This could be due to the fact he employs a one handed backhand (thus not requiring the extra length)and as such the handle had to be elongated on the model available to the public to accomodate players with two handed backhands. The second visible difference is a slight variation in string pattern: The Perimeter Weighting System (bumps at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the frame) on Federer's frame has 4 grommet holes in it, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has 5 grommet holes. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner fo the nSix-One Tour) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racket are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme. This topic is a subject of much debate, and is primarily speculation, with confirmation neither from Roger Federer nor from Wilson.
Federer uses a hybrid of Wilson Natural Gut (16 gauge) and Luxilon Big Banger Alu Power Rough (16L gauge) in his racquet. Federer use the Natural Gut on his mains and the Alu Power Rough on his crosses at a tension usually ranging from 50 lb. to 55 lb. 10 String Savers are installed higher in the string bed (at the intersection of the 4th and 6th cross alternately on the 10 center main strings). Federer also has leather power pads installed at the junction of the six center main strings and the throat. These pads dampen vibration, increase string longevity, and slightly change the feel to Federer's liking. Federer's stringing and racket customization is handled by a stringing company known as Priority One.
i wrote everything after the first two lines, so basically starting with the bit
about the headsize
There is a great deal of speculation amongst tennis enthusiasts, however, that his racket is not the standard nSix-One Tour 90 but rather a custom built racket that is painted to look like the nSix-One Tour for promotional purposes. Proponents of this theory cite slight differences in the racket he uses on court compared to the stock nSix-One Tour. One such visible difference is seen in the handle (or pallet) of Federer's racket, as it is significantly shorter than the handle of the stock model. This could be due to the fact he employs a one handed backhand (thus not requiring the extra length)and as such the handle had to be elongated on the model available to the public to accomodate players with two handed backhands. The second visible difference is a slight variation in string pattern: The Perimeter Weighting System (bumps at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the frame) on Federer's frame has 4 grommet holes in it, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has 5 grommet holes. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner fo the nSix-One Tour) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racket are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme. This topic is a subject of much debate, and is primarily speculation, with confirmation neither from Roger Federer nor from Wilson.
Federer uses a hybrid of Wilson Natural Gut (16 gauge) and Luxilon Big Banger Alu Power Rough (16L gauge) in his racquet. Federer use the Natural Gut on his mains and the Alu Power Rough on his crosses at a tension usually ranging from 50 lb. to 55 lb. 10 String Savers are installed higher in the string bed (at the intersection of the 4th and 6th cross alternately on the 10 center main strings). Federer also has leather power pads installed at the junction of the six center main strings and the throat. These pads dampen vibration, increase string longevity, and slightly change the feel to Federer's liking. Federer's stringing and racket customization is handled by a stringing company known as Priority One.
i wrote everything after the first two lines, so basically starting with the bit
about the headsize
raftermania
Banned
Great write-up but it appears you were the man who said too much.
yeah i know its still there. they removed it, but with my dying breath i put it back up there. then i got the axe, i.e. ive been blocked from further editing. wikipedia has a rule called the 3 revision rule or something. if i edit the same thing written by a certain author (like if we have a dispute) 3 times in 24 hours i shud get blocked. i did this once and got blocked. i read the discussion about teh page, on the veyr bottom, some girl name noelle thinks that im full of it so she gave it "the axe" without contacting me for sources, i.e. clear pictures. now im blocked from editing, and i donno how long for, i cant even find me on the block list to find out how long. apparently this noelle is on these boards, apparently she hasnt been since roger federer got good, or she wudda known what im saying is accurate. if they take it off again, im asking you guys to re post it, take turns tho so u dont get blocked. i just dont want the man wilson to get away with scamming customers.
TennisAsAlways
Professional
You mean, "was".sureshs said:
BTW, what the heck are the odds of a former TW mod being a mod for Wikipedia, and that that person happened to have blocked Chiru from editing a "tennis-related" article? I mean it's not like Wikipedia is a "tennis" site. It's a "general" site. What the heck? COuld it really be the same person?
Also, Chiru, I have question for you: How do you know for sure that the "Noelle" from Wikipedia is a "girl"? We know that the one on TW is.
well she didn't block me herself, she had a wikipedia administrator block me, a guy named curps, shes part of the anti-vandalism squad or some ridiculous name like that on wikipedia. i know shes a girl cuz in her talk page some guy asks her if shes the girl from tt.tennis-warehouse.com, and she says yeah thats her. its really ridiculous that this happenned. i mean i like to think my article was pretty fair, unbiased, and readily verifiable by looking at pics. as far as the controversial stuff, i was clear to state it was speculation. yeah the talk is under the discussion for the roger federer article, it was at the bottom of the page last i checked.
Ash Doyle
Professional
For one thing, you admit that it's speculation, and speculation has no place in a enclopedia entry. Also, it's insignificant and doesn't warrant mention in an enclyclopedia article.
This is something that is blown out of proportion on this messageboard. I agree with you that it happens, and everything you said is true. It's interesting for a tennis nut to discuss what the racquet really is, or how it's specs differ from what is normally available; but in the bigger scheme of things it doesn't matter.
This is something that is blown out of proportion on this messageboard. I agree with you that it happens, and everything you said is true. It's interesting for a tennis nut to discuss what the racquet really is, or how it's specs differ from what is normally available; but in the bigger scheme of things it doesn't matter.
Yeah - I read it as follows:chiru said:
'Equipment speculation
The following section seems to be original research and speculation. It also has no sources.
There is a great deal of speculation amongst tennis enthusiasts, however, that his racquet is not the standard nSix-One Tour 90 but rather a custom built racquet that is painted to look like the nSix-One Tour for promotional purposes. Proponents of this theory cite slight differences in the racquet he uses on court compared to the stock nSix-One Tour. One such visible difference is seen in the handle (or pallet) of Federer's racquet, as it is significantly shorter than the handle of the stock model. This could be due to his one-handed backhand (thus not requiring the extra length) and as such the handle had to be elongated on the model available to the public to accommodate players with two-handed backhands. The second visible difference is a slight variation in string pattern: The Perimeter Weighting System (bumps at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the frame) on Federer's frame has 4 grommet holes in it, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has 5 grommet holes. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner fo the nSix-One Tour) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racket are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme. This topic is a subject of much debate, and is primarily speculation, with confirmation neither from Roger Federer nor from Wilson. However, tennis enthusiasts who support the theory claim that he isn't the only player to use a racquet that differs from what the markets say, as many players such as Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, and Lleyton Hewitt have racquets that have been exposed by enthusiasts to be different racquets.
"How should it be improved? Should it even be kept? Discuss. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Tennis enthusiasts"?? And the text even states explicitly that those "enthusiasts" "speculate". If we can pinpoint the author of this passage, we can ask him/her to provide [expeditiously] a source (which would need to be impressive, and that would name those "enthusiasts"). In the absence of an impressive source, there is no doubt whatsoever that this needs to be axed, asap. Redux 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it from the main text of the article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Federer"
babar
Professional
Chiru,
I don't know what you're talking about. I use the off-the-shelf Wilson nSix-One Tour racquet that Wilson has told me is used by Federer. Every shot I hit is exactly like the ones I see Federer hit on TV! Even the shank forehands that are increasingly becoming a part of his game and mine thanks to the Wilson nSix-One Tour used by Federer as marketed to me by Wilson.
I don't know what you're talking about. I use the off-the-shelf Wilson nSix-One Tour racquet that Wilson has told me is used by Federer. Every shot I hit is exactly like the ones I see Federer hit on TV! Even the shank forehands that are increasingly becoming a part of his game and mine thanks to the Wilson nSix-One Tour used by Federer as marketed to me by Wilson.
TennisAsAlways
Professional
I don't know you and so I don't know if you're trying to be humorous. I seriously hope that you only are joking.babar said:
TennisAsAlways said:
So what is the story, she is not a mod here any more? What happened? I don't see posts from that account either.
Also, what are the chances that someone with the same name who moderates tennis submissions on Wikipedia is not the same person of the same gender? (sort of inverting your question)
Ash Doyle said:
I hope it is a case of the same woman (not girl, this is the 21st century) who has seen the pj threads on this board, then happened to notice the similarity to Chiru's submission, and kicked in. It is harmless in that case. But yes, I notice a control-freak kind of psychological pattern there.
But if there is a corporate entity lurking around, it is a different story. Note that corporations are nowadays monitoring blogs to see if there is any adverse publicity. Just like bloggers are skirting libel laws. A harmless looking article in Wikipedia could well trigger a class action lawsuit for false advertising. Even if they win it, they will spend millions on legal fees, and most importantly, fewer people will buy a racquet "because Agassi uses it". Such people form a big portion of racquet sales. Remember the story about the racial targeting chain mail for Tommy Hilfiger and how the company had to fight back?
Racquets are not like cosmetics where burden of proof is difficult. I cannot prove whether Federer uses his line of cosmetics or not in his private life. But the evidence about racquets is very clear.
Basically, the ATP and WTA should self police this matter. Like drug tests, they should have the official tournament stringers certify that every sponsored pro is using the racquet he is claiming to use, apart from certain modifications like grips or lead tape. The cost of this should be borne by the sponsors.
Or, the manufacturers (and all their channels like TW) should be made to put, in a certain minimum print size, a disclaimer that the pro uses a racquet similar to that shown which may not be available for general use. Then, the statements in TW reviews like "Agassi's racquet of choice" will need to disappear.
TennisAsAlways
Professional
sureshs said:
She made an "official" announcement that she was leaving.
I've already asked that very same kind of question. As far as the chances, I suppose it's not that slim, considering that she supposedly was handling the "tennis" related data. As far as how Churi would know whether or not that Noelle is a "she" and if in fact that is the very same Noelle from here, that has already been answered in an above post.
hey i was unblocked!!! i e-mailed the admin and he said it wasnt my fault. i am now a wikipedia member in good standing. if someone removes it agian, this time i at least have a right to dispute it with them. i think it does belong in an encyclopedia answering one persons's question, becaue its true. anything thats true can be in an encylopedia. this isn't a question of opinion, i can provide clear photographic evidence. and if photographic evidence is good enough to get ppl indicted ina court of law, it shud be solid enough for wikipedia. the reason why i put it up, again, is only cuz i know a ton of ppl who have bought the "federer" racket thinking, this is the racket of their favorite hero roger federer. i use the ncode tour 90 and love it myself, however i didn't buy it cuzza federer, i bought it knownig about the pj, and bought it cuzza a play test i like. thats who rackets should be bought personally. but if you wanna buy your heroes racket (like buying a prostaff 6.0 a la sampras, or buying an aero pro drive a la nadal) thats up to you. but if your getting fooled into buying a racket which isn't what you think it is, you should at least be informed. im having a tough time understanding why this isnt considered false advertising, but im not a lawyer, so the next best thing i can do to help consumers rights is to help people get informed. wikipedia is the only place where i have a chance of creating a credible source for people to learn the awful truth.
thanks for all your support in over coming the man. my brain child lives on. perhaps i will someday do a complete paintjob expose on wikipedia, abotu all the rackets that you can clearly see evidence for that they're not the real thing. this has been a furiating but rewarding experience. if evne one person who was gonna buy the "federer" racket, thinks twicce and finds out the truth, then i have indeed done my job and its all worth. man i feel like a religious leader now! lol anyway heres to wikipedia, the only place where a guy like me can stick it to the man!
JRstriker12
Hall of Fame
Why stick to just the Federer entry? I think you should do a whole seperate entry in Wikipedia about this common practice in pro tennis. Maybe put in a few links to the news paper articles that covered the deception of the racket companies.
TennisAsAlways
Professional
I was "relaxed"....until you had to TELL me to relax!mislav said:
Good day now. 8)
diadorakuerten
Rookie
When people can edit and write crap they will do it. Look at the tennis definition in Wikipedia. Looks like no one has edited that.
TennisAsAlways
Professional
^ What do you see that is wrong with it?
You've said it yourself: you were "relaxed" and then, after my suggestion, you were relaxed. But now you seem to got back to "relaxed" state again.TennisAsAlways said:I was "relaxed"....until you had to TELL me to relax!
Also, can you unveil the mystery of your "Good day now." signature? As in - why is it on and off? I like that sig of yours, make it stay. It always gives me a chuckle.
Oh, and feel free to comment on my serve technique in my thread in tips section. I know you're an expert on this, I'd like to hear your comments.
TennisAsAlways
Professional
^ Comment on your serve? If you don't hear back from me by later on today, then that probably means that I just don't want to hurt your feelings. j/k I'll get back to you. I'm actually heading out to the courts soon so I'll be back browsing through the Tips & Instructions section. BB will probably catch your thread before me though. He logs online earlier nowadays.
As far as my sig?....It's a secret.
Good day now. 8)
j/k I'll get back to you. I'm actually heading out to the courts soon so I'll be back browsing through the Tips & Instructions section. BB will probably catch your thread before me though. He logs online earlier nowadays.As far as my sig?....It's a secret.
Good day now. 8)
raftermania
Banned
If that's the case, why did she give up this authority???
Here's today's update on the Federer racquet on WikiPedia:
"Hi i'm the original author of the text, and as you can see i've put it back. I can provide photographic evidence if necessary to support every claim I have made about the racket Federer uses as opposed to the stock nCode Tour 90. What I was referring to as speculatoin is whether the Tour 90 pj and the ncode pj he used and currently uses respectfully are indeed the same racket. that I cannot unequivacobly prove. My purpose in writing this article is to prevent potential consumers into misinformedly buying a product without knowing that the real Roger Federer racket is unavailable to the public. --Nanonugget"
Countered with:
"Wikipedia requires that verifiable sources be provided (possibly the 2004 ESPN article on paintjobs). See Wikipedia:No original research.
While it is possibly true that Federer is not using a stock nCode 90, there are no other sources for this information. It first has to be published by a credible source (newspaper, industry magazine). As an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia simply reflects what information is out there; it is not meant to disseminate new information. I've quoted below what you re-inserted to show that it is, without sources, simply assertions. They may have a factual basis, but they are not verifiable.
"While Roger's racquet seems to be based on the standard nSix-One Tour 90, it clearly is customized by Wilson to Roger's specifications. There are slight differences in the racquet he uses, such as the shorter handle (or pallet) of his racquet, a slight variation in the spacing of the cross strings (most apparent in the Perimeter Weighting System at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the hoop: Roger's racquets have four grommet holes in this area, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has five), and a slightly different grommet strip and bumperguard to match the altered spacing of the cross strings. Length, weight, balance, swingweight, beam width, and head size are the same on Federer's racquet as on the standard version. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner of the nSix-One Tour 90) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racquet are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme."
--Noelle De Guzman (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)"
The debate rages on.
However, personally, I have to say, I'm pretty swayed by posts by gregraven on the entire issue - and furthermore, his posts tie in exactly with what has been posted on Wikipedia today.
"Hi i'm the original author of the text, and as you can see i've put it back. I can provide photographic evidence if necessary to support every claim I have made about the racket Federer uses as opposed to the stock nCode Tour 90. What I was referring to as speculatoin is whether the Tour 90 pj and the ncode pj he used and currently uses respectfully are indeed the same racket. that I cannot unequivacobly prove. My purpose in writing this article is to prevent potential consumers into misinformedly buying a product without knowing that the real Roger Federer racket is unavailable to the public. --Nanonugget"
Countered with:
"Wikipedia requires that verifiable sources be provided (possibly the 2004 ESPN article on paintjobs). See Wikipedia:No original research.
While it is possibly true that Federer is not using a stock nCode 90, there are no other sources for this information. It first has to be published by a credible source (newspaper, industry magazine). As an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia simply reflects what information is out there; it is not meant to disseminate new information. I've quoted below what you re-inserted to show that it is, without sources, simply assertions. They may have a factual basis, but they are not verifiable.
"While Roger's racquet seems to be based on the standard nSix-One Tour 90, it clearly is customized by Wilson to Roger's specifications. There are slight differences in the racquet he uses, such as the shorter handle (or pallet) of his racquet, a slight variation in the spacing of the cross strings (most apparent in the Perimeter Weighting System at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the hoop: Roger's racquets have four grommet holes in this area, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has five), and a slightly different grommet strip and bumperguard to match the altered spacing of the cross strings. Length, weight, balance, swingweight, beam width, and head size are the same on Federer's racquet as on the standard version. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner of the nSix-One Tour 90) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racquet are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme."
--Noelle De Guzman (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)"
The debate rages on.
However, personally, I have to say, I'm pretty swayed by posts by gregraven on the entire issue - and furthermore, his posts tie in exactly with what has been posted on Wikipedia today.
well, i donno how to beat this, this is obviously original research that we on these boards have done togethor. i donno how to fight that point, i mean what do i do now? how else can i get this info out into the open? i mean there are no clear sources that federer doesn't use the tour 90. I think I'm just gonna have to write that paintjob article seperately, using teh 2004 ESPN article as a resource, thats the only way i can get it out into the open. apparently the man wont rest until im done, so ill hit the man back with all my assault. so heres what i need from you guys, a series of pj players, and the real sticks that they play with, or atleast proof that they dont use the stock listed models. I'll probably need photographic evidence. I know agassi doesn't use the ral thing, same with hewitt, same with safin, same with federer, i'm sure most everyone else does too. but i need some solid photographic evidence like we have for safins and agassis (like no LM ridges, and no real flexpoint holes) or liek federer witht eh difference in pallet length and grammet spacing
Noelle
Hall Of Fame
Okay, so I decided to check back in here after a full month and a half of taking a break from this place, and this is what I see. LOL. For those who missed it, here's a link to why I left. I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered coming around here again.
I started editing Wikipedia in December 2005 and yes, it's definitely me on there. However, I will have to clarify certain things that have been said on this thread about me and about Wikipedia policy.
For those who missed it, here's a link to why I left. I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered coming around here again.I started editing Wikipedia in December 2005 and yes, it's definitely me on there. However, I will have to clarify certain things that have been said on this thread about me and about Wikipedia policy.
Yes, I'm that person. I made an honest attempt to talk about whether the section should remain. The discussion on the Roger Federer talk page was up for several days and no one weighed in on sourcing except for an administrator, Redux. I said, "This seems to be original research without sources. How should it be improved? Should it even be in the article? Discuss." Since Redux (who knows more about Wiki policy than I do) said the section had to be axed because it had no sources and marked itself as speculation, I removed it myself.chiru said:
I did not have an administrator block you. He did so on his own initiative. While I'm a member of the counter-vandalism squad (here's my user page on Wikipedia) I certainly was not the person who got you banned. I have been away from home and my computer for most of the past week (since April 15 until April 21).chiru said:
Nonsense. I have been on these boards since 2004 and had only left them recently. I am no longer a moderator on these boards. Also, I am not a moderator on Wikipedia. I am only an editor (definition: a person who edits Wikipedia, i.e. everyone who clicks on the "edit this page" link).chiru said:
This can fall under Wikipedia's policy against sockpuppetry so I wouldn't advise it.chiru said:
Then take this information you have and approach a newspaper with it. Get the information published. Only then can it be added to Wikipedia; there is a list of things which Wikipedia is not, and one of them is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.chiru said:
Chiru, you could have just come to my user page, left me a message, and we could have discussed Wikipedia policy. I don't see why you had to make an accusation against me (that I had you blocked) on this forum (which I had left) and not settle the matter on the Roger Federer talk page (with the people who are directly involved with editing the article).
FedererUberAlles
Professional
Noelle said:Okay, so I decided to check back in here after a full month and a half of taking a break from this place, and this is what I see. LOL.
I started editing Wikipedia in December 2005 and yes, it's definitely me on there. However, I will have to clarify certain things that have been said on this thread about me and about Wikipedia policy.
Yes, I'm that person. I made an honest attempt to talk about whether the section should remain. The discussion on the Roger Federer talk page was up for several days and no one weighed in on sourcing except for an administrator, Redux. I said, "This seems to be original research without sources. How should it be improved? Should it even be in the article? Discuss." Since Redux (who knows more about Wiki policy than I do) said the section had to be axed because it had no sources and marked itself as speculation, I removed it myself.
I did not have an administrator block you. He did so on his own initiative. While I'm a member of the counter-vandalism squad (here's my user page on Wikipedia) I certainly was not the person who got you banned. I have been away from home and my computer for most of the past week (since April 15 until April 21).
Nonsense. I have been on these boards since 2004 and had only left them recently. I am no longer a moderator on these boards. Also, I am not a moderator on Wikipedia. I am only an editor (definition: a person who edits Wikipedia, i.e. everyone who clicks on the "edit this page" link).
This can fall under Wikipedia's policy against sockpuppetry so I wouldn't advise it.
Then take this information you have and approach a newspaper with it. Get the information published. Only then can it be added to Wikipedia; there is a list of things which Wikipedia is not, and one of them is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
Chiru, you could have just come to my user page, left me a message, and we could have discussed Wikipedia policy. I don't see why you had to make an accusation against me (that I had you blocked) on this forum (which I had left) and not settle the matter on the Roger Federer talk page (with the people who are directly involved with editing the article).
Noelle, I think that you need to realise how he writes his point. He doesn't define it as fact, but says it is speculation.
35ft6
Legend
^ Chiru, Noelle was and is an uncommonly fair and decent person. I think her explaining why she's leaving wasn't a drama queen move, simply her being considerate. She was one of TW's most popular posters -- I don't think anybody disliked her -- so it was only natural that she would explain why she's disappearing. It would have been more of a drama queen move to not explain her departure, checking back in to see everybody talking about her, sort of like a person faking their own death because they need to see people crying over them to feel better about themselves. Plus, she probably wanted to give the real, official reason for why she left so didn't leave it in the hands of haters like you to push their theories on everyone.
