Talk:Martin Vinnicombe

Blind reverting
An incredible amount of factual errors within this information.. if your going to write about living persons please do me the honour of actually getting it right ….

Before blind reverting, can we discuss what is happening here? For some reason, User:122.106.15.15 doesn't like that this person was caught using steroids and that his coach said the only way he knew how to win was to cheat. The citation for this is fine and my research backs this up, although I haven't yet spent the time to find the right source to provide multiple sources in this instance. Second, there is the bizarre idea to start the article with a boldened statement that he won the world championship once. This is obvious already - both in the medal table and being in a relevant place in the article. Furthermore, blind reverting is removing a few extra bits I've added, a couple of categories and ordering the references before external links. Please think before you blindly revert again. Thanks, SeveroTC 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you removing correct information? You say you haven't yet spent the time to find the right source to provide multiple sources in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.34.195 (talk) 02:20, August 8, 2008
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions, however, it is important to bear in mind that we need to present information from a neutral point of view. Your edits don't seem to do this and you fail to provide any sources that do dispute the Time article, even though your edit does. The burden of inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability - as it has been disputed it is now up to you to provide a source, especially in the case of biographies of living persons. If you would like additional help, place helpme on your talk page. Thanks, SeveroTC 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Show the link to the Sydney Morning Herald, where Phill Bates, told the Sydney Morning Herald in 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.34.195 (talk) 13:38, August 8, 2008
 * It's in the citation. If you find one that disagrees then by all means remove as it's disputed, but you continually fail to do so. SeveroTC 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The two people named say the article is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.34.195 (talk) 16:05, August 9, 2008
 * And where is the citation? Please find a cite. It's probably best to post it here as it is likely you have a conflict of interest. Also, please sign your posts. Thanks, SeveroTC 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles on living persons should not be contentious as stated by (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Articles are contentious, when derogatory remarks and emotive language have been made about an athlete, and have no place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.0.23.211 (talk) 13:36, August 12, 2008
 * Actually it doesn't say that, but rather says: "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." As I've said before, if you have any reliable third-party source that disputes anything in the article, please raise it. SeveroTC 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The word cheat is a derogatory remark, and so is contentious, and adds nothing to the body of information of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.0.23.211 (talk) 16:47, August 12, 2008
 * It is a quote and is well cited. It meets the burden of WP:BLP. SeveroTC 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you have your name removed from wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.0.23.211 (talk) 22:01, August 12, 2008
 * You can try looking at Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). There isn't a "biographical opt out". SeveroTC 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What does this article relate to, (^ Wells, Jeff (1996-07-20). "DRUG RUNNERS;) and why was it put in References? What use is it if there is no link to it, and can not be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.15.15 (talk) 22:55, August 13, 2008
 * This is the citation for the quote. Although it is ideal to include an external link, one is not available. However, sufficient information has been given to enable anyone to find the quote using an online (such as Nexis, for which you would need a password) or actual archive. I searched an archive to find it, after it was queried. The second link is acting as a convenience link, to allow anyone to read the quote via another source. I think the main thrust of your point questions the verifiability of a source without an external link. This is essentially invalid - sufficient information has been given to enable anyone with access to the archive to find it. If you would like, I can access it and quote the whole paragraph on here. SeveroTC 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)