User talk:Dromeaz

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not own this article; you do not get to require approval for changes. This is completely unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, YOU own the article do you? Negative and unwarranted edits are not acceptable. We have been through this before, for years. What was wrong with the article as it stood on 19th November 2010? Do explain.


 * I'm not the one who made the edits you are reverting or who is trying to roll back the article to a preferred version. Nobody has to explain to you what's wrong with the article. By contrast, if they enter content that is problematic, you can address that. But you cannot simply revert because you liked the way it used to be.


 * This is what you said at my talk page about this editor in good standing, who has been editing for three years and never previously touched this article:


 * I ask here as I did there: are you honestly asserting that because User:UnicornTapestry made changes like this:
 * "Guinness World Records certified that The first fully-authenticated run around the world record" to "Guinness World Records certified the first fully-authenticated run around the world record"
 * that he must secreetly be affiliated with somebody who dislikes Mr. Garside and hence cannot be permitted to edit the article? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to know who is who and who is doing what on Wikipedia. That is one of its inherrent problems. I look at the history of this article and the behaviour of the edits but still cannot fathom why this article has been changed. No changes are warranted. I left you a message on your talk page.


 * You do not get to revert articles because you liked them way they were. If some of the content is a problem, you address that and explain why. If all of the content is a problem, you may revert it, but you must explain why. There is no such thing as "no changes are warranted." That's not the way we work. I have demonstrated above that your blanket rejection of the changes since the 19th has reintroduced at least one visible error to the article. Certainly, that was a change that was warranted. You need to evaluate the changes and address them thoughtfully, not simply reject them out of hand. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is getting fragmented between my talk page and yours. I'm going to just bring this over here.

Monitoring the page to ensure that it does not attack Mr. Garside is fine, completely understandable. Wikipedia's editing model attracts problems. But you cannot become paranoid in presuming that everyone who changes the article is out to get Mr. Garside or that every change is intended to harrass or denigrate him.

This article may be aggressively edited. It may be rewritten from scratch. This is completely permitted. Your need to keep harrassment out of the article does not change this. Even negative content may be entered in good faith. If you think it is unbalanced, you need to say so and work that out with other editors. Conflict of interest permits you to make certain noncontroversial changes, and that does include monitoring for WP:BLP issues, but it does not permit you to interfere with the normal development of the article. Doing so is likely to lead to a block, just as it did with account User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate last year. Or the article may again be semi-protected, as Franz Lidz currently is to prevent its being abused. We use a combination of protection and blocks to ensure that our articles are not misused, and that would hold true of Garside's detractors as well, if necessary, of his supporters. Both those who like and dislike the man must remain within community accepted practices to help shape the article on Wikipedia.

Looking at the content, I suspect that the edit that you really objected to was this one. This was not entered by User:UnicornTapestry but by a new account, quite possibly the user who has been edit-warring with you at Franz Lidz. UnicornTapestry accepted the change, but that doesn't mean he's in leagues with him. The information is reliably sourced and accurate, and there is no reason that he would be familiar with the history of the article or that dispute. The thing to do would have been to remove that content with a note of explanation in edit summary (it would have been sufficient to note that it is WP:UNDUE). UnicornTapestry's subsequent edits may not please you, but they are not problematic under WP:BLP. They are not among those changes that WP:COI authorizes you to make. For those changes, a conversation at the talk page would have been appropriate.

You don't need to send me an e-mail. I am familiar with the situation. I am permitted access to Wikimedia Foundation mails and have read quite a few related to this case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Having to monitor these pages: Robert Garside, Guinness World Records, Royal Holloway University, is unfair. The balance of the article has to be considered and so does the fact that there are detractors who have edited the said pages negatively and maliciously. We think the page was fine 3 days ago and since no new events had taken place and no explanation given, we see this as a personal attack against a living person and must defend that at any cost. The article is about Robert Garside who ran around the world, received 2000 positive national and international media stories and not about those few nay-sayers who have nothing to say but negative things. They can use their own blogs for that.


 * If you're telling me that you see changing "Guinness World Records certified that The first fully-authenticated run around the world record" to "Guinness World Records certified the first fully-authenticated run around the world record" as "a personal attack against a living person" that you "must defend at any cost", then we have a problem. You are not permitted to simply blanket revert changes with no more explanation than that the alteration was unauthorized. You are required to give valid reasons for your reversions. You must work within Wikipedia's practices if you wish to be permitted to edit the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Franz Lidz. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Robert Garside. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rd232 talk 15:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Robert Garside. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Andrei S (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rd232 talk 15:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion, as shown in your contributions and those of Contributions/TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Handling concerns with article content
Hi. I received your note at my talk page, left before your block, and even though you are blocked I wanted to respond.

First, I'm sorry that things have reached this point. The problem is not in your desire to keep the article fair, but, I'm afraid, in the methods you employ in doing so. I fear that you may be overzealous in your efforts there. Although I was not on Wikipedia when things reached their critical point yesterday, I had seen the beginnings of the dispute but trusted that it would be resolved through discussion. It was not a "BLP" issue. It is not libelous to the subject to remove reference to a world record that he evidently intended to attempt when there is no record that he ever pursued it. It is not libelous to the subject to mention that the title "Runningman" is self-given, if reliable sources describe it that way. Such details are well within the discretion of normal editing process. Multiple people supported the changes that had been made to the article, with which you disagreed. That's frequently a sign that there is no problem with it; in those instances where the problem is legitimate and contributors are not understanding, you must seek assistance, for instance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. You cannot force through your preference. If contributors disagree with you, you need to reflect on the content and consider their perspective. As Biographies of living persons/Help notes, "You cannot expect that Wikipedia editors will make the article say exactly what you want" and "You cannot expect that Wikipedia editors will give you exclusive editorial control over the article." You will be far more successful if you focus your attentions on issues of clear concern and if you avoid the kinds of behaviors cautioned against at that Help page:

You have been blocked, as you know, for block evasion. You would not have been blocked under the former account had you followed that standard, and you probably wouldn't have been blocked under this one if you had continued to follow it. At this point, I would recommend that you consider monitoring the article as you have been, but noting your problems here at this talk page or on the talk page of your prior account. I will not remove the article from my watchlist, and others are also watching it now (currently, 37 people are monitoring it), but there may be content that you feel problematic that enters the article anyway. In that case, if I were you, I would concisely explain the problem here at your talk page and place Helpme (brackets and all) near that explanation. The Helpme tag will draw a volunteer, who may be able to help resolve the concerns. The volunteer who responds may have no familiarity with the subject, so do keep that in mind and keep your explanation very clear and concise, pointing out specific text and why it is a concern. If nothing else, the volunteer would probably courtesy list the matter at WP:BLPN for you, where volunteers with experience in addressing such concerns can consider it. Again, they may not agree that the content is a problem in all cases, but I am confident that your concerns will be taken seriously and addressed with proper reflection on our policies regarding living people.

I am still watching your talk page as well. If you leave me a note here, I should see it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

All my edits have been reasonable. That is a matter of fact. If I had an e-mail address I could e-mail you a list of the 2000 (national and international) positive stories that Robert Garside received from 1995 - 2007, not just the few that appeared on the Internet as we entered the digital age. On another matter, I don't even agree with the dispute section really, its a bit silly. There is no dispute, Robert Garside got the record from Guinness World Records... and those few rivals of Mr' Garside's were only trying to bully him out of the record. It did not work. Now they are trying to suggest that Robert Garside is the only one who calls himself "The Runningman". Not true. He is also known as "The Runningman"... It is actually no big deal really, most people won't care, but I see it as the first sign of an attack. Also, where are the links to Royal Holloway, Guinness etc (at the bottom of the page?) This is yet another attempt to isolate Robert Garside. But of course, if I put it back, I will get barred. This is famously ridiculous. Can't you see a pattern? (calling himself "Runningman" + taking away ties to other entities. It's a no brainer. Dromeaz (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another CNN story -- http://edition.cnn.com/2000/US/09/01/running.man.reut/ Just in case it is of use Dromeaz (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF THING I AM TALKING ABOUT. PROPAGANDA. I AM *NOT* WAGING A "HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN" NOR TRYING TO "OWN" ANY ARTICLE. I AM MAKING MY VIEWS CLEAR. THAT IS ALL. AS FAR AS THE "ROBERT GARSIDE" PAGE IS CONCERNED, I AM SIMPLY PROTECTING TRUTH FROM FALSE PROPAGANDA. CURRENTLY THE PAGE SEEMS UNDER CONTROL BUT I AM SURE YOU MUST UNDERSTAND MY VIGILANCE AND I AM SURPRISED YOU DON'T SEE A NEED TO APOLOGISE TO ME FOR ALL I HAVE HAD TO ENDURE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS ON WIKIPEDIA Dromeaz (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)DROMEAZ


 * See WP:NOTTHEM. MLauba (Talk) 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)