User talk:Regatta dog

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reid Stowe Talk page comments
Hi RD,

Just a quick comment on the name of the NY Daily News article. I'm quoting the printed version of the article as published on February 22, 2008, page 8, which did indeed bear the title "Seasick, she's bailing Novice got in too deep with 1,000 Day sail". I'd rather quote printed than online versions of articles, because online versions can suddenly change. Witness the online version of this article. The early version referred to Ahmad as Stowe's wife, not girlfriend. A good change in this case, but it does illustrate the capacity of an online version of a news article to be a moving target, and not a good anchorage to the idea "it sez here" because 'here' can change on the web.

I should address your other comments, but I prefer doing that on the article talk page. Also, if you don't mind, I'm going to link your comments on my talk page back to the article discussion. There seems to be nothing of a personal nature in what you wrote on my page; it's pretty much all concerning the Reid Stowe article, so it seems to me to be more pertinent there than at my talk. Insofar as actually addressing them, maybe later in the week. You've written thoughtful comments, so I owe your comments some thought, but I've got stuff to deliver in the real world, and it's going to be a busy weekiend for me.

Oh, by the way. I'm being impolite. Welcome to Wikipedia, and all that. The mindless bit of automation that posted the previous comment on your page wants you to sign your talk page comments. You sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes after your comment (' '). When you save, MediaWiki expands the four tildes into your name, and furnishes a datestamp.

Oh, by the third way. I'm working with Aloha27, also of SA, on other articles of people and the sea. Jon Sanders, in particular, which, to my mind, ought to be as developed as Reid Stowe. If you want to play in those sandboxes, pitch in. There's more to the world than Stowe, after all. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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 should 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. --SineBot (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about Reid Stowe
Please see all my responses to your comments at Talk:Reid Stowe. Use the Page History if necessary to find them. It seems as if you were not aware of some remarks that I inserted into the section called "Unethical use of source." It might help you to see that I am trying my darndest to remain neutral here, and I hope you will do the same. Skol fir (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of article material
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Reid Stowe, you may be blocked from editing. Skol fir (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I second above warnings, do not remove or revert referenced information. Get consensus on the talkpage, which you obviously don't have.  I will protect the article as a warning, but further reverts will result in blocks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest, Beetstra, that the same warning be applied to Skol fir. Regatta dog (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stowe
Hi, you appear to be a single purpose editor is respect to the article Reid Stowe, you appear to have a strong personal involvement in the article, are you aware of our conflict of interest policy and are you also the account User:Oldgoatroper ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not oldgoatroper. I am aware of conflict of interest policy and have only submitted accurate, well sourced information that is pertinent to the subject. My only purpose here is to provide balance to what otherwise might be a one-sided article promoting the subject of the article and his endeavors. My advocacy for getting the complete picture out there is no stronger than the advocacy of those here who would like to control this biography by forbidding the inclusion of any information that puts the subject in anything but a positive light. I'm not quite sure what you mean by personal involvement, but I invite you to take a look at the discussion page of the subject's article to see the personal involvement of the subject's advocates. Just trying to add some balance. Regatta dog (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal involvement, conflict of interest, you seem to only be wanting to add negative content about this living person, apppears to be the only reason you have come to wikipedia. I will be having a good look throught the edits, your denial is appreciated, please be aware you are only allowed to edit through one identity. Please declare any other usernames you have edited under. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking the time for review, and would only ask that you review the edits of others who seem to have a very strong personal interest as advocates for the subject of the BLP. Any feedback is appreciated. Regatta dog (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am reposting a comment I already left at Talk:Reid Stowe/Archive 1...


 * Regatta dog, if you were hoping to get the editor who first created this article to help us resolve this dispute about exposing Reid Stowe's past transgressions, you might want to go back to the first page (not in the Archives) of this Talk page. At the end of the white box with text, you see a comment by the same editor from 2008:


 * In this matter, I believe Biography of Living Persons, Presumption in favor of privacy rules. He did it. He regrets it. He pleaded guilty. He served his time. The sentence he received does not entail wearing a scarlet letter for the rest of his born days. It has little bearing on the article. Enough said. Gosgood (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder what he would say now.


 * As far as I am concerned, Reid Stowe's past offences, however adamantly you might be motivated to brand him with these forever, "are not of concern to the public," which is not the same as saying that they are "on the public record." Would you want your entire life history available on the public record to be exposed in a widely distributed article about you? No, you would not. So, don't be a hypocrite and apply different rules to people you despise. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship ruled by fanatics.
 * Skol fir (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is brilliant, Skol fir, truly brilliant. Fanatics? You mean the likes of you, Wiki Editor MDougan (official member of Reid's mission control), Zanthrop who claims to be impartial but is an advocate for Reid -- he paid his debt to society, his daughter's a successful lawyer, blah, blah, blah.

Fine -- just drop drop it into his history without editorial -- "He did it. He regrets it. He pleaded guilty. He served his time."

You guys want to use Wiki as a marketing tool? Go for it. I sail. Most sailors do not want Reid as a poster child for sailing. We've had enough degradation of the sport with the last AC spending way more time in the court room than on the water and teenagers trying to break sailing records.

Hey Wiki? Nice -- providing a place where anyone, even a convicted drug smuggler and dead-beat dad can push traffic to his/her own web page to solicit donations. I'll get over to the Tiger Woods page and remove any mention of his "mistakes".

Yeah -- this is a neutral biography that says to an unsuspecting public - Reid's an explorer and an inspiration to humanity. You know - don't have a job for 20+ years, get convicted of smuggling 15 tons of dope and spend time in a federal pen, leave the dock for a voyage while you owe over $10,000 in back child support, be cited by officials for pumping raw sewage into the Hudson River, fly an earth day flag, run into a huge ship through absolute incompetence, impregnate a woman and spin it as sea sickness, drop her off and continue on because being a father is not as important as being an explorer/adventurer.

What ever. I don't have a dog in this fight, but my kids know. My two are not inspired by a pan handling, dead beat dad, ex-con, drug smuggler who makes his way through life by selling himself as an inspiration to humanity.

Reality check - Reid is a joke in the sailing community -- world wide.

"Bingo-bango condom broke" -- Montel Williams on Reid Stowe. Balance it out, Wiki, with RW, MD, and other members of his support team controlling the message here, Wikipedia is a joke. Regatta dog (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Please stop posting uncited controversial claims on the talkpage of the Stowe BLP that have to chance of insertion in the article. Please be very careful not to violate the wikipedia policy WP:BLP please read this WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be more careful to include cites in the talk page from now on. Regatta dog (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You should move on as I told you you have a strong conflict of interest and should not edit the article and should be better for your enjoyment of the project if you also do not add content to the talkpage,> Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am simply trying to provide balance. I don't see these kinds of comments appearing on Skol fir's talk page. An editor who obviously has a strong conflict of interest as well. Without comments to the discussion, Skol fir and Zanthrop will continue to maintain the article as a promo piece for the subject. I would appreciate any input you have on the comments in my discussions as opposed to dismissing them out of hand. Regatta dog (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your POV is just so tiresome, why don't you just get a blog and publish your dislike of this person there, wikipedia is not here to publiish such rubbish. Get a blog and do it yourself, If you don't stop I am going to report you as having a conflict of interest with BLP related issues, you just keep posting jail time and child support to the talkpage when multiple editors have rejected the content, please move on, it will be better for you and better for the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The same could be said of the POV of you and other editors who seem committed to making the article nothing more than a promotional piece about the subject. I agree that Wikipedia is not here to publish rubbish, and have done my part to remove poorly sourced rubbish from the article. Even when I try and remove non-existing reference links, I am met with "Those are fine".  Multiple editors have also supported inclusion of drug charges and child support. Regatta dog (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Soanya Ahmad. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Skol fir (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Skol fir (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please argue your case based on the merits of your arguments? Most other Wiki editors I've dealt with in the past are not so threatening. Perhaps you might want to discuss this on the article's discussion page. I admire you mastery of what amounts to Wikipedia's Robert's Rules of Order, but I think using your knowledge of the rules to stifle opposing opinions goes against the spirit of the Encyclopedia. Hope to see you on the discussion page. RegardsRegatta dog (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW - Please define "Unconstructive Edits". If it means disagreeing with another editor, I have a problem with that. Take it to the discussion page. If we need a third party, we can find one. I look forward to your participation in the pending article about Sailing Anarchy's historic thread about 1000 days at sea. Wink Regatta dog (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Message Alert
--Skol fir (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)