User talk:86.148.176.95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ben Johnson (sprinter)‎, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.--Yankees76 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War on Carl Lewis article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Yankees76 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the unsourced edits you've been making to various sprinter-related articles. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yankees76 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: what is vandalism about saying Carl Lewis failed three drugs test in 1988? i suggest you look at your own bias before accusing others of vandalism. and why have others not been blocked for the 'three-revert rule'

Your source does not corroborate your text. You've added "tarnished by allegations of steroid use", which is incorrect, as your source says Lewis 'tested positive for banned stimulants'. Firstly, stimulants (small amounts of banned stimulants found in cold medications - as what Lewis had tested positive for) are certainly not steroids, and secondly nowhere does the article make any claims about Lewis' reputation being tarnished (which appears to be your own conclusion drawn after reading this article). As per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". Additionally, your entry does not display the entire story, as you conveniently left out the fact that the USOC investigation at the time concluded the level of banned stimulants found in Lewis' system - mostly ephedrine -was not significant enough to be performance-enhancing.[1]. Your insistance of disrupting Wikipedia to continually re-insert this non-neutral point of view is considered vandalism. --Yankees76 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When I return I will add Lewis tested positive for banned stimulants. hopefully that won't be called vandalism or 'Unsourced POV' as its a verified fact. it's hard for a lot of his rabid fanboys to accept that he was no better than Ben Johnson despite his self righteous crap, so they call such edits "vandalism" and hide behind some policy no one has heard of. From the article I added: "Lewis thrown off his pedestal as American credibility hits new low", "he should have been serving a drugs ban " "He joins Johnson and Christie in a sprinting hall of shame. "sounds like he's tarnished to me.

You're adding one British sports writers opinion from 2003 as your source for 'tarnished'? Again this is very poorly sourced. Also, please discuss your changes on the Talk:Carl Lewis page before simply going back and re-inserting this material. Wikipedia works by building a consensus - especially on controversial and poorly thought-out edits such as these. If you continue to push your non-neutral point of view, you'll end up blocked again.--Yankees76 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the bulk of the Carl Lewis article, but I am no "fanboy" of him - I personally think he is one of the biggest jerks in sports. But that personal opinion should not dictate how we write about him. Much as I would like to hear that Lewis has been caught red-handed with performance-enhancing substances, that so far has not been the case. This particular incident which you have repeatedly inserted into the intro IS ALREADY IN THE BODY OF THE TEXT. The CONSENSUS is that because this incident did not rise to the level of performance-enhancement as with other athletes and because there was no move to strip Lewis of his records or medals, that this did not rise to be significant enough to be included in the intro, just as talk of his sexuality does not rise to the level to be included there. Both subjects, however, warrant discussion and are therefore included within the body text.
Don't forget that I am a Torontonian, have actually met Ben Johnson and like many others were thrilled by his defeat of the hated Lewis and mortified by what happened afterwards. But this should not dictate in any way how we write the pieces. Your contributions are valued - but these are not your personal pages and if you feel more needs to be included on these subjects, we are open to suggestions. Canada Jack 14:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. When the block expires you are free to continue editing if you intend to make useful contributions. However, if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, this IP address will be subject to a longer block.

- Philippe | Talk 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)