User talk:Oprah999

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a Bouvier follower, so I noticed your edit to that page. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, i lack NPOV, i am stronly anti armstrong and have been for many years.. oh hang on, so why am i retaining sections of articles. the section was fine as it was, its intended as a brief summary of his career, and like it or not, he has had a very succesful triathlon career. You may recall he started out as a triathlete before turning full time to cycling. And seriously, read some of my posts or my articles on the web. I am the furthest person from painting armstrong in a posive light you will find. That in itself is proof of my NPOV. Dimspace (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you look in the talk page for Armstrong. That opening section has been discussed multiple times, by multiple editors and content agreed on, or are you disagreeing with every other editor? Dimspace (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the voluminous discussion leading to a consensual editorial decision on the opening section, especially given that it has been changed many times recently. Can you please provide a link? Thanks! --Oprah999 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First up, a couple of articles of mine, first dispelling the myth of the 500 tests, http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/ and second uncovering his corrupt business dealings and control of US Cycling http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/06/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/ or this article even http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/09/the-numbers-game/ . Ive been interviewed by the BBC about Lance, ive even been personally abused by his team in 2009. Im the furthest person you will find from being pro armstrong. But, wikipedia is about being impartial, Lance the athlete is not just a cyclist, but a triathlete for many years and a marathon runner. As far as the intro goes, look on the talk page from the paragraph "Proposed replacement of intro paragraphs " through to "Break Support trimming the Lead " and then "Problem in intro". The opening paragraphs have been discussed and agreed at great length.

Something further to bear in mind. Ultimately we probably both have the same aims, but sometimes you have to take a step backwards so that you can take two steps forwards. For instance, theres a reason i will battle to keep the fact he was a triathlete in the opening paragraph. The WTC who run ironman (which is a major event whatever you think) are subscribers to WADA's code of conduct. As a result its probably, well almost definate that over the coming days or weeks they will strip Armstrong of all his Ironman titles. Because of the inclusion of him being a triathlete in the opening paragraph, when the line "A few days later, the World Triathlon Council stripped him of all his triathlon results" is added it will have far greater impact. Not only will he be a disgraced banned cyclist, he will also be a disgraced banned triathlete. Then theres the marathon results, and he becomes disgraced marathon runner. But to get to that end goal, you have to make some concessions in the meantime. Dim Dimspace (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dim, I appreciate your many contributions to wikipedia and elsewhere, however I'm not trying to reach any personal "goal" or anything of the sort. The article should simply reflect what is most pertinent about Mr. Armstrong, not a "progressive goal" towards any vendetta against Mr. Armstrong, it should simply reflect the truth, and the shifting importance of what his story means. So given recent events the informational value equation has changed, and his importance as a tri-athlete, IMO of minor importance before all of this, is even less important now. For better or worse, the criteria of his historical impact is now something like this: 1) Most notorious, high-profile elite athlete caught in doping; 2) star cycling champion stripped of 7 TdF titles; 3) cancer survivor and livestrong founder; 4) athletic accomplishments; 5) celebrity status. --Oprah999 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im outta editing that page. I get accused of being a fanboy, and overcrediting the role of triathlon etc, and what has resulted is back to a huge overblown intro saying about what awards he got through his career. It now highlights his cancer early on to perpetuate the cancer survivor wins tour, goes on about various sports awards, its turned into a complete pro armstrong, badly written, intro with poor grammar, that does not in any way sum up the article in line with wiki guidelines. clearly his testicular cancer and being named sports illustrated man of the year is far more relevant than the consise intro that multiple editors had decided on.. Im not editing it further, im done with it, thats nowt to do with your edit its just to do with the fact that the article is going round and round in circles, edit after edit, everyone changing everyone elses. Three weeks ago a group of editors decided the opening intro was too much. a lot of work went into reducing,making it relevant, and now its back to pretty much what it was again. total wasted effort from all concerned. Personally, ive spent ten years researching the guy, theres virtually nothing i dont know, ive read through thousands of documents, the entire USADA case, the entire SCA depositions back in 2005, pages and pages of books as well as writing articles like the business links one which took huge amounts of research. frankly, i think after ten years im due a break :D Have fun with it, but if you take my advice, its going to just annoy you and cause you stress. Wikipedia is a vocation, not a job for any of us. Dave Dimspace (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, its not a personal goal. But to reach a balanced article, there is in teh meantime going to be edits of both extremes, and somewhere in the middle you find the balance. And sometimes you have to let things ride for a little while so that later it can become balanced. Dimspace (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]