Talk:Franz Lidz: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
My job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries that pertain to Robert Garside. You state in reference to Franz Lidz that "For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack..." This is false and you are mistaken. *We have no interest in Franz Lidz* However, is it not someone from your neck of the woods that has been making liberal use of the name Robert Garside, using multiple Wikipedia account names? If so, this is not permitted on Wikipedia along with potentially libellous comments about living persons. [[User:Dromeaz|Dromeaz]] ([[User talk:Dromeaz|talk]]) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC) |
My job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries that pertain to Robert Garside. You state in reference to Franz Lidz that "For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack..." This is false and you are mistaken. *We have no interest in Franz Lidz* However, is it not someone from your neck of the woods that has been making liberal use of the name Robert Garside, using multiple Wikipedia account names? If so, this is not permitted on Wikipedia along with potentially libellous comments about living persons. [[User:Dromeaz|Dromeaz]] ([[User talk:Dromeaz|talk]]) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Dear Dromeaz: At this point it has been well-established that you are, in fact, Robert Garside, and have been using several different account names as camouflage. I am not interested in debating that point. I do take exception, however, to the relentless attacks you have made to this entry. Our staff launched this page, one of may posted for numerous acclaimed authors we have published. As with those other authors, we oversee and monitor entries. You have continually abused your editing privileges and should not be allowed to vandalize this and other pages. The shocking enormity of your behavior is both shameful and egregious. As to the question of whether you have been libelled in a story published in a national magazine nearly a decade ago, that is something you should take up with your attorney, and not bemoan here. Sports Illustrated stands by its story, which, we have been told, has appeared unaltered and unchallenged on its website since publication. Give it up, Bob. |
Dear Dromeaz: At this point it has been well-established that you are, in fact, Robert Garside, and have been using several different account names as camouflage. I am not interested in debating that point. I do take exception, however, to the relentless attacks you have made to this entry. Our staff launched this page, one of may posted for numerous acclaimed authors we have published. As with those other authors, we oversee and monitor entries. You have continually abused your editing privileges and should not be allowed to vandalize this and other pages. The shocking enormity of your behavior is both shameful and egregious. As to the question of whether you have been libelled in a story published in a national magazine nearly a decade ago, that is something you should take up with your attorney, and not bemoan here. Sports Illustrated stands by its story, which, we have been told, has appeared unaltered and unchallenged on its website since publication. Give it up, Bob.[[User:TruthBTold212|TruthBTold212]] ([[User talk:TruthBTold212|talk]]) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:39, 22 November 2010
ANI notice
Following a note at my user talk page, I have brought the situation with this article to the attention of the administrative community here. As I am unable to notify the various sock accounts involved, I am placing a general notice to editors interested here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the article at the current version -- that should make cleanup easier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This article appears to have been composed by the subject himself. It reads like a resume or a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.253.229 (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a staffer at a publishing house in the United States. Part of my job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries of our authors. One of the entries that I am in charge of is the author Franz Lidz. For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack by Robert Garside, who has used at least three Wikipedia account names to make alterations. I and other members of my department have continually tried to undo his revisions -- yet he will not stop the harrassment. I have contacted other Wikipedia administrators, but they have been unable to make Mr. Garside cease his relentless edit wars. Is there anyone I can appeal to who might be so empowered. Thanks so much for your help.TruthBTold212 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold (Bloomsbury USA)TruthBTold212 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
My job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries that pertain to Robert Garside. You state in reference to Franz Lidz that "For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack..." This is false and you are mistaken. *We have no interest in Franz Lidz* However, is it not someone from your neck of the woods that has been making liberal use of the name Robert Garside, using multiple Wikipedia account names? If so, this is not permitted on Wikipedia along with potentially libellous comments about living persons. Dromeaz (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dromeaz: At this point it has been well-established that you are, in fact, Robert Garside, and have been using several different account names as camouflage. I am not interested in debating that point. I do take exception, however, to the relentless attacks you have made to this entry. Our staff launched this page, one of may posted for numerous acclaimed authors we have published. As with those other authors, we oversee and monitor entries. You have continually abused your editing privileges and should not be allowed to vandalize this and other pages. The shocking enormity of your behavior is both shameful and egregious. As to the question of whether you have been libelled in a story published in a national magazine nearly a decade ago, that is something you should take up with your attorney, and not bemoan here. Sports Illustrated stands by its story, which, we have been told, has appeared unaltered and unchallenged on its website since publication. Give it up, Bob.TruthBTold212 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)