Re: Puccio

Apologies for the way I worded it in the edit summary; definitely had no intention to offend, but you definitely have to be wary of other websites taking content from here to fill any spaces on a specific person. Now, I hadn't viewed the Puccio bio on the Sky page until when I edited the article, and thus had no idea that the original text entered by yourself had been there longer than it had been on the Sky page. Hence, where my accusation of a copyvio came in. So yeah, many apologies...and just write it in a confusing way so that the other websites can't steal the content! Ha. Craig (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, terrific. Hopefully with your help, we can get the 2012 season page like last year's page. Hopefully just as many successes, although more than 28 will be an achievement for the team I feel. Craig (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ricco

Your calling Ricco "one of the most promising talents of Italian and international road cycling" is not a neutral point of view. 72.225.17.226 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive no idea why you put this on my talk page. I didnt make that edit. I purely put a single line in the first paragraph linking to the impartial eurosport report. Personally that entire final line "This set the end of the professional career of one of the most promising talents of Italian and international road cycling." should go because its not clear his career will be over, its not neutral, there may yet be an appeal etc. Dimspace (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

policing LA's entry - bravo

Surprised to see you policing the entry of Lance Armstrong to ensure that info such as TdF "wins" aren't "deleted"/removed until such time as officially stripped. Bravo. joepa^T 03:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think if left the page will quickly degenerate into chaos. Its important that once he is banned, that the page be well written and accurately reflects teh whole story. everyone going mad now and just deleting stuff will just get teh page locked down the line.

Lance Armstrong

Are you stupid? Lance Armstrong has been banned for life, stripped of 7 Tour win as reported by USA Today, The Washington Post, Yahoo Sports and other sources. Sk8terguy27 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be well informed on the issues. There has been an attempt at WT:CYC to get a centralised discussion, although it is, rather illogically, located at talk:1999 Tour de France. Your contribution would be useful. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather concerned that you have struck the results of Hincapie/Barry etc as though those removals are ratified, while we are holding off doing that for the ring leader. Kevin McE (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The results of Hincapie, Barry etc have all been ratified. They have all accepted their bans and signed afidavits to that effect accepting their bans, stripping of results and prize monies, as they have accepted them thats it, theres no reason for the UCI to ratify the results stripping, all that can happen is UCI to appeal the length of the bans. In the case of Armstrong, he hasnt accepted the ban, the governing body hasnt accepted the decision so its a different situation. Trust me, im completely anti armstrong, but, when his page is changed, we need to make sure thats its an accurate portrayal of him and what a peice of crap he really is. have patience. Dave Dimspace (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly knew that you were no Pharmstrong-ite: I hadn't intended any criticism of that. I knew you too well on another forum, Mr TSF (I am AC in that "other place"), to suggest that: it just looked odd, not biased. But I wasn't aware that the processes in their cases had been thus expedited. I also agree with you that striking through is the correct way to do such things (and spent some time applying exactly that method to Valverde's results for early 2010) Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ultimately, to get the right results on the Lance Armstrong page, we have to play things totally by the book, have patience, be the voice of logic and reason, and come the time for edits, amidst the idiots, be the voices that determine how the page is edited. Dimspace (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions pertaining to the Lance Armstrong doping scheme on the articles of the blokes whose results have been voided, I award you the original Barnstar! Keep up the good work! Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing all those freaking results everywhere will be a daunting task, CS-Wolves thinks we should wait to see what the ~~corrupted~~ lawful blokes at the UCI will decide to do. Nice to "know" you :) Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to say thank you for your work on the Armstrong article. Way to keep it NPOV. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever taken any journalism or editing classes? You are obviously lacking in NPOV. LA's activites as a tri-athlete are negligible and EASILY dwarfed by just about everything else in his life. It is well covered in later entries and DO NOT merit a mention in the leading paragraph, unless you are trying to sanitize his image. It is very regrettable but Mr. Armstrong's greatest legacy now will be sorry one: the most notorious case of doping in the history of sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oprah999 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you think. Why don't you put the fact that he was engaged to Sheryl Crow, a very major artist and world-famous celebrity, in the lead paragraph? That bit of information would be much more important to a lot of people, than the fact that he participated in endurance competitions after retiring from cycling. You are either biased in favor of LA, or in favor of minor endurance sports. Please educate yourself in information value and newsworthiness.