Talk:Robert Garside

Rewritten

I've rewritten the controversy section. It's now named "Dispute" (more NPOV). Feel free to discuss/change/copy-edit (because my wiki-formatting sucks, and also because a few sources have been cited twice). Aditya Ex Machina 14:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, on first glance it looks a lot better. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto off2riorob. The lead paragraph of the article should probably also be trimmed... Mike Peel (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Trimming is one of my talents, I'll have a look. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the retitling. I do wonder if it suggests that the controversy was ended by Guinness' decision, as it does not mention the responses after the fact covered in this Guardian piece. It also does not mention Garside's response to the criticism (his indication of a campaign against him; his statement that his failure to contest printed material did not indicate his validation of it; his denial of admitting fabrication of details; his reasons for running alone or his belief that jealousy inspired some of his detractors), but perhaps that's appropriate given the abbreviation of the section. Certainly, explaining his defense would require more detail to make sense. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change as needed. Aditya Ex Machina 10:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I am finally getting home to a decent connection. :) The problem I see is the lead. As Wikipedia:Lead section says, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." There's not a mention of this dispute (I do like that title) in the lead. Also, the sentence "Guinness World Records spent several years evaluating that evidence before declaring it authentic" becomes awkward without the mention of evidence that had previously existed. The pronoun use is a bit odd. Let's see. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

←I'm fairly out of whack, but I think that your word choice of "questioning" is a very good one. :) I've borrowed it for the lead. Is there a reason why Steven Seaton's words are italicized? I don't wish to change this if so, but otherwise we should (in accordance with WP:NFC) stick as close to the formatting of the original as possible. The italics do seem to draw attention to that text. I've moved references for quotes directly to the quotes in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. I'm also not entirely sure what the <br /> meant, so I removed it and put spaces in. Sorry if I've messed up some subtler formatting. On review, the Guardian does not seem to state "that Garside could not "run 130 miles on a track for 24 hours, under observation". ([1]) It says "Mr Garside did not complete the challenge", which is a very different thing. "Could not" implies lack of ability. "Did not" does not offer speculation as to reason. I've clarified that so as not to overstate the Guardian's implications. And I've added the response of Ian Champion after the announcement of the record.

Personally, I believe that noting the dispute after the section on "The Record" gives it more rather than less weight. When I reorganized material originally, I had placed it there so that the reader would move from the controversies to the details of the evidence, including Guinness' statement that it was satisfied. I wonder if having the dispute last might leave a stronger impression on readers of the article. I will not rearrange that material, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

As to Garside's answers to his accusers, well, I don't know how to include that without contextualizing it, which begins to again spin out the material. Obviously, I never thought it was undue weight, or I wouldn't have written it, but I'm happy to have other input. When I requested it at the time, unfortunately I got no takers. :) As I indicated, I rewrote the article because the situation was escalating to legal, and I wanted to be sure that the article fully represented his viewpoint as well—which may well have resulted in the material being too extensive, as context and balance became necessary. (For instance, you can't very well tell readers that Garside denied admitting fabrication without explaining what he allegedly fabricated and who said he had admitted it.) I do not know what happened when the matter reached the legal department, because once it is forwarded to them I don't have access to that OTRS e-mail anymore. I would gather that nothing satisfactory for him has yet come of it, if he then moved on to Wikimedia UK. (An odd court of appeal, if so, as it has no authority over Wikipedia, as Mike Peel quite rightly noted). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer it like this as I think imo getting a Guinness record is not easy, and that is a fact, the record. The dispute is more opinionated and comments from reports and so on, IMO what is there now reads quite balanced. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to the end of mine. Unfortunately, your placement of it in the middle of my note may make it difficult for other contributors to understand who said what, when. My question concerns whether or not the placement undermines the Record, since readers will have read it last in the article. It has nothing to do with adding or removing content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I realize that you want to move the dispute section to a higher place in the article but I feel that the record is one of the only actual facts there is, and the claims of controversy regarding the run should go after the official recognition of the record, that way the reader gets the facts and then the reliable citations, personally I feel that to raise the dispute section above would serve to highlight the dispute. On a side note .. I once read somewhere that 85 percent of people never get past the lede, the same percentage never go to an external link to read what is there, there are about 20 people a day including bots accessing this article that means approximately one robot and one person a day get to the bottom of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what others think, then. On one note, though, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, everything in the "Dispute" section is a "fact"—we are not guessing whether the disputed information is true (or not), but documenting from reliable sources that it has been said. It is a fact that "Garside's achievements have been questioned by other runners and by the press". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that is another simple fact , wikipedia enjoys legal protection through the fact of verifiability and reliable sourcing, these conditions are there to cover wiki's ass, this means that the legal responsibility for the comment is placed back in the hands of the original reporter, this is not actual facts but simply that we report with good faith the reports of other sources. Lets see if there are comments from other independent users, or we could take it back to the BLP board for a final decision. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can manage to wait a few more hours to see if anybody else wants to chime in. And, yes, reliable sources matter. As I've said above, that's why I handled it as I did to begin with when I got no feedback at BLPN, when the OTRS complaint escalated to legal...who were apprised of the situation when I forwarded it to them in September. I do not know, but would imagine that they have had opportunity in the last several months to review the article. BLP issues are part of what we do, and making sure that all controversial information is reliably sourced is a big part of that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the current section headings (such as "Dispute") and the lead should make mention of the dispute. I haven't had time to review all the changes. Verbal chat 16:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is mentioned in the lede..."Garside's run has been questioned by other runners and by the press" . Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I like "Dispute" better than "Controversies", which I had used. Is there another header that could succinctly describe the section contents? I have no particular opinion on what the other section headings should be called, since they really shouldn't represent BLP problems. I think bold changing of those is probably just fine. :) The lead does not give full weight to the dispute, in terms of balanced reflection of article content, but I decided to err on the side of conservativeness. If you want to properly expand it, I'm sure that would be appropriate, too. Or we could talk about how properly to summarize it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I also like dispute. I would prefer it if anyone wants to make changes to the article, that under the circumstances that they present them here first for discussion, imo acting conservatively is considering the reports about this article is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your request, but it sounds like you're asking that no changes be made to this article at all without prior discussion. This article isn't fully protected and as such is open to editing by any registered, autoconfirmed user. I can see the value of requesting prior discussion for controversial matters, but more than that seems inappropriate. If there's a better section heading than "The race", is there a policy-based reason why Wikipedia:Be bold should not apply? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking that no changes be made to the article, I am simply asking that as we are here off the BLP noticeboard and repeated reports from the subject of the article that we simply discuss any changes here, clearly I can't demand that, it is simply a good faith request. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've read through the above discussion. I'll comment on it tomorrow, it's past midnight here and I need to study. A few quick notes though: The Guardian quote that Moonriddengirl removed was actually in the article. That's why it was put in quotes. Also, there's no real reason why Seaton's quote was in italics. They can be removed. And finally (for now), Dispute is more NPOV than Controversy, especially for BLPs. Aditya Ex Machina 19:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow is plenty of time, but I wonder if you are remembering that Guardian situation correctly. :) I changed The Guardian material from the first box to the second:

The Guardian was more critical in its commentary, stating that Garside could not "run 130 miles on a track for 24 hours, under observation"

The Guardian was more critical in its commentary, stating that Garside did not "did not complete the challenge" to "run 130 miles on a track for 24 hours, under observation".

I didn't remove any quotes, but rather added more. If you look at the source, you'll see that their precise sentence was "Mr Garside did not complete the challenge." I don't see anything in there by The Guardian suggesting he could not. If I'm overlooking it, could you point to the actual words? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(And now I've changed it again, as posting it shows that I used the words "did not" twice! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

I was going by the above conversation, I hadn't actually seen the change itself, and I was incorrect in my assumption. Your change is fine, IMO. The <br /> simply moves the accompanying text to a new line. It seemed more appropriate at that time, but that's a minor issue and can be removed. I've got no opinion of the order of the sections. You can put it before the record section if you wish. I don't think it really matters (the dispute and record section are so interrelated that they could probably be merged seamlessly. Not saying they should, just that they could). And finally, I'm against adding Garside's responses, mainly because they don't hold much weight (he didn't say anything worth quoting), and also because adding further material to the dispute section risks violating WP:UNDUE (You could add a line or two, I suppose, without significantly altering the size of the dispute section). Aditya Ex Machina 09:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I got distracted by copyright matters until the activity in the section below reminded me of this. :) I don't have really strong feelings about arrangement. We've got you with no opinion, me thinking it should go above, and Off2riorob thinking it should go below. Let's leave it where it is and see if anybody else chimes in to agree with one view or the other. I don't think I could add Garside's responses without expanding what he's responding to to make sense of it, so that's probably best just left. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I wonder whether it's worth having the sentence "Garside has announced intentions to follow up his record by running across the Antarctic and swimming around the globe" in the header, and the "Afterward" section in the article. It seems these follow-up plans were announced more than five years ago and never acted upon. The article at the moment makes it sounds as if they are active plans. Unless there is some evidence that Garside is actively preparing for one of these feats I'd suggest they certainly don't merit inclusion in the header and their own article section. Perhaps instead a sentence at the end of the "The Run" section such as "Garside originally suggested he would follow up his round the world run with a run across the Antarctic and a swim around the globe but has not acted on these plans to date."? BarryNL (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't say he hasn't acted on these plans unless some source says so. For all we know, he's been busily organizing this run or swim for years. :) But I'd agree that it may not be appropriate for inclusion in the header, since it's a very small part of the body of the article and not related to his notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Though perhaps we could specify the year he announced his plan, so the reader can come to his/her own conclusions. Aditya Ex Machina 15:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot

The bot's messed up. It's not showing the archives on this page. Aditya Ex Machina 10:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed; the counter was set to 240, meaning that the archive ended up at Talk:Robert Garside/Archive 240. I've reset the counter and moved the archive to Talk:Robert Garside/Archive 1; it should now be linked to above. Mike Peel (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's fixed now. Aditya Ex Machina 09:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Have removed a generalisation. Note that only some press and some runners questioned this achievement, not all. Next thing was the removal of a dud link. Think this reads much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have attempted to remove a link at all, which is fortunate, since the link for the cited information you did remove is not a dud. The link is alive and well. Contrary to removing a generalization, you seem to have inadverntetly added one, altering "other runners and by the press" (which is specific and supported by the cited material) with the word "some". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The weighting of the story wasn't quite right. What about the 2,000 positive articles visible on LexisNexis database? Too much emphasis on a dud link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume it is you (as all IP editors editing this article in the last several days are from the Slovak Republic) attempting to remove sourced information from this article: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I've altered the text so that perhaps it will no longer seem to suggest to you that all other runners and press questioned his record, since that's not verified. If you're talking about the "wikilink" being a dud, we can remove that link. Or we can create an article on the organization. There's nothing to suggest that the individual is not notable, and his views were given considerable room by the reliable source that verifies it. The article was balanced after a thorough review at the WP:BLPN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I'd rather discuss this in private... do you have an e-mail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although you have to be logged in to e-mail me (maybe users have an "email this user" tab in the toolbox of their user space), but I do not discuss article development privately. The project prefers that such conversations be maintained openly to encourage transparency and community consensus. I've been poking at the sources to see if Blaikie's significance here is overstated. I don't believe it is. According to The Guardian, "It was a Canadian long-distance running enthusiast and former journalist, David Blaikie, who first began to ask questions" and Sports Illustrated say, "Runningman, as the former psychology student calls himself, has been on the run from critics since late 2000, when Canadian journalist David Blaikie accused him of making claims about his journey." It seems that Blaikie is pivotal to the Dispute section here. He's not some random private person, but the person who first started the dispute. (This isn't a source we would use, but it seems to confirm that the subject himself found Blaikie's dispute notable: [7].) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

NEWSWEEK is more credible don't you think? http://www.newsweek.com/2003/03/02/running-away-from-it-all.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Then there are always these links too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2841547.stm - http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2666293420070326 - http://itn.co.uk/3250f6c3cae68b98c9ad283806df1597.html ... what about these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that Newsweek is more or less credible than Sports Illustrated or the Guardian (though I suspect it's more credible than the NY Post), but I'm not sure how that relates to this conversation. They do not make Blaikie's part in the Dispute section less relevant. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1. "Blaikie's"?... you write his name like you know him.....do you? 2. What about the BBC, or Reuters or ITN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Oh, my goodness. His name is in the sources. I am literate and have enough short-term memory to retain it during this brief discussion. Please explain in what way any other sources serve to invalidate the inclusion of this man in the Dispute section. If they don't, I fail to see the relevance of your new direction. To answer your question directly: I do not know Blaikie; I do not know Garside (whose name I also write like I know him). Do you? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's not argue about this.... just thought its best to keep sources as credible as possible. We both know that Newsweek, BBC, ITN, Reuters and Guinness World Records are far more credible than a dud link to a private citizen. Anyway, 'nuff said...won't go on.

I've erased a duplicate sentence that was also found in 'dispute' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, so can we say President Clinton is the President? No, he was the president, therefore, Steven Seaton is the former editor, not a current editor as you are trying to imply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your change to this article is out of keeping with Wikipedia:Lead. You have been told this several times. The lead of an article should summarize the material that follows, mentioning all major points; to quote, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." If you disagree, you should discuss this at the article's talk page and not continue making the same edit once it has been reverted. This is edit warring, even if it is not your intention. We would not say "Former President Clinton" to describe an action Clinton made while president. You might say "then President Clinton" or "Clinton, then President". However, that he is "former" anything is uncited. The source for that sentence does not confirm this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You were complaining of redundancy; I rewrote the sentence accordingly. Now you say, "I don't agree because the run is not in question. It was ratified by Guinness World Records. You are repeating the same negative sentence twice in the same article." Although the sentence had been rewritten, I have reformulated it further. The sentence is not repeated. However, as indicated above, the lead must note "notable controversies" discussed in the body of the article. The lead also notes that the record was ratified by Guinness World Records. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I advise you to avoid using the word "controversy". If in doubt please contact Wikipedia UK and to cease and desist in edit warring with me when my edits are perfectly reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally, you are giving far too much page space to unfounded opinions and propaganda and to quoting nobodies and defunct presidents... and I don't take kindly to attempts at re-hydrating propaganda... this, along with the weighting of the story had already been discussed with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "controversy" is part of the guideline which I am quoting. Wikipedia U.K. has nothing to do with the development of this article, which like all other articles must follow guidelines and policies...which include a lead that summarizes the contents of the article. I think most of the changes you propose in your last edit are reasonable, but I must admit to being bemused by your note "That's the art of a compromise." I rewrote the lead sentence twice for you: [8] and [9]. It seems to me that the "art of a compromise" was attempted several times earlier in this chain of events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine, well... as long as we're both OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There still seems to be some problems with the article with regards to the references. They don't seem to be aligned, so I'm going to go through it slowly85.248.106.103 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald

How does this article substantiate that "Garside had become obsessed with running in the late-1980s, and when he noticed that there was a record on file for walking the world, but not for running it, decided that this was his record to set"? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in that article. Did you perhaps intend to put that reference elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why this BBC reference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6500000/newsid_6500800/6500851.stm) was not put in earlier. It's a good news story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this comment has to do with my question. :) But it's nice to see you've registered, 85.248.106.103. My question still stands. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is better. Moonriddengirl, you seem very keen on this article... is it of personal interest to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's all for now. Hope you are ok with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain you actions? Dromeaz (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

providing you are OK with this... that was my final edit to this story. It is, I hope you will agree, a perfectly valid inclusion and reference to a METRO news story (a London newspaper) about Garside intending to produce a film. Dromeaz (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is of interest to me as an administrator of Wikipedia, to ensure that it remains compliant with our policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, this article has an embattled history which has led to blocks of accounts and for quite some time the locking the article to prevent its being edited by unregistered or new contributors. We are here to accurately reflect both positive and negative coverage of notable subjects, and I care very much that we remain true to that mission. So long as it seems necessary, I will help guard this article to help keep it on track, as I do many others. It's a bit easier to see when a contributor has a conflict of interest in looking at their edit histories, as they will usually focus heavily on a single area or related cluster. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I hope you do track it, as I will. I think I too have been quite fair. My edits have been justified, but still when I add a Metro story, which was just one of DOZENS of media outlets who reported that Garside was to produce a film, it is erased as promo "fluff", even though that statement is true and validated with a reference to a national news story. Other media outlets who reported that, include, but are not limited to: http://itn.co.uk/3250f6c3cae68b98c9ad283806df1597.html http://www.metro.co.uk/news/42972-briton-becomes-first-person-to-run-around-the-world These are national media outlets in the UK. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It wasn't that important anyway. Just thought it would be nice to have it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

P.s. if the above was "promo fluff" then why have this comment in article "....Antarctic and swimming around the globe"? Isn't this promo fluff too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that'smy final edit to this story. I sincerely hope you are OK with this. I've included TWO references. You said you'd accept it with more references, so there they are. One is ITN and the other is Metro. If you are OK with this then I will leave it at that.85.248.106.103 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I don't know what the name of the book will be, nor a film production. My comments pertain to the fact that he said it and that he was quoted in the press as saying that. The WHOLE article contains things that were said and quoted in the media. E.g. he said he would swim around the world, that he would cross the Antarctic. Do you propose to erase those mentiones too?85.248.106.103 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's sometimes helpful to specify to whom you're speaking. I didn't remove the material or say that I'd accept it with more references. You may know that, but others reading this may be confused. It may well be "promo fluff"; I believe I may have been the contributor who originally added the content about other activities he intended to undertake, so I'm not sure I should be the one to judge that. While not specifically about this situation (since it's more about creating new articles), there may be an element of what Wikipedia describes as "crystal ballery" to the material. Per that policy, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Since there has been no further press, I presume that Mr. Garside has not yet completed these goals, and it might be more appropriate to discuss them when there is some update. It does not pertain to the neutrality of the article, so I'll leave that for others to decide. Back on this topic, my question remains unaddressed. The current placement of the Sydney Morning Herald article seems to be misleading. If it does not pertain there and no proposed alternative placement is suggested, it will need to be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, you are having a laugh. Really, you are and you know it. Simply, its my way or highway. That is what you are really saying. Logically, you know that my inclusion is valid, justified and referenced and it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. You may as well remove the references to Mr Garside crossing the Antarctic and swimming the globe, because that is also a forward leaning statement. You do not make any sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Except it's not my way. You do realize that I am not the same person that left that note at your talk page, don't you? You are having a dispute with him about this content, and I have no opinion on its inclusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't the stuff about plans to swim the globe or run the Antarctic be removed? They were announced around 2003 and nothing seems to have happened. The way they are mentioned in the article now they sound like ongoing plans. I'd suggest either adding something along the lines of "but such plans were never realised" or better deleting the Afterwards section as it seems to add nothing useful to the article. Comments? BarryNL (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the Sydney Morning Herald story to "The Record" section. It's more appropriate there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do... well its not a dispute, let's just see it as airing our views. Anyway, I have moved the Sydney Morning Herald story to "The Record" section. It's more appropriate there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.106.103 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears as though the vandal is back, under a new name. I have reverted this story to its original versions on 19 November 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Think why this story has recently been agressively edited. I cannot agree with this and will defend the previous edit on 19th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, In 2007 Mr. Garside got his world record which is WHY this person became an editor in 2007. They drove this article into an edit war because they are an opponent of Mr. Garside.