User talk:CuteGargoyle

Welcome!

Hello, CuteGargoyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, D-Day! I'm happy to be here. I have edited before without an account, but I finally decided to go legit. :-) CuteGargoyle 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're aboard. I saw your comments on Talk:Keith Olbermann, and they are very well done. See you around... --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olbermann

hey, you are doing a great job on the Olbermann article. If you need anything, just ask. I will try to do my part. dposse 14:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dposse! I'll do that. There are a lot of citations that I'm not sure where to find, but a citation flag can sit there for a while if need be, I guess. CuteGargoyle 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can i get a little support?

hey cutegargoyle!

do you agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Boycott and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_U.S._immigration_reform_protests should be merged? dposse 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olbermann

Feel free to restore the links, but I don't think more than one fan link belongs. Just be sure not to clobber the categories. That was the reason I was paying attention to the tail of the article, someone had accidentally removed the category. --waffle iron ^talk 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that I can revert your change, although you could, in the interest of maintaining the consensus. Is your preference for just one link strong enough to negate the benefits of the compromise that we achieved today? CuteGargoyle 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to revert it I think it would be like tearing a scab off a wound. People seem to have strong feelings about me. (If you read the KO talk page you'll see what I mean.) CuteGargoyle 05:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the links for now. I don't feel like starting an edit war by accident. --waffle iron ^talk 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see that you did that on the Countdown page; I was referring to the main KO page. (I actually think it makes less sense to have personal fan sites on the show page, since the show is the work of many people and reflects a lot about its parent corporation as well, but whatever.) CuteGargoyle 07:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they've been removed again by someone, and once again, DoctorMike has chosen to reinsert his link and only his link, which I removed again. I strongly believe it should be ALL or NONE. I don't know what makes Keitholbermann.org special. When I went to google yesterday and tracked down stats for every single KO forum that I could find (and I'm sure there are more that I couldn't find) that particular forum ranked third in the list of overall sites in terms of post counts, page hits, members, etc. If any site is going to be picked over another, it should be one at Democratic Underground.com which has by far the most members and post counts. Choosing anyone but the most popular one in my mind seems to show a preference for one site over another based on nothing but personal choice. Of course DoctorMike feels strongly that his site should be included because its his site. I have no stake in this, I'm not a member of any of those message boards. I'm motivated only by the strong belief that fair is fair and rules are rules and it really should only be one fan site listed and in my opinion, that should be Olbermann.org because its so rich in content and while it does not have a forum, it has links to all the others. Shouldn't that really suffice? As I said yesterday, I carefully researched what was standard on all the other cable news site pages at Wiki and for cable news personalities and I didn't see a single link (other than one at Fox News which I removed) to any other message board site. I don't know why an exception should be made for keitholbermann.org or any other message board. I don't really know why an exception should be made for any message board. But if one remains, I think they should all remain. I see on another talk page that he claims he's gone to mediation on this. Fine, but I hope that all the facts are presented and that whomever reviews this reviews the entire history on that discussion page, which I think wasn't reviewed by the Cabal or others making edits. From what I could tell, Doctor Mike has made several claims that weren't true. He first said it was the only message board-there are at least four more that I found yesterday. He then said it was the most popular. It's not, there are two more with more posts. He then claimed that all the other moderators and admins at all the other message boards had agreed that his site should be posted. I don't see anyone on the discussion page who has spoken up and said Yes, I'm moderator of X site and I think his site should be posted rather than mine. It's an unproven claim, and I don't think that should be used to justify inclusion of his link and only his link. I also think that may be some confusion between two of the sites as they have really simillar names (www.olbermann.org and www.keitholbermann.org). The first is a very well done site, rich in content which does not have a message board. The second is a message board owned by DoctorMike. I strongly believe that if only one fan site should be listed it should be Olbermann.org not KeithOlbermann.org because Olbermann.org has links to other KO sites and it is not a message board site and I think some of the editors can't tell the difference between the two and have made editing decisions based on that confusion, which has only added to all of this. Jeff

I am not DoctorMike so I can't answer directly to the concerns in this comment (adding just the one link). I was happy that we had a relatively stable compromise going for a while there, with the list of several, but if waffle iron and DoctorMike want to ignore the discussion and edit unilaterally, there's not much I can do to dissuade them. I'm happy to listen to suggestions about what I can do. CuteGargoyle 15:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This is the thing that puts me over the edge and I'm going to unwatch the Olbermann articles and not edit wikipedia for a while. Goodbye. --waffle iron ^talk 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know where you're coming from. I'm feeling a lot like doing that too after this last day. CuteGargoyle 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with listing them all if that will keep Doctor Mike from repeatedly inserting his link and only his link. I am with Waffle I think it should be none but if Doctor Mike absolutely is insistent that his site should remain, then I will go back and add the links to all the other KO forums as well.JeffBerg

Okay--I've just went back and edited the page (again) and added a subheading with all the other KO message boards, fan forums, and even moved the Olbermannwatch blog under this subheading as well. I really want to reach a consensus on this and work out a fair compromise which does not favor one site over the other. It has nothing to do with any agenda in removing one specific site--it was that the rules were pretty clear I thought, about message boards. But since one message board owner believes so strongly that their board should remain, I think the next best thing would be in allowing them all to remain. Fair enough? JeffBerg

Sounds great to me. I'm hoping today (as I was yesterday) that the list will stand for a while and this issue can die down. Thanks for being so patient and open to compromise. CuteGargoyle 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so as well but I checked back a few minutes ago and someone had deleted the links to the two Quick Topics sites. Yesterday when I was looking for links to sites I noticed one doesn't seem to have much traffic these days but had a lot of posts in the past. The other however seems to have a great deal of traffic and was 2nd in overall post counts for all the message boards I found. Again I will continue to stand by the new policy of all or none so I reinserted those two links a few minutes ago and will continue to check and make sure those links stay as do all the rest. If there are any more, I hope people will add them or make me aware of them so I can add them. JeffBerg 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Jeff[reply]

There is an Olberfans message board which hasn't been used for more than a year and then there are blogs and blog groups such as on LiveJournal. I can't think of any more message boards off the top of my head. There is a possibility that the QT people themselves may be removing the link in order to avoid attracting new traffic. That is not the only possibility, of course. CuteGargoyle 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the olberfans message board but saw it was "dead" so I didn't include that and I did see one LiveJournal community but when I tried to add it to the list yesterday the link wouldn't work. If the Quick Topics links vanish again, I'll post at those boards and ask them if they wish to be included here or not. I found it a little odd that both were edited out though and it was by someone not signed in too. I did notice that the formatting was off and so I reformatted them both last night when I reinserted them so that it would be clearer there were two of those boards. Do you think I should add any of these other blogs? I'll try to do more research this weekend.JeffBergJeffBerg

Short articles

Hi! Short articles are very welcome and strongly encouraged, but they have to be more than an introductory sentence and a stub notice. Otherwise, they run the risk of getting deleted for lack of content. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 23:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's two sentences. I created the article because I noticed that it's red linked from at least two pages at this point. I will try to expand the article shortly. CuteGargoyle 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

olby

I added back "special comment" section on olbermann. You may like him but the comments he is making are a matter of record, the source is backed up--Bairdso66 00:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my bad

Sorry, didn't see the sections was moved downward a bit..oops, sorry again--Bairdso66 00:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S'okay, no biggie. Though we come from slightly different perspectives, I think we both value civility and the quality of the WP articles. It's a pleasure working with you. CuteGargoyle 00:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADL and Robert Cox

You reverted and reinserted the comment about Robert Cox of Olbermann Watch. I just want to know why Cox's actions matter in the article? It is true he tried to contact the ADL but why is this notable in the context of the controversy? It seems that you are just trying to give him the credit for why the ADL sent Olbermann a letter. Gdo01 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do give him credit for why the ADL sent Olbermann the letter. Not everybody has to agree with me, but I think they should know the facts so that they can decide for themselves. Cox is the most dedicated KO critic I've ever seen, and I highly doubt his sincere concern for the values of the ADL. Can you give me a good reason why this context should be withheld? CuteGargoyle 09:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Gene Hunt

I've removed the entire leadership section as it violates our no original research policy. Exxolon (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay. I can see that. CuteGargoyle (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]