User talk:Garric

Ok.

RCTV Bias

To put it quite bluntly, there isn't any, and you believing that there is makes you a Chavista Communist, out of the global mainstream and unable to promote neutrality. Arbiteroftruth 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Stalking

I am NOT stalking. You are only using that excuse to cover up your sly introductions of Chavista bias into Wikipedia articles relating to Venezuela. Arbiteroftruth 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly Factor

Statements like "Stop sticking in false statements because of your political ideology," which you wrote in an edit summary here violate our policy of assuming good faith (WP:AGF). I am editing the O'Reilly article in good faith and have given you no evidence to the contrary. And obviously you have no idea what my political ideology is.

Furthermore, the statement that O'Reilly has cut guests mics is absolutely true. In fact it is impossible to deny it, and I've seen him do it myself. The Media Matters page which is cited (and which you should actually look at here if you have not) posts transcripts of the Factor where O'Reilly says things like "Cut his mike," "Cut her mike, please," and "All right, cut off her mic." Media Matters did not fake those transcripts, but even if you think they did and therefore don't believe them, why not wander over to You Tube and type "O'Reilly Jeremy Glick" in the search box? You can watch for yourself the most notorious example of O'Reilly cutting off a guest's mic.

Whether or not you think O'Reilly's tendency to cut off guests' mics is warranted, there is simply no question that it has occurred and that he has been criticized for it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can blithely assert, as you did on my talk page in reply to my comment above, that "cutting of mics is not proven," but the fact that it is proven--as proven as anything could be in this world--that it's on tape, that there are transcripts of O'Reilly saying "cut his/her mic" and yet you apparently choose to ignore this evidence does not speak well to your willingness to acknowledge basic facts which are inconvenient for you.

Also we could debate about whether or not Media Matters is a reliable source, but given that MM and O'Reilly have a feud there is no reason for the former not to be cited in a criticism section of the article on the latter's TV show. Kind of like how O'Reilly is cited in the first sentence of the criticism section of the Media Matters for America article, where it says, "Bill O'Reilly, who is frequently a target of Media Matters' criticisms, has accused them of "specializing in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people" while "smearing" those who do not agree with "left wing politics" such as Senator Joseph Lieberman." Criticism of Media Matters from Rush Limbaugh is included there as well. Unsurprisingly, here on Wikipedia "criticism" sections often cite people who are, well, critics. As perhaps the most high profile group who regularly criticizes O'Reilly it is hardly surprising that Media Matters would be cited in the Factor article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly understand your last reply on my talk page, but it doesn't really matter since we are not getting anywhere with this back and forth. I did watchlist the O'Reilly Factor a few days ago (if that's what you mean by "sitting on the article" I guess I'm guilty, though it's not really considered a nefarious activity) but I can assure you I do not have any "vendetta" against O'Reilly and am making every effort to contribute to the article in a manner that respects NPOV. I think this edit demonstrates an attempt to write an NPOV sentence which still communicated the idea that O'Reilly is a controversial figure (as he obviously is). Happy editing and I think that's all I have to say on the matter at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL POV VIOLATION WARNING

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete warning templates from your own talk pages.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions

Hi, i spent some time reviewing your contributions, and I see that most of your edits were reverted by the other editors because they thought you were not editing in accordance with our WP:NPOV policy. I know it can be hard to keep an article neutral when you have a bias. You should therefore discuss the changes on the talk page before making any possibly controversial edit. If you can't agree with an other editor, you might want to ask a third opinion, or fill a request for comment. Keep in mind that in the worst cases, not complying with NPOV can lead to a block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Barack Obama. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Garric

You still around? What's your AIM? --Mrdie (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]