User talk:RYNORT
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted it because it broke the link. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Blaxthos
[edit]So you think he is biased? You wouldn't be the only one. Just look at the back and forth he and I have had. He pushed his POV on the Politics of Bill O'Reilly page and then had the audacity to warn me over reversing his POV pushing. Arnabdas (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I think I understand what you are referring to. Many of his critics try to discredit O'Reilly all the time and that increases his ratings whenever they try because he fights back and fights back hard, usually embarassing them in the process. I'll keep an eye out if he said something like that. I do know that he has said he goes after the far-left more than the far-right because he feels that the far-left is more of a danger to the country at this juncture in history and also because the establishment media won't address the far-left's outrageous behavior.
- However, I still feel there should be mention of criticism of O'Reilly because it is definitely notable. A lot of people hate him. Most of it is baseless, immature nonsense IMO, but people are free to give legitimate criticism and wiki readers can decide for themselves. We should just have honest information here. I wish Blaxthos would be more like that. Arnabdas (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
More on Blaxthos and Wik in General
[edit]I first became acquainted with Wikipedia several years ago when I stumbled upon the Bill O'Reilly article. I was instantly OUTRAGED at how perniciously biased, slanted and outright poisonous Wikipedia's version of reality was. My involvement led me to a long journey into the dark underbelly of this LEFT WING CONTROLLED supposedly NPOV organization.
Having said that, I'm shocked at how much fairer the O'Reilly article is than the one I almost gagged on that fateful day.
However, I still get totally creeped out when I read the utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos.
He posts nonsense like: "considering your very first edit was blatant vandalistic POV-pushing, and your subsequent edits have almost all attempted to push a conservative agenda, I'm having trouble continuing to assume good faith that your intentions are to improve Wikipedia." or "your personal opinions are trumped by our policies and the consensus of other editors does nothing to advance your standing or validate your point."
Let me tell you what's REALLY going on.
A liberal cabal (or what Blaxthos calls 'other editors') HAS ABSOLUTE control over the content in Wikipedia.
What typically happens is a conservative will read an article, become JUSTIFIABLY outraged and change it to reflect less bias.
That's when the liberal cabal comes in and games the system.
It is transparently obvious and predictable.
First they accuse YOU of pushing a pov. That's hilarious. Then of course you're not assuming good faith. It's always thrown in there for good measure. If you still won't back down, they'll privately email each other and take turns reverting your legit edits and, if you counter edit, write you up for violating the 3r's rule.
All the while they are shamelessly accusing the conservative of pushing a political agenda or vandalizing an article. Then the threats begin. First they try to scare you by proposing they will file a WP:RFC and then it ramp up from there depending on how compliant you become.
It has happened to me and COUNTLESS OTHER CONSERVATIVE editors. Most just give up. Many are tried by wikidpedia in their trumped up DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS Kangaroo court where a conservative has as much a chance of a fair shot as a black man accused of molesting a white woman in alababma in 1922 does. lol!
Blaxthos is just following in the long Wikipedia tradition of SHUTTING DOWN dissent from their liberal ideology by GAMING the system. That's how they roll here.
Too bad everybody can see it for what it is, huh?
It's actually an interesting microcosm for how liberals wield their influence. They can't control the truth, (and wouldn't recognize truth if it french kissed them with a pierced tongue) but they sure as heck try to re-frame it. BTW, this is the EXACT way that 95% of newspapers and TV networks (Fox obviously excluded) 'manage' their news departments as well. The most hellish place I can remember visiting was the Editorial Staff room at The Michigan Daily. (lol) At least with Wikipedia you get to see what's under the rock. During this CHRISTmas season, we can be at least a little bit grateful for that.
At least for now...
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
More words of caution
[edit]
As previously noted, if you continue to push an agenda (either with this account or anonymously) you will most certainly have your editing privileges revoked. Please stop now. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
ANI Report
[edit]I've reported your conduct to WP:ANI. Disucssion may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.
Quite disappointing really - I see you were unblocked previously and given a last chance to improve your conduct. However, everywhere I look, I see you attacking other editors, trolling, disrupting to make a point and generally not editing productively. As a result, you have been blocked from editing the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 22:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Read your email please... Thank you.
AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
[edit]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)