User talk:Rcox1963
Welcome
[edit]
|
Thankmyou for your edits to this page. However, I reverted it back to its previous version because you removed a great deal of useful information. Please feel free to edit the page constructively, or use the sandbox for future tests. Nippoo 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Keith Olbermann. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Misza13 T C 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have left untouched the vast majority of the Keith Olbermann entry. What I have edited is the editorial commentary posing as "fact". Wikipedia entries are not intended to be "fan sites" for TV personalities. Accuracy is not "vandalism".
- WP:POINT exists for a reason. Why are you doing this? --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not "making a point", I am editing the entry to make it more accurate and less biased. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Or maybe you thought it was for fans of particular shows or media personalities to editorialize about people they don't like (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) or to parrot talking points coming from the PR department at cable news networks or left-wing activist groups.
Sir/ma'am, your edits, particulary to that of the Olbermannwatch section of the Countdown article, have been very blatantly POV. I agree that Wikipedia is not a fansite, but you cannot use it to blast people on here. If you wish to make such changes to these articles, please choose your words carefully. --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
D-Day, let me get this straight. You believe that MY edit to the Olbermann Watch section of the site are "blatantly POV" so you replaced my edit with this?
"A group of individuals dissatisfied with Olbermann's work have created Olbermannwatch.com, a web site which "watches" for liberal media bias in Olbermann's work or personality. Recurring "liberal" themes include Olbermann being skeptical of the GOP and Bush and repeatedly criticizing the administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina, CIA leak grand jury investigation, the indictment of Scooter Libby, the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal, the NSA wiretapping controversy, and Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias."
And then follow that up with a self-serving, disingenous quotation from Keith Olbermann. Sheesh.
At least we agree that it is appropriate to have a section on Olbermann Watch. I feel that Olbermann Watch belongs here because it has been operation since 2004, is a regularly updated site with an active comments section which attracts supporters and detractors of Olbermann, it is the top-rated non-affiliated web site covering Keith Olbermann and is a comprehensive source of information about Keith Olbermann and his show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Olbermann Watch is routinely cited in the media as a critic of Keith Olbermann including The Washington Post (twice), The New York Observer, The Hartford Courant as well as numerous talk radio programs, web sites and blogs. Keith Olbermann himself regularly refers to Olbermann Watch and has been critical of the site and it's editor, Robert Cox, on numerous occassions. While the editorial slant of the site is clearly negative towards Keith Olbermann the site itself is the single largest directory source for information about Keith Olbermann available on the web today and a valuable resource for anyone looking for information about Keith Olbermann.
Your characterization of the site, it's purpose and the phrase "recurring 'liberal' themes" betray clear bias. Your supposed list of themes only compounds the matter. While it is true that Olbermann Watch has been critical of Keith Olbermann's coverage of President Bush, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and so on, this criticism is based on numerous, sometimes daily documented examples, of errors, omissions and misrepresentations appearing on Countdown. I have cited some examples and am prepared to cite as many as are necessary to satisfy you on this point. You, and others, might not like seeing anything that does not paint Keith Olbermann in the rosiest of hues but the section on Olbermann Watch is 100% accurate and documented with a multiude of citations from unimpeachable sources.
As far you agreeing that Wikipedia entries should not serve as fan sites, I would ask why you then put back the numerous fawning, unsubstantiated statements on this site?
William Graham - you asked that I discuss your changes on the talk page but you revert my edits without discussing YOUR changes on the talk page. I, on the other hand, saw your comment about fanlistings and edited those out.
Revert war
[edit]I have left comments for you and other editors on Talk:Keith Olbermann. Please read them and response there. --waffle iron 23:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
3rr
[edit]hi, please read WP:3RR; you have broken the three revert rule on Keith Olbermann. as you have not been warned, you won't be blocked; but please keep 3rr in mind in the future, and continuing reverts may result in a block. --He:ah? 01:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't who you are or why you think you have the right to block me or threaten to block me from posting edits to Wikipedia so until you explain that let me suggest that you go fly a kite. Until then, if you bothered to read the link you posted and the history of the Keith Olbermann entry you would see that I have not made ANY reverts. I have made edits to the page and someone else is reverting the page back to what it was before I made edits undoing the edits I have made. I suggest you go fly your kite in their direction until such time as you explain yourself.
- Ooh, testy. I'm an admin, which means i have the "right" to block you; you were reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Rcox1963, which is where 3rr violations are reported, and you HAD broken 3rr. please read the link above to WP:3RR as well as the links above graciously left for you by ElectricEye so you can learn a bit about how this place works. In addition to all of this, it's raining outside and you have made one more revert despite the warning- for a total of 5 reverts within 24 hours- so rather than taking you up on your suggestion to "go fly a kite", i've blocked you for 24 hours. --He:ah? 23:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe next time you'll identify yourself as an admin and then maybe you will treated with a little more respect. As I said, I did not revert the page. Someone else has reverted MY edits. That said being an admin on Wikipedia means nothing more than you have been hanging around Wikipedia long enough to receive access to certain features not that your "right" or "wrong". I am well aware that this Keith Olbermann page is the pet project of left-wing Keith Olbermann fans determined to post non-NPOV material about Keith Olbermann as some alternative reality where KO was never run out of ESPN on a rail, where critics of Keith Olbermann don't exists and Keith Olbermann is the sexiest man in America. Banning me because you don't like edits intended to make the entry more NPOV is an abuse of your admin privleges so guess what? I'm reporting YOU for abuse. Cheers!
- Warning is the responsibility of all editors here; as you had not been warned, i did so, rather than block you as was requested. Warnings are not the sole domain of admins; you should treat all editors with respect, particularly those who are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and make sure you know the rules before you get penalized for breaking them. There are policies here, and you were warned and blocked entirely within policy. good luck with the report. --He:ah? 01:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I give what I get. This page has been the sole provence of left-wing, Keith Olbermann fans using this entry as a means to further their agenda of promoting Keith Olbermann, his show, their web sites and their left-wing agenda. If you were REALLY concerned about WIKIPEDIA you might be more concerned that the entry is massively non-NPOV. Funny how you seem less concerned with this than banning me making edits. I wonder why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcox1963 (talk • contribs) .
- It should be noted that there is no cabal. --sigmafactor 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that because Wikipedia has a web page that said "there is no cabal" does not mean that a handful of Keith Olbermann fans and left-wing activists have not made the Keith Olbermann entry in Wikipedia their pet project as is the case. The reason they have been permitted to get away with turning the Keith Olbermann page into little more than a Fan Site is that Keith Olbermann is viewed by most people as a non-entity and not worth taking the trouble to add "Keith Olbermann" to their watchlist.
- I have been asked to discuss one change at a time and do so only to be ignored and my edits reverted.
- I have been asked to provide citations for statements in my edits to the site and have done so only to have those edits reverted
- I have been criticized for not providing citations for statements despite the fact that there are virtually no citations elsewhere on Keith Olbermann page
- I have provided a detailed explanation of why this entry does not meet Wikipedia standard on many fronts but especially that it is massively non-NPOV and been completely ignore by other editors
- People who have made scurrilous personal attacks against me on KO-centric blogs and discussion groups are engaging me here in an effort to dissuade me from making any changes to their handiwork or abusing their privleges here to prevent me from editing.
Anyone can trot a policy or saying from Wikipedia to justify just about any thing they want to say or do. Citing a self-referential quotation from the Wikipedia site or elsewhere is not an "argument" for or against something. If someone would like to make case for or against an edit I have recommended or made to the Keith Olbermann page.
Be careful
[edit]Be careful with how you treat your fellow users, and what you say regarding bias in articles. The user mentioned there did, and lost his editing priveleges. Wikipedia has blocked users for bias, both left and right-wingers. You most certainly do not want to join that club. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
D-Day I don't think making "threats" under the guise of providing friendly advice serves much purpose. Why not be clear about your agenda here.
I have read YOUR blog where you have made numerous, misguided personal attacks against me. You are hardly neutral on Keith Olbemann or me. Do you think I have not read these posts from your blog:
The Olbermannwatch Spin stops here Feeding the Olbermann Fetish Olbermann Watch Watch
Here is a sampling of your own words about me...
"Has Cox's boy-man love obsession grown to the point where nobody can get on Countdown anymore without Cox getting a fit?"
"Obviously bored because no self-respecting pre-school anywhere will take him, he has nothing better to do with his time than attack Keith Olbermann"
"So if anything is a window into the psyche of Cox Boy, it is his obessession with Keith Olbermann. Am I right people?"
"Mr. Cox, just a fair warning. Everytime you update Olbermannwatch, you can expect a reply from me. And believe me, I will expose the truth. I will keep my blog going on other topics, but be warned; I am keeping an eye on you."
Here you label me as obesses, childish and a pedophile. And you think I risk being banned for how I treat fellow users?
Of course, I'd take these comments more seriously if you were actually criticizing something that I wrote on Olbermann Watch. If you had bothered to read the posts you cite more closely you might have noticed that they were not written by me but rather "Johnny Dollar" who is the primary contributor to Olbermann Watch. - [[User:Rcox1963]
- Try reading your comments to Heah up above. You do not want to mess with an admin. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Though I agree that Rcox's edits hadn't been productive, this kind of language is discomforting. They're administrators, not mafia dons. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 08:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why you think I might be interested in advice from someone who made all sorts of public, personal attacks against me for things I never said/wrote. That is a rhetorical question. [[User:Rcox1963]
Apology
[edit]I sincerely apologize for any of the ad hominem attacks I made against you in my blog. If I had known that you're remarks against Mr. Olbermann, were in fact, "tongue in cheek", then I wouldn't have wasted my time. If you agree to not bring up those comments on here again in the future, I would appreciate it. That nasty business is over, and I wish to never speak of it again. Maybe if we work hard enough, we can neutralize the Keith Olbermann article.
Still, please observe the finer parts of Wikipedia:Wikiquette. While I am no saint, I believe very strongly in those rules, so be sure to treat everyone with kindness, whether they agree with you or not. Again, my apologies if I have offended you. Happy editing! --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Tips
[edit]You can sign your posts with ~~~~. It will automatically expand to be your username and date. To link an article, enclose it with two square brackets, like so... [[Satire]] becomes Satire. If you feel a phrase needs a citation, you can add {{fact}} right after the sentence. It will become [citation needed]. Lastly, assume good faith and happy editing. :) Westfall 03:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)