User talk:Bairdso66

warnings
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Tony Sirico, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pegasus1138 Talk 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits did not follow a neutral point of view which all articles have to be written in. All facts included in the article also have to be backed up with proper sources, I suggest you read Tutorial and Contributing_to_Wikipedia]. Pegasus1138 Talk  02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Pegasus1138 Talk 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your messages

 * 1) You imply that I'm stalking your edits; I'm not. However, like most admins (and other editors), when I see an editor make an error that might have been repeated elsewhere I quickly check his or her contributions.
 * 2) You give no source for the claim that one of his r&ocirc;les is what he's famous for (as opposed to the more cautious "one of his r&ocirc;les"). What grounds do you have for thinking that this is true for everyone everywhere in the world, rather than for you, or for people whom you know, or for people in your country?? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

First, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); your current method adds a link to a non-existent article called "Bairds066". Secondly, a common protest when a correction is amde is: "But the same mistake is made in other articles; are you going to change all them too?" It doesn't wash. I'm not responsible for every article, only for the ones that I see and have time to edit. Also, sometimes a person (especially once they're dead, and a reasonable time has elapsed) can be associated with just one achievement; that doesn't mean that everyone can be. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin
You don't think what he has said constitutes "attacks" c'mon now..read the sources, these are not crtiscisms at all--Bairdso66 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you don't agree with me, but his comments are criticisms, not attacks. I think your most recent edit (changing "attacks" to "strongly criticized") is far more acceptable than the way you originally had it worded.  Thanks.  Hal Raglan 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you response, but I am confused as to what constitutes an "attack" if these don't -"lying theiving oil whore" -"murderer of the U.S. Constitution" -"trust fund puppet" -"constitution hating sociopath" -"hate filled maniac" i would say "so and so has not done a good job" would be a critiscism Thanks...--Bairdso66 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, but if you read other wikipedia articles devoted to famous individuals who repeatedly make similarly heated comments, such as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh (to choose only two), you'll note that the editors of the articles go out of their way to describe their statements as "opinions", "commentary", "remarks", "criticisms", etc. This is an attempt to conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy.  I think we should attempt to do so in the Baldwin article, also.  Even if you personally believe his admittedly emotion-filled, hyperbolic responses are simply "attacks", to note that in a wikipedia article would be editorializing, i.e., inserting your POV into the text.  We should simply leave the controversial quotes in the article and allow the reader to determine if Baldwin's comments are legitimate criticisms or simply "attacks".Hal Raglan 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann
The "Accusations of bias" section is currently under discussion on the talk page of the Olbermann article, and my concerns are addressed fully there. But, to answer your question: the section should directly address specific accusations of liberal bias that have actually been made against Olbermann, with links that lead directly to the sources of those accusations (quotes, editorials, etc). The "Mission Accomplished" link led to Olbermann's blog, showing that he does indeed end his show in that manner. That's great, but where is the link that actually leads to anybody saying that this is an example of Olbermann's liberal bias? This section requires sources and specific citations of the accusations. Now, for all I know Olbermann may in fact really be the world's most outrageously biased liberal, but if thats true then documented accusations should be included in the section. As originally written, that section was riddled with POV problems. Citations will alleviate those problems. Read the talk page discussion, and let us know there what you think. Hal Raglan 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias
While I appreciate your attempts to conform to the NPOVpolicies of Wikipedia, it does seem that you tend to frame your contributions to make "Liberals" always look like the innocent party. For instance, the Baldwin/Olbermann edits seem to have a little bent.You also seem to reference Limbaugh and Coulter to prove points about their bias, but are eager to defend Olbermann and Baldwin about their similar bias.Are you practicing what you preach?? --Bairdso66 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I edit/add/delete/rephrase potential POV problem material when I see it. I don't go looking for it, but when it jumps out at me I try to correct it if I can.  I think you're right that most of the time I do make attempts to reduce hostile editorial comments from articles on liberals/moderates.  In the Baldwin article, the section on the radio show incident was originally ridiculously biased against the actor; it didn't even relate at all to the available transcript.  I added direct quotes and made it as neutral as possible while still maintaining factual and sourced details.  The overall article as it stands clearly shows that Baldwin has liberal views and is deeply critical of the Bush Administration.  I don't think the article makes him look "innocent" or "guilty" of anything.  As far as Olbermann is concerned, I've never seen his show but I have read his blog from time to time, and from what I did read I never picked up on any "liberal agenda" he was pushing.  The section in his wikipedia article that claims he has been accused of having a liberal bias -- which could very well be true -- simply needs to exhibit actual cited cases of those accusations.  If he really is commonly thought of as being a liberal, then examples should be all over the internet. As far as practicing what I preach, if you truly care, I have made repeated attempts to help reduce overly negative unsourced commentary, or simply spurious information, from the Bill O'Reilly article.  POV nonsense in any article has no place in wikipedia and should be removed, or modified and replaced if possible with actual facts/sourced details. Hal Raglan 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hal, I'm not sure if we need to add the fact that this is Olbermann's "alleged bias" because, after all that is the title of the section. I'm not sure that is a POV problem. Thanks--Bairdso66 16:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It might seem redundant to you (although the title of the section is "Accusations of Bias", not "Alleged Bias") but I think it is important to specify that the bias is strictly alleged, especially when the article mentions that there is a website that exists to "document examples of Olbermann's bias." That makes it seem like there really is bias to document.  By the way, one of the things that concerns me about this section, as its currently written, is that it is giving way too much credence and space to a conservative blogger who clearly is obsessed with Olbermann.  One mention of this guy would be okay, but two?  Its already noted that he has an anti-Olbermann website so who cares if he also (predictably) is salivating with hatred regarding the new book? Isn't there someone else a little more notable who can be quoted regarding Olbermann's liberal bias?  If its only this blogger and an editorial in The Cornell Review making such allegations, I fail to see a controversy.  I'm not saying the Cornell Review isn't notable, but there must be some damning quotes from other sources available all over the internet if, in fact, Olbermann is widely considered to be a "controversial" pundit relentlessly pushing a liberal agenda.--Hal Raglan 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While the section was vaild, I was refering to the quote in the section titled worst person in the world. It is irrelevent THERE, but I agree, declaration of lean is relevent since these shows while reporting news, are largely opinion shows. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers. BT14 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly controversies
Hi there, I see I'm the second person to revert your edit on the article. I did this mainly because I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. I also think I may have rushed to judge a bit. When I see an editor has a blank user page, previous vandalism warnings, and a list of contributions where nearly all of the edit summaries are a single word, "tidied," it sends up red flags. In retrospect it looks like you may have been acting in good faith, and were just trying to provide transition between two paragraphs. Sorry if I misjudged. If you really feel something is needed there I would play with the wording a bit from what you had. I think it reads reasonably well already, the reader gets a pretty good idea about O'Reilly's opinions without needing any commentary.

BTW, I don't think you'll get a response from FeloniousMonk. You posted your note to him on an archive of his old talk page, not on the current version of his talk page. -Best wishes MrFizyx 14:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to the Olbermann section. I appreciate your trying to improve this article, however, I think for the time being it is best to leave out a description of what the "Worst person in the world" segment is. I was the one who originally added that sentence and I agree with the editor who removed it. Stanley011 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because at this point, there really isn't a consensus as to what, exactly, the "worst person in the world" segment actually is--that's something that has to be discussed thoroughly before included in the article. Stanley011 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read to the talk section of the Bill O'Reilly controversies article and the Wikipedia three revert rule. Sysrpl 09:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing tip
In Wikipedia dates are given like this: 16 October 1925 not 16 October 1925, see Manual of Style (dates and numbers). feydey 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting
Please, I gave You a link on Wikipedia editing, please do not change dates. You can set Your date layout in Your preferences. Best, feydey 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha
''Yes, I do see a pattern above- it appears that right-wing pundits make more outrageous and dishonest statements than do left-wing pundits. I won't even dignify that one with a response, also sign your statements--Bairdso66 23:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)''

I am dedicated to making Wikipedia more objective concerning Politics

Objective my ass. 68.55.4.83 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry
Your claim that Kerry used his military career as a "campaign issue" was unsupported. I'm assuming the fact that you have changed this to now read "campaign theme" means you agree with me. There is a big difference in meaning. Thanks for taking the time to reconsider your choice of words. Now, I don't agree with you that it was Kerry who made his war experience a crucial issue of the campaign; in fact I think its amazing that anyone could possibly think this when its clearly obvious that it was Kerry's opposition that did so. At any rate, we clearly have different opinions on the matter and there is no point in arguing about it. I will accept your change as a compromise and leave it at that. This section still needs to have some sources added where I've indicated. In the first sentence, please provide a reliable source citation indicating at least one or two prominent conservative critics who made the "hypocrisy" claim. This should be easy. Also, the final sentence claims that Kerry made his service "a crucial part" of the campaign; this needs to be sourced.--Hal Raglan 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hal, I guess I appreciate your attempts here and like you said it doesn't make sense arguing about it. However, I believed you are extremely misinformed if you don't beleive Kerry brought the issue up. True, conservatives added fuel to the fire, but you cannot honestly tell me he DIDN'T bring it up, that claim is ludicris.Several ads and speeches are available on JohnKerry.com, if they still exist, which show him on a boat in Vietnam and talking about the experience. The opposition came out later on to disagree with accounts of his combat experience. That claim that the oppostion brought it up dosn't hold any water in my book, I lived through that 2004 campaign, did you?--Bairdso66 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I never wrote that he didn't mention his military service. He talked about it in his speeches and in interviews.  Why would he keep it a secret?  But there is a big difference between mentioning something and turning it into a "crucial issue" of a political campaign.  It was the Republicans who did that, in my opinion.  (Hint, hint:  Swift Bloated Liars) But you disagree with me.  Fair enough.  I would suggest you try to calm down before writing any more of your responses, as your final comment comes close to being insulting in tone.  Thats not much appreciated around here (please see Civility).--Hal Raglan 03:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way Hal, but I am getting tired of having to deal with the reverting by one user(i.e. you) on most of my contributions. I have tried to be balanced and do not feel as your responses indicate that you have tried to do the same. Any way, the show goes on. --Bairdso66 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't reverted most of your edits. Glancing at your user contribution page I noted that you have made hundreds of contributions.  I've seen and responded to a very small handful of them.  You say you're "tired of having to deal with" these reverts.  Sorry to tell you, in case you hadn't noticed it already, but that is the very nature of wikipedia; nobody's edits are set in stone and in fact all of us run the risk of having our contributions always being questioned and possibly changed/deleted/tweaked by other editors.  You seem to be taking this very personally, when in fact all I've asked of you is to remember to always consider wikpedia's NPOV and verifiability policies.  I'm hoping that you really have read and understood these by now.  The verifiability policy requires that everything we add to wikipedia be verified by reliable sources.  There are many rules and suggestions on wikipedia but to me those are the most important. Most of your edits seem to be good faith edits but the ones I've questioned are easily fixed simply by reducing the POV tone and adding sources.  The Kerry section is fine now (or at least it was last night) as written except for the fact that it has uncited assertions.  Also, please let me add if you have any real problems with my editing of your contributions, to take your concerns to the respective article's talk page.  That's usually the best way to resolve any concerns.  Immediately jumping on another editor's talk page in response and questioning them seems a little antagonistic to me.--Hal Raglan 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wallace
You don't beleive Olbermann's hate-filled commentary belong on the wallace page??--Bairdso66 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, if it belongs anywhere it should be on the Olbermann page. See the Wallace talk page for an ongoing discussion of this.--Hal Raglan 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Worst Person in the World
Have you read the article or seen the show? Of the three he picks each night, 2 are usually a zoo, manager, cook, etc. while the worst or second worst is a politician with a known political slant. Of the ones with political slants, most (88%) are conservative. This doesn't neglect the fact, though, that most of the honorees have nothing to do with politics as stated in the article: "While many of his targets weren’t political (last week he scolded a Chinese restaurant that served meatballs made from cats), about a third of the time (33%), Olbermann’s wrath was aimed at a notable liberal or a conservative, or someone flailed for an ideological stance." Gdo01 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I never asserted he was not liberal and I even admitted he picks conservatives 88% of the time when he picks a political person. And because he is liberal is why he is more forgiving towards liberals futhermore I feel no need to be politically correct to say he is "impartial" because he is not. Nonetheless, you are still straying from the original topic which was that he normally picks (about 2/3 of the time) non-political people and you would know that if you watched the show rather than (I assume) second-hand sources. Gdo01 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misinterpreted your words, you do watch him. Gdo01 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you chatted up Gdo01 too. I linked the MRC article and they are the ones that noted that most of the people on Worst Person do not have a political nature to them. Only something in the high 100's were of a political nature of a segment that runs nightly and contains 3 Worst People.. I'm also not disagreeing that of those that have a political nature are conservative. --Bobblehead 01:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There needs to be more on his bias? You mean other than the entire section called Accusation of bias? :) If you've got reliable sources that add something new, feel free to add them. There isn't some grand conspiracy here, just historically additions about his bias have not met BLP standards and have violated NPOV. As for O'Reilly admitting he is a conservative... Unless things have changed, O'Reilly refers to himself as a "Traditional Values" person and has used himself as an example of Fox News not being biased towards conservatives. But then, I'll be the first to admit that I don't watch his show on Fox News very often and never listen to his talk radio show. --Bobblehead 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes.. conservatives are frequently on the list, but people/groups that do not have a political leaning are more frequently on the list. Both of which are currently covered in the article. I'm not sure what you're complaining about now...--Bobblehead 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann v. O'Reilly
I don't doubt that Olbermann is more vocal in the rivalry than O'Reilly, and, although it is irrelevant to the discussion, I agree with you that Olbermann's obsession with O'Reilly is ridiculous. However, this assertion ("Over the next three years, the rivalry has grown to enormous proportions. Olbermann has been more vocal about the conflict than O'Reilly.") is POV/OR. Unless we find a source that says something along the lines of "Olbermann is way more into this rivalry", we can't just rely on our viewing of their shows to support the claim, because that would be original research. Schi 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
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 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) 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)