User talk:Marccox1970

Sir, What is your interest in polluting the CCA article with bias and ficitional additions?

You continue to make false and actionable edits to this article. That will not be allowed. It is obvious that you have some connection with the situation that forces you to make edits that are neither accurate nor relevant. ONLY the facts in this case should be displayed on this page. I can back up my edits. Can you?

Please, proceed with backing up your edits. I would be more than happy to leave the page alone given the fact that you prove your information is factual. Before you tell me what is allowed/not allowed, you should take a closer look at the history of this article. I wrote it back in '06, and NOBODY has contradicted these edits except you, an individual with close ties to CCA. I believe your Cox's son, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by California Charter Academy (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I am Steven Cox's son. But make no mistake. My passion with regard to the article you continue to edit has nothing to with my relation to Steven, but with a desire to see the events portrayed accurately. I have no problem with the allegations made against Steven and CCA published online, but there has to be a level of fair-ness and accuracy. The press coverage thus far has not given a "happy medium" view of events that transpired, and that is a shame. I cannot speak for C Steven Cox. I can say that there has been a very one-sided spin on how things transpired. Regardless of how a jury of his peers decides innocence or guilt, the information that is available to those unfamiliar with the case should at least have an accurate portrayal of the events leading to the closure of a viable and much needed educational program. I am happy to to talk with you rationally at anytime, and if you would like my personal contact iformation, let me know.-- Marccox1970 05:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It seemed rather counter-productive to go back and forth reverting the article. I'd be glad to hear of any objections you have to parts of the article, and for what reasons. I'm as interested as anyone in having the article accurately depict the exact source of CCA's misforutnes. California Charter Academy 05:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing yourself to be a reasonable person. I agree that it is pointless to continue with our previous course. As to your original point that you began the entry back in '06 without contradiction, I can only tell you that I was unaware that an article existed on Wikipedia until relatively recently. I objected only to a limited range of how the events were originally depicted. It is not my intention or goal to sway public opinion one way or the other in this case. But I do feel very strongly that a fair and accurate picture of what transpired is warranted. I am not able to site specific evidence nor my personal beliefs with regard to matters as this is an on-going case and doing so would be un-ethical despite the fact that I am not involved in the proceedings. Nothing that I have contributed here is based on emotion or bias. I have made it a point to omit any hint of personalization with regard to any editing done here. I greatly appreciate your attempt to open the line of communication and look forward to any future correspondence.--130.13.204.46 08:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm Tgeairn. An edit you recently made to California Charter Academy seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tgeairn (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)