Talk:Rich Fields: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:14, 11 April 2006

New article

It looks like Rich Fields/Temp was also a copyvio. I've written a short, original article at Rich Fields/Temp/Temp. --Iowahwyman 01:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

This is not violating the NPOV policy. Please do not revert it or delete it. This article already is written "veteran broadcaster" Rich Fields.

And directly from the NPOV article: "The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them"."

NPOV violations :

"and had a long career as a succesful"

"Fields is a well-known voice-over talent and has done hundreds"

So just because I list some critiscms allows some of these statements to fly, apparently.

--CFIF 11:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

March 2006 - The constant editing of "critiscms" by user CFIF on the front page seems to be nothing more than a personal and negatively biased opinon of the user. It has no place in a "factual" Encyclopedia type forum like Wikipedia. USER: BIZZREP

Well, you can take this up with higher authority here if you really want to get it removed. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea. Thanks for the advice.--User:BIZZREP 10:29, 3 April 2006

Will you stop removing it until we can get a decision on this? --CFIF (talk to me) 19:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticisms section is completely unsourced and uses many Weasel words. Please look at Verifiability, find some sources for your criticisms, and if you can't find any sources then the criticisms will have to stay out, per Wikipedia policy. Mak (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism is unsourced, unless you can find a reputable source that states the same, the criticism has to go. Eivind ^t ^@^c 07:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have had to edit back in "factual" info that is being removed by user CFIF on this site. The changes I made are verifiable facts regarding Rich Fields, as well the deletion of false information on the High Five Challenge. Please make sure you know your facts before removing or adding info to this site. If you persist in your attempts to defame this site, I will wage a complaint against you as a biased user to the authority here. ---User:Bizzrep 9:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

How is getting rid of POV words like "successful" and "long" getting rid of "factual info." Rich Fields' website is not a verifiable source of info. It's all self promotional. --CFIF (talk to me) 11:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a proven "26 year run" in both television and radio broadcasting certainly does constitute the use of the words "long career", as well as becoming the announcer on the number one rated television game show, should constitute the use of the word "successful", by anyone's POV!!!! How can you discount the fact that he has made a "success" in his chosen career, just because you have a personal bias against Mr. Fields. AGAIN I STATE.. this is a factual information site, please treat it as so, and keep your personal opinions out!

---User:Bizzrep 11:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 How is getting rid of POV words like "successful" and "long" getting rid of "factual info." Rich Fields' website is not a verifiable source of info. It's all self promotional. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 11:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
+*Having a proven "26 year run" in both television and radio broadcasting certainly does constitute the use of the words "long career", as well as becoming the announcer on the number one rated television game show, should constitute the use of the word "successful", by anyone's POV!!!! How can you discount the fact that he has made a "success" in his chosen career, just because you have a personal bias against Mr. Fields.  AGAIN I STATE.. this is a factual information site, please treat it as so, and keep your personal opinions out!
+---[[User:Bizzrep]]  11:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)