Talk:BluegrassReport.org

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kentucky Portal BluegrassReport.org is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Template Usage] [Watch Project Articles] [Project Talk]
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

[edit] Non-notable? Kidding?

Do a news search and discover that BluegrassReport.org is being referred to by the New York Times (as referenced) and other mainstream sources regarding the scandal mentioned in this article. The blog also won a Koufax Award, a very well-known progressive blogosphere award. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 04:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stevietheman's partisan edits

User Stevietheman persists in editing out factual information that is relevant and important to this article; he keeps trying to rid the article of anything that is not overly positive about this blog and its operator.

If you would like to see for yourself how non-credible Stevietheman's viewpoints are on this subject, review his posts on bluegrassreport.org or elsewhere, made under his moniker "Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)". In them you will find posts such as his assertions that the fact that this blog operator has been indicted for felonies which he admitted committing do not alter Stevietheman's opinion of the person's credibility.

Judge for yourself.

Don't revert the article to a rah-rah propaganda piece about this blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.174 (talk • contribs).

I am the one who added the text about Mark Nickolas' indictment. Is that cheerleading? I strive to be purely factual in the Wikipedia. You however, added POV, and that will be reverted. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are engaging in biased edits and you are deleting neutral, factual, cited information:

"Nickolas was indicted on charges of willfully failing to file any state income tax returns for 2003, 2004 or 2005." - Fact, and reported by your hometown newspaper, which is cited.

"The Courier-Journal reported that . . . Nickolas paid those taxes on checks from an account in the name of the supposedly nonprofit foundation through which he runs his blog" - Fact, and reported by your hometown newspaper, which is cited.

"Nickolas' defenders quickly trotted out the same excuses that Governor Fletcher's defenders used during the merit system scandal: "mistakes were made", "the prosecution is the result of a political witch hunt", and "other people did it too"." - Fact, and plastered all over the blog which is the subject of this article and which is linked as a reference.

Fact: you are being too loyal and protective as regards this particular blog, on which you regularly participate, because you approve of its attacks on Governor Fletcher and his criminal actions. Now that the operator of this blog himself has been revealed to have committed crimes himself - crimes he admitted in the newspaper, and crimes more serious than those of Fletcher (under the law, in terms of felony vs. misdemeanor; one can make a cogent argument that a chief executive using the machinery of government to subvert the law presents a greater offense and I would be unlikely to argue otherwise . . . ) you are reluctant to allow it to be reported beyond the meager extent you find palatable.

You either believe that the law applies to everyone and that breaking it is notable, or you don't. My guess is that most Wikipedians would prefer a neutral and even-handed policy in that regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.174 (talk • contribs).

Well, as I stated before, I was the one who added the cited statement that Nickolas was indicted, and what he was indicted for. That should prove that I'm dedicated to neutrality. The problem is that you have not sought to add cited statements, but rather your own point-of-view. If you concentrate on adding facts that you can back up with references, then they will stay. It really is that simple. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You added a very brief, cursory item on the indictment so as to try to preclude others from telling more of the story. The additional information IS backed up with references, yet you delete it anyway because you wish to keep out anything negative on this blog, which you post on all day every day. You are not neutral in this situation; you are reflexively trying to polish an article about a blog which you like. You are too sensitive and trying to edit this Wikipedia article based solely on your own political preferences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.127.74 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

You can't just add any sourceable material to an article. It has to be relevant to the subject, which is the blog. Basic info about the indictment is enough. Pointing to words spoken by commenters on the blog is irrelevant, and saying how Nickolas paid the bill is irrelevant. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, the C-J article does not back up the fact that Nickolas paid the tax bill with foundation funds. If you can find another reference, I think it will become all right to add back. I'm trying to work with you, but I absolutely will not allow any POV. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found a hard reference for the foundation check. I will add it back shortly. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)