ToddAmelio

Welcome!

Hello, ToddAmelio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Ali'i 16:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reid Smear Letter

Your recent edits to the Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid Letter to Clear Channel articles strongly suggest that you need to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Its important to maintain a neutral point of view in editing wikipedia articles, and reading and comprehending that policy will assist you in any future editing.-Hal Raglan 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page for the Harry Reid Letter to Clear Channel article for my response to your comments. As indicated, I'm willing to engage in an active dialogue regarding this article. I'm currently waiting for your response to my most recent edits. Please discuss any changes you wish to make, with your reasons, on the talk page.-Hal Raglan 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is none. Not one caller before the "Phony Soldier" conversation or a thousand. The clearly selective text of any posts designed to impune the commentator are just that. They have no bearing on what the context of the term "phony soldier" refers to and is therefore inflamatory and politically motivated. The purpose of this wikipedia entry is to clarify the reasons behind the Harry Reid letter to Clear Channel and that is based ONLY on the context of the use of the term "Phony Soldier". Although you removed your previous posts on this subject your reference to "Limbaugh wet dreamers" has not been forgotten. Your bias here is noteworthy Mr. Raglan. Please refrain from adding non-relevant text. ToddAmelio 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your agenda -- to delete any factual content from the article that does not coincide with your POV -- is duly noted. Your claim that you want to present full context is laughable in the extreme...you have done nothing but wholesale censorship of the actual context that gives Limbaugh's insulting comment its perceived meaning. Yes, perceived meaning, i.e. Media Matters original reporting regarding this incident dealt with two telephone calls, one which directly led into the other, which indicated to them that Limbaugh was referring to the first caller and all similarly minded vets. Its impotant to note MM's original reporting and commentary because that original article is what led to the controversy. Although you allege that you want a reliable historical record of what you describe as "the abuse of Senatorial power to restrict Free speech" -- which, surprise!, I completely agree with you and truly believe the attempt to repudiate Limbaugh was foolish at best -- your continuing attempts to present only Limbaugh's defense, while pretending the first call has no relevance, strongly suggest that your only true interest is in skewing this article in Limbaugh's favor. None of your edits, and none of your responses, have caused me to think otherwise.-Hal Raglan 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem extremely confused by what meets the standards for sourcing quotes, please read wikipedia's reliable sources policy. All the information you seek is there...including the policy against using partisan blogs. If you truly have no idea what a rightwing blog is, that linked policy should help you out a little.-Hal Raglan 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Todd, I would advising ignoring Hal. He won't be happy unless Media Maters writes the whole. It was also extremely tacky on his part to start your talk page with many different sections that are basically one long diatribe against you.--Bedford 10:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea. I shudder to think how he'd react if I actually was a Rush Limbaugh fan.-ToddAmelio 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I organized your Talk page; it's all one subject, anyhow.--Bedford 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I am a little new to Wikipedia and am learning on the go. I'll take all the help I can get.-ToddAmelio 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Phony soldiers controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phony soldiers controversy, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phony soldiers controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)