User talk:24.252.98.130

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Glenn Beck . It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Kuru talk 15:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Glenn Beck, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. --Jared W 16:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Beck comments

Robert,

I apologize for being slow in my response. I didn't find your comment until today. If you will put comments on my discussion page instead of my User page, I will find them faster.

You may have already discovered the answer to the question you posed to me but I will try to answer it in case you haven't.

The reason that I considered your edit vandalism is because of how negative and opinion based it was. The Glenn Beck article falls under the protection of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. The applicable portion of this policy being that Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

I can see from your response to Kuru and myself that you did not intend to vandalize the article and since you specifically asked for examples of problems with your post, I will point out a few of them.

Perceived by many viewers to be a mirthful but venom spewing clown'

This first sentence is Unsourced negative material about Beck

to sell the repugnant ideas scripted for him on a daily basis by his illuminati handlers.

This entire segment is very negative, speculative, and again, unsourced.

Like Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Ann Coulter, or George Bush, the Illuminati appears to harvest their spokesman from among those most susceptible to substance abuse, which accounts for the irrationality and toxicity of their comments.

You might be able to insert this into the Illuminati article, but certainly not on Glenn Beck's article as it is a biography of a living person and is thus protected against negative and unsourced material.

CNN's hiring of Beck for its primetime slot signals that corporation's abandonment of its long-held policy to provide its viewers with the illusion of a free press. It is also a strong indicator of the administration’s confidence in the effectiveness of its ongoing mind control programming of the general populace, by various means which include the fluoridation on most drinking water supplies, debilitating pulsing ELF signals emanating from cell phone towers, and subliminal Wernike commands embedded within most popular radio and television programs. These unpublicized citizen control programming tactics have become so effective that a large portion of the population still believes the media's cries of "Wolf" over terrorist attacks, even though it has been proven beyond doubt that spectacular events such as the attack and demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 were orchestrated by the U.S. Government to pave the way for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This one is not negative about Beck so it wouldn't be removed because of the biographies policy. It is in fact, not about Beck at all so it shouldn't be on the article about him. You might try dividing it among these articles: CNN, Mind_control#Mind_control_in_conspiracy_theory, Water fluoridation controversy, 9/11 conspiracy theories


the foisting of this pathological liar clown upon the general public

This is more negative material about Beck.

If you have more questions about why your edit was removed and the continued re-posting of it was perceived as vandalism, I would be happy to try to answer them. --Jared W 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)