User talk:Deliciousgrapefruit

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Deliciousgrapefruit, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! nableezy - 21:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 21:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to assume, based on the structure and content of the Beck article. Sorry Cptnono, but there are serious problems with that article. The core of it, is his major controversies have been eliminated because it is structured in favor of the golden mean. You may be a "veteran editor" at wikipedia, that doesn't make you a real editor. I am one. This article needs significant work. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go cry yourself to sleep, sweetheart.Cptnono (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you aren't interested in improving the article or in factual accuracy. You are more interested in using your veteran status to bully users and resort to personal attacks. I have no interest in gaining wikipedia cred. I am a real-life editor who was taking time to help you improve a very poorly written article. I have provided links, I have noted places where there are problems with facts. You continue to deride and me and suggest the problem is my sources (when in fact most of the sources link directly to his original statements on the radio and TV, which anyone with a basic knowledge of history and statistics can easily refute.) Truth is not up for election my friend. I've observed the article for sometime, and I have observed you Cptnono. You are not objective, and this is your normal tact with people who post things or make suggestions you don't like. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little Wikilove.[edit]

I am out of that debate because I am sort of in between right now. But no matter what the result is, here you go. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies!

For you! :)− Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.[reply]

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I noticed your blog on a other site and I am very disappointing on hearing stuff like that. Calling people "fools" who disagreed with you is not a way to go. The whole time I was trying to have a neutral point of view when I was discussing and all you do is keep complaining that we are fanboys of him which is completely false and biased. At the very end I could have agreed with you but the fact that you had to give me names with your personal opinion on a other site just because I originally disagreed shows what kind of person you could be. Next time on your site can you focus on the positive things we did and not the negative things like the Wikilove that I gave you and the fact that some Wikipedians agreed with you (I did on some areas as well). Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono[edit]

It doesn't seem as though the two of you are able to work together. That doesn't mean you should abandon the article, only that you should minimize interaction and focus on the editing. Dylan Flaherty 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like he is just blocking the draft because he either doesn't agree with it politically or he resents me reporting him. And he seems bent on removing it and attacking me. I think its obvious its a significant statement and deserves inclusion. But I am not going to lose sleep over the article. I was just trying to help make it better. Honestly though, someone needs to do a better job keeping guys like Cptono in check. He is very uncivil, and you are going to lose a lot of potential editors when you have people like him scaring off new users. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable. I have told you I am not a fan and there is nothing googling will do to show otherwise. And even if I was, it would be a bigger breach of NPA as explained to you. You need to stop these shenanigans.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bully editing Cptnono. It is obvious his fans basically run that page, and I think its fair to question how many of them are actual employees of Beck. When things that so clearly should be on there, get shouted down for bad reasons, one has to wonder. Sorry,but the article is very bad, and the reasons for it need to be explored. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go to the neutral point of view noticeboard and see what others think. This has happened before and hardly anything was changed. But getting it more neutral is always a good thing. You could also try listing your concerns on the talk page. Admittedly, I don;t trust your views on neutrality at this time but it would be a fine step to take. And no one has shouted you down. You came in making accusations and people are not going to go out of their way to be nice when you do that. And again, no I am not a fan. Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made observations that were realistic given the content of the page and its history. I further observed consensus does not achieve objective results. It results in the loudest most aggressive and diligent people on the page getting their way. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Glenn Beck. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jess_talk|_edits 20:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So it is no longer okay for people to say anything when an editor pushes others around and bullies a page. I think rather than block me, you should examine some of Cptnono's history. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono's history is irrelevant; He didn't post a personal attack against you on the page in question. Personal attacks are not okay, particularly on article discussion pages. Please see WP:CIVIL, WP:PA and WP:HARASS. If you feel that another user's behavior is inappropriate, you should take the issue to WP:ANI. Continuing as you are now will get you blocked. I'd suggest taking some time to cool down, read the linked policies, and try to either work collaboratively, or retire from articles he's a part of. Jess_talk|_edits 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jess he posted personal attacks on that page and on my discussion page, and he is buyllyediting the article. I am cool. But I am not going to not call a spade a spade. The guy is running that page, and it is a serious, serious problem, given the controversial nature of the personality in question. And looking at the pages history, I am not the first to bring up this problem with it, nor will I be the last. So go ahead and block me if you want to. I am not interested in contributing to a reference guide that favors bully editors. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only personal attack was the one I made in an above section and I have already discussed it with you. You keep on saying "bullying" but if you reread the conversation you will see that there was no pepperiness until after you started making personal attacks. It doesn't matter though. You said on the talk page that you were not interested in working on the article and you echoed that just now. So how about you just drop it? I have offered you solutions to the handling what you see as a problem but you have done nothing recently but complain about being bullied. Work on the article or not but acting like some sort of victim is just getting annoying.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining about being bullied, I am complaining about bullyediting,they are two different things. And I said I was fine with working on a Muslim section over time, but for now that 10% section needs to go in. None of the reasons presented against it are legit, and you are just doing what you always do, which is use the rules to trim down the beck page so it suits your point of view. Sorry but I call them like I see them. You are driving away editors who might otherwise make valuable contributions. If the powers that be want to continue with business as usual, with you bullyediting and policing the article, then they can ban me, and ignore what you are doing (and I suspect that is exactly what they will do). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Deliciousgrapefruit I'm not here to solve the issue between you and other editors, or to debate the merits of your actions. Personal attacks are never warranted, regardless of context. There are appropriate channels to discuss user behavior, including WP:ANI and WP:RfC. I don't wish to discuss this with you, but I would like to ensure you are aware of the appropriate policies, as it is likely that a repeat of this behavior will result in a block. With that in mind, I'll repeat my advice to take some time to cool down, and then either resume collaborative editing, or move on to articles where tensions are not so high. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Jess, is collaborative editing becomes impossible, when one editor acts as the self appointed gate keeper of an article. Have a good day. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about forum shopping. Your ANI is pointless. And as cool as it might make me feel to be called a gatekeeper, it really holds no water. And again, since you already said (before any supposed bullying) that you did not want to contribute it looks like you are only here to pick fights. If that is the case it is time to seek your removal. I would prefer it if you would just list what you see as neutrality concerns on the talk page like others have done but you have refused that suggestion for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wanted to help improve the article but wasn't interested in contributing because clearly the page is the site of a lot of conflict. And just because I am raising the issue more than once, doesn't make it a less valid concern. My biggest concern right now on the page, is you Cptnono, since you are controlling the content, and bullyediting. I did list my concerns, but more importantly, I offered a totally legitimate fact that should be on the page, and you've simply blocked it, without providing a reasonable reason, except citing consensus (however, having looked up consensus, its clear you are misusing the concept in this case). Like I said, time for third party mediation. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be participating in any mediation process until you exhaust all of possible solutions available to you. For example, you still have not listed your neutrallity concerns on the tlak page.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono: I believe I made my concerns regarding neutrality very clear, and I made clear my concerns about your blockage of the 10% section. One side wants it in, one wants it out, sounds like a perfect situation for mediation. And again, since you and I are both the ones' involved this is neither your nor my call.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is since mediation requires all involved parties to agree to it. I hope you do not tie not agreeing with it to stealing your lunch money. You have made one complaint about the article. There is not consensus for what you want. So move on if you think there are other issues and start listing them or else you are beating a dead horse.Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono: You don't get to decide for evryone whether consensus has been reached. Consensus doesn't mean because 1 or two people object that something gets removed. They still have to present valid reasons. If 100% agreement was required, then most articles here would have no content at all. Meditation is required because you are over-stepping your bounds as an editor, you are bullyediting the page, and you are blocking legit. content. I believe you are a problem editor Cptnono. I say, let's bring in some objective third parties to mediate. And I do feel you continue to bullyedit. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of bullying you in evry reply leaves me not inclined to do anything of the sort. In the future, adjust how you communicate with editors and they might be nicer to you.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop communicating to my on my discussion page. I have been polite and expressed a reasonable concern about your behavior on the beck page.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to express the concerns as you have on the article talk page. So when you break the rules you are going to have it mentioned here.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you are not simply here as an impartial editor to inform me of rules violations. You are someone that I have entered into conflict with on wikipedia. You have made personal attacks on me here and elsewhere. Please stop commenting on my discussion page. I have asked several times for you not to attack me. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking other editors is annoying but inserting info in a biography of a living person without consensus is a problem WP:BLP is a policy. You need to read up on it. The edit was removed per the bold revert discuss process (see WP:BRD). Do not insert it again without consensus. Options available to you include taking the advice on the talk page and crafting a paragraph about his views on Muslims. You mentioned "time" before. If you would have spent less time forum shopping we might have had it finished by now. As for the edit, if it is a "notable dispute" is questionable. You also did not provide several lines as another editor who actually was on board with such an edit requested. You can always open an RFC if you want more eyes on the article but you need to know that there is little patience (and it is not even allowed) to word it with attacks against other editors and with language intended to sway the debate.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptono: Nothing in my entry violated the policy you just cited. It was neutral point of view and based on reliable sources. Cptnon, I am personally fed up with you. You push me around and act likeyou are a manager on wiipedia. THis is the last straw. Please tell me how to elevate this to the next level. Someone must step in and address the problems on the beck page. You abused consensus there. I read up on consensus and understand it. The way you are using it is incorrect. And again, you are not the lord of the beck page. You can suggest people come up with something about his views on muslims, and that is fine, but this still remains a notable controversy, which you are trying to block. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning on personal attacks on that talk page. Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making personal attacks. You are using policies in order to drive an agenda. I would like a third party to step in now. This has gone on for too long. I am not as wikipedia savvy as you. But I know when I am being pushed around by another human being. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Cptnono (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the policies you cited, and there is nothing wrong with having an edit conflict. We happen to disagree on the issue. But my entry doesn't violate any policy guidelines. However, let me just say this "You win." I am tired of fighting with you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly something wrong with edit warring. But I am perfectly happy if you are done. If you do not revert yourself I will do it for you.Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am not done. I am fed up fighting you. I don't like how you have treated me as an editor and I feel you are using wiki policies to bully the articles. What is more I feel you are actually misapplying many of the policies. But you have the savvy. I don't know how to navigate this stuff as well as you, and I am tired fighting to include relevant information on a wiki article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine if you no longer wish to discuss but you are not allowed to insert contentious material without establishing consensus so you need to stop reverting.Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that isn't the consensus guideline, PLEASE REVIEW IT as I have. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another notification.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal[edit]

Hello! I would like to help resolve your mediation cabal case. Is there still a conflict that needs to be resolved?

Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Beck page has a number of problems, but my biggest concern is the inclusion of a key comment he made is effectively being blocked (IMO) from inclusion. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is about getting users to work together on making the article better, not about the debate of a specific content question. If you believe, with this in mind, mediation is still an option you would like to pursue (working with the editors involved), I will get the page started and contact the other parties. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can give it a shot, but the other major editor on the page refuses to enter mediation. He is basically controlling the page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that if we do enter mediation, that you start off with the understanding that most if not all editors are acting in good faith. So the first way to lower any problem is to lower the rhetoric. -- Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has seemed to go on for just a few weeks. I would ask that you look at further working with the editors involved, and trying to reach a consensus on issues. Only go to the dispute resolution process if there really is no other way to resolve the problem. If you feel that after more weeks of discussion, even more months of discussion, that there is roadblock - then consider bringing a mediation case. Remember to act in good faith - I am sure that there is a way to resolve this on your own if everyone discussses it calmly.

Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem, I have tried but the other editor won't budge, and the result is the article is missing a critical element. It is hard to act in good faith when you can't get anything onto an article and the blockage is obviously motivated by partisanship. And I can see now that there is no real recourse on wikipedia. I've tried to discuss it calmy, but the person who is most wikipedia savy and the general political make up of editors on the page, pretty much determine the content. Consensus is not reached through rational discussion there. And I would argue, the whole concept of consensus is being misapplied and abused on the Glenn Beck page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a RfC (request for comment) or one of many other methods to try to resolve the dispute prior to any mediation. You need to try these options first before mediation. If after all that there is still no resolution, and mediation will not work, then and only then should you bring a matter to arbitration. But you need to try every other possible outlet first. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, he is just using wikipedia policy to punish me. Whatever. I am done with wikipedia. The animals run the place. I complained many, many times on many different talk pages. And nothing came of it. In the final round, looks like he will ban me or have my ability to edit limited. I don't need the stress of it. But it is ashame that an editor like him is allowed to continue to bully other editors. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not and cannot punish you. I have offered you to suggestions and you have not taken either. If you would stop forum shopping and arguing over what you see as bullying this would have been squared away already.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are bully editing. This is text book bullyediting. Effectively you are controlling the page by demanding 100% consensus on key issues (which is not how consensus is supposed to work). This is a valid addition, which you are blocking out of what I can only imagine is partisanship or sheer stubborness. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how would it have been squared away already? If I obeyed your commmand opened a "Views on Muslims section". Sorry but the inclusion of a new controversy doesn't warrant that. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Already notified above.Cptnono (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. :The personal info you posted here has already been oversighted, but do not ever attempt to post somebody's personal information on wikipedia again. Also, do not attempt to compromise other editor's privacy, as you threatened here Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I didn't post post any private information about anyone. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to complain, then go here, where the discussion is being made about you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Just fucking ban me. If you guys are going to let editors like Cptnono push people around and run things, good luck getting fucking donations. No wonder no one takes wikipedia seriously Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Whether it's intended to be constructive or blatant WP:POINT making, mass deletion without explanation isn't going to be acceptable Onorem ♠Dil 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Glenn Beck, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Bihco (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the article because it is basically an advertisement for Beck. It needs to be started from the beginning. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC, WP:DR...pick a constructive way to deal with it. What you're doing now looks like intentional disruption hoping to be blocked. And I have no doubt that you will be soon if you continue blanking the article. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this and other issues with the article. But nothing has been done. The only solution is to remove it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Glenn Beck. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC) pLEASE DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO. dO YOU WORK FOR BECK OR SOMETHING? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck[edit]

If you have a concern with the article then discuss it on the talk page. Blanking it is not going to get anywhere. ... discospinster _talk 23:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale blanking of the article isn't going to happen. If you have issue with the content, you'll have to deal with it in another way. If you blank it again, I will request a block...though I still think your actions indicate that's what you're hoping for. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i HAVE. bUT THE DISCUSSION PAGE IS OVERUN BY BECKHEADS. Most of the editors on the page are beck suporters. The article needs to be deleted. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think that all you want. I won't stand idely by while beck heads turn the article into an advertisement for their hero. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've tried methods of dispute resolution that are intended to bring in outside opinions? I don't see it. You won't have a choice on how idle you are if you continue to blank the article. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried a bunch of different resolution methods, but wikipedia's resolution options are so arcane, it takes forever to know whether you are going through the right channel. I went to the channels people recommended. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, there are ways to fix the problems you see. It may end up taking way more effort than it should, and you may eventually realize that it is nowhere near worth the effort. Your problem has been that you are only dealing with one specific editor. You need to attract the attention of others to fix these issues. The problem, as far as I can see, is that the Glen Beck page does not include certain things that you say should be included. I have read the talk page and I cant see what the actual reason for exclusion besides that the material does not have "consensus". This is a word used by some editors to simply block the inclusion of material for whatever reason. They demand that material cannot be included if it is "contentious" without "consensus". Part of this is true, but not the way these editors will say. Wikipedia content should reflect "consensus", but "consensus" does not mean that everybody agrees, or that all views are equal. If somebody wishes to exclude content they need to provide actual reasons for it so that you may attempt to address those reasons. If for example an editor claims that Beck's beliefs as to the proportion of terrorists among Muslims should not be included on the basis that it is not reliably sourced, you could seek input at a community noticeboard dealing with issues of reliability of sources (WP:RS/N). If a user feels that the material is presented in a "non-neutral" manner, you could seek input at the noticeboard set up for disputes about NPOV (WP:NPOV). A user cannot simply say that there is no consensus and because of this block the material, and if this happens you can request assistance from others to deal with such behavior. But you need to be patient and deal with what are, speaking plainly, effective time wasting tactics. Demand that policies be cited and quoted if necessary to show why material should be excluded. For each policy that is given go to the noticeboard set up to deal with disputes about that policy. But dont get sucked into a dispute with an editor. It is pointless and wont end well. nableezy - 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Glenn Beck. ... discospinster _talk 23:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried. Hasn't work. And I've boned up on guidelines and pointed out on a wikialert that the editors were missapplying them. Still no results. Basically been bullied on the article. I am done. Ready for my ban. If wikipedia can't find a way to accomodate good editors, but instead rewards bully editors, I am done. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Disco. You are part of the problem. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I am. Why don't you list exactly what is wrong with the article? ... discospinster _talk 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more patient. It has taken me literally years to get basic information into some articles. You have only been dealing with this for a few weeks. nableezy - 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to. I tried to write that it is being deleted because it is effectively an advertisement for Beck and not objective. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt going to work, and you dont seem stupid enough to think that it will. nableezy - 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is an indication wikipedia has a serious problem. If things like this take years to resolve, then it isn't exactly a reliable reference source. Its basically a dispensary for disinformation and propoganda.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look I've been pushed around by the likes of Ctpnono and aerobic and witchel, long enough. Just ban me. I'm done. I don't want to contriubte to a site that gives bigots free reign (did you happen to read some of their objections? Neutrality is one thing, giving a platform to hatespeach another.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia has a serious problem, it has many. And of course Wikipedia is not a reliable reference sources. Well, in some areas it is, but for contentious topics no way. You have a few choices. You could spend more time and effort than a sane person would to try to fix some of these problems (thats what Ive done) and fix maybe a small fraction of what you attempt to fix; you could spend less time and make gradual progress; or you could just say fuck it and never visit the site for anything more than finding out what happened in the latest anime or manga or whatever 12 year olds spend their time watching now (this is where Wikipedia really is a reliable reference). Your choice, but repeatedly blanking the Beck article is a bit like masturbation without the payoff. nableezy - 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are duplicating a talk discussion. You were recently blocked for being disruptive. End of story in the new section for your request as far as I see it. If you want to discuss it more there is a discussion up above on that page. You can still open an RFC. Thanks for your understanding. ALso, if you continue to assert that I am bullying you or start attacking editors again I am going to open another ANI. That might look like bullying (and might be to a certain extent) but it is time for you to learn the rules or get out. Simple. Disregard. Notified: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Delicious Grapefruit (still)Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is more evidence that you are bullyediting. Maybe you don't realize how your messages sound to the other users. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care anymore how you take it. Your actions the other day have left me with absolutely no desire to cater to your feelings. That is what happens when you repeatedly attack other editors.Cptnono (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one side to this story. Just because I over-reacted, that doesn't mean your actions are excused. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My actions are perfectly fine and it is all in your head. Another editor and I are disagreeing on the talk page and it isn't devolving into personal attacks, edit warring, outing, and forum shopping. So prove me on. I have no doubt that you will continue to do all of the above but would love to be wrong. We'll see if 48 hrs were enough, huh? I do think a mentor would assist you though so please consider requesting one.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are getting along with one editor doesn't mean you aren't a bullyeditor. You can keep assuming I am the problem. But I am hardly the only one who has lodged a formal complaint against you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi, I see you're blocked for 48h to prevent disruption, but not banned. I hope you come back after your block expires (you can also request an early unblock which will require assuring an admin that the disruption won't recur). Basically Nableezy is right; to edit a page like Glenn Beck, you have to know Wikipedia procedures pretty well, plus you also need a Zen attitude that can take while to develop. It may also be true that the Beck article is edited mostly by Beck's fans (I don't know since I haven't looked at it myself) in which case you're "swimming upstream" as you noticed; the main mechanism for addressing that is content RFC's to attract outside inspection.

The approach I'd suggest is giving up on the Beck article for a while, and instead finding some articles that you like, and on which you can collaborate harmoniously with other editors. Then work on those instead of on contentious articles, which are mostly crap anyway. If you later want to work on contentious articles, you'll have better understanding of what you're getting into and how to go about participating in such things. It's like if you visit a new country where you don't know the customs or the language, you're better off starting at the landmarks and attractions, than in the zones where the gang wars are. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel for you, but don't blow a gasket[edit]

You should be commended for fending off the wingnut beckheads all by yourself, but don't go nuts. I will try to round up some editors to help you. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libel[edit]

Considering how you think about libel. You did this post? Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Glenn Beck, you may be blocked from editing. Orlady (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't libel. He fits the def of a right wing demagogue and engages in conspiracy speculation. HIstory has shown such men are dangerous. And Jess please stop vandalizing my discussion page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nakon 21:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Nakon. Keep erasing the truth. Look in 10 years, wikipedia will be viewed as an experiment that failed. You are part of the failure. Consensus building is part of the problem, and giving random people on the internet the power to censure others just puts the most broken individuals in charge. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to request that your access to your talk page is blocked if you continue to attack other editors. Start a new account and be nicer this time.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new account for the purpose of block evasion is not allowed and would result in further action. Don't suggest that. It's not in his best interest. If he wants to edit again, he needs to place an unblock request which shows that he understands the problem and will work to avoid it in the future. That's unfortunately his only shot at getting his editing privileges back, which if he's sincere enough, is actually quite plausible. Jess_talk|_edits 08:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't want my editing "privileges" back. Wikipedia is a terrible source of information, thanks to its policies, which put a few bad eggs in control of pages. Essentially the quality of an article is a determined by the handful of editors who hang out on the page. Wikipedia is joke.

Cptnono, why are you even still reading my talk page anyways?Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing my discussion page Cptnono. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked an admin to block your talk page access. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you really have it in for me bugs. You can't even let me have my talk page. My criticisms must be hitting home or you and Cptnono wouldn't be working so hard to have me eliminated, when I am already banned from the rest of wikipedia. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't flatter yourself. No one owns their talk page - it's subject to the rules of wikipedia. When you're blocked, the only valid activities for you here are properly-worded unblock requests and civil discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand how wikipedia works. But most people don't patrol the talk pages of banned users either. And I just find it interesting that you always seem to enter into debates and join the side of Cptnono. A little odd, don't you think? Especially something so off the radar like a spat on my talk page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to request an unblock, please contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Nakon 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nakon. And just for the record, BB and I have not always agreed. We had some stupid bickering awhile back on an article.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't recall what it was about, but he probably called me an "upstart". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]