Deliciousgrapefruit (talk | contribs) |
→Cptnono: Reply |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
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). [[User:Deliciousgrapefruit|Deliciousgrapefruit]] ([[User talk:Deliciousgrapefruit#top|talk]]) 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
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). [[User:Deliciousgrapefruit|Deliciousgrapefruit]] ([[User talk:Deliciousgrapefruit#top|talk]]) 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:@Deliciousgrapefruit I'm not here to solve the issue between you and other editors, or to debate the merits of your actions. [[WP:PA|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, <span>[[User:Mann_jess|<b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>[[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]</sub>|<sub>[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]]</sub></span></span> 19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:48, 23 December 2010
Welcome
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)
December 2010
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
A little Wikilove.
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. − Jhenderson 777 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Cookies! | ||
For you! :)− Jhenderson 777 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.
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}}! |
Cptnono
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Glenn Beck. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jesstalk|edits 20:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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. Jesstalk|edits 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- @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, Jesstalk|edits 19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)