User talk:Lawfamily

Glenn Beck
Hello. You might be new to Wikipedia, so I thought I would mention to you some of the guidelines we use here. I noticed that you reverted my latest edit on Glenn Beck. While some of what I posted might be considered non-neutral to some people, you removed everything I did. I had put in a lot of information about Beck, all of it well sourced and most of it was quotes from Beck himself. You may not be aware, but it is normal policy here to bring up any disputes you have with an article on the Discussion (Talk) page of the article, rather than just changing it the way you want it to be. See: Talk:Glenn Beck


 * Please read: Resolving disputes, especially where it says, "'Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page.'"


 * Also, Etiquette might be helpful. I look forward to your posting on many articles here on Wikipedia and I'm sure you have much to offer, however, I would politely request that you keep these things in mind.  Thank you.

Fanra 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you put back the line, "According to glennbeck.com, in the show's first year, Glenn Beck saw a 65 percent increase in total viewers and an 85 percent jump in the 25-54 demographic." rather than just leaving it in the Glenn Beck on Headline News section where I moved it to (where it still is, and is now redundant) you said: "(Information about his viewship is relevant, just as listener information is relevant. Disliking the fact that his ratings increased isn't a justifiable reason for censoring such information.)"


 * I didn't "censor" it, I moved it to the relevant section. Frankly, the sentence is meaningless as it is.  Viewership increased 65%?  So it went from 10 viewers to 17?  Or is it 10,000,000 to 16,500,000?  If you read my note when I moved it, I said, "You can put in total viewer numbers if you like".   If you want to add instead of what you put in, "As of May 20, 2007, ratings show 2,000,000 people view his show every week.", that is a good thing to put in, as long as you have a source that says this.  But the sentence as it is currently written is non informative and doesn't belong in the Lead Section.


 * I wasn't "censoring" Beck because of some bias, as you claim, I'm trying to get the article up to standards, which means that small details belong in the proper place, not in the Lead Section where they are confusing and offer no real information.

Fanra 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)