User talk:LynnCityofsin

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
J DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your criticism of Wikipedia
I will contribute once it becomes clear wikipedia intends to be a serious encyclopedia. Interesting that this entire discussion you weren't able to answer any of my criticisms with a logical argument. All you did was attack me personally or admonish me for not contributing. You didn't answer any of my criticisms of wiki, and you didn't make any effort to demonstrate your objectivity to me. I pointed you in the right direction for creating a more well rounded article, and you chose to ignore the lead. You seem to have enough time on your hands to comb the pages for minor spelling and punctuation errors, following up on Beck's claim that the Obama admin. is like Stalin's Russia shouldn't have been too hard. But instead you just denied he ever said it. Once again I am watching the clips, and he clearly does say it. All you need is google and an open mind. LynnCityofsin (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page NOT a forum. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:Talk  "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Asher196 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am advocating changes to the article. And I might add I am not basing them on my personal views, but on a desire to see wikipedia used as a valid source. But it is fair for readers and editors to discuss problems, both specific and general, with an article. I submit that far too many editors on this page and others have strong political views that color their contributions and changes to the article. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If it was, then you could cite Wikipedia as a source in other Wikipedia articles, which you can't, obviously.  Wikipedia relies on WP:RS.  If you have reliable sources for the content you want added, then by all means list them here.  using Glenn Beck's words or video of Beck speaking would be considered original research, which is not allowed.  See WP:NOR Asher196 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know wikipedia isn't a reliable source. That is the problem here. What is its purpose if it can't be used as a reliable source? Are we just throwing junk against the wall and waiting to see what sticks? Quotes are supposed to come from the original source. I believe a video link, or transcript of the broadcast, constitutes the original source int his case. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied this here becuase it's not relevent to the Glenn Beck article. You need to read the links I provided before we talk more.  Please understand that we need rules to prevent Wikipedia from becoming pure chaos. Asher196 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read the links. The guidelines are bad, and not conducive to a creating a real encyclopedia. I am tired of editors answering criticisms by citing the guidelines. Show me why the guidelines matter. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidelines also have talk pages if you feel changes need to be made to them. The guidelines matter so that Wikipedia doesn't become a hodgepodge of whatever information editors want to add.  You need rules.  What is it that you specifically think needs to change with Wikipedia to make it a "real encylopedia"?Asher196 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Beck
So here's your final warning since you have received several. I will be looking into having your account blocked if you continue to disrupt the editing process on the Glenn Beck talk page by making uncivil remarks (comment on the content not the contributor) or continue to repeat your concern with Wikipedia in general without proposing specific changes to the article.Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did propose specific changes. And my comments paled compared with Diggity's. Go ahead and ban my account if you want. I was just saying what lots of people believe about wikipedia. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of people are misinformed or ignorant about Wikipedia. What most people don't understand is that the information in Wikipedia is based on WP:RS.  Original research is not allowed here.  How is Wikipedia different from say Encyclopedia Britannica in that way?Asher196 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For one, Britannica includes controversial, but true, information about people. The only things that get through on wikipedia are the facts not shot down by fanboys. Look at the Beck page if you don't believe me. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Biographies of Living people are to be written using the guideline WP:BLP for the protection of the subject. Anything controversial added to a BLP must have quality WP:RS.  There is a process and it isn't always pretty or fast, but it must be followed.  The Beck controversy will be resolved, I've seen this happen MANY times.Asher196 (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the big problem with the Beck article is it is full of editors who either really like Beck, or those who don't. This is really creating a problem with the quality of the article. Since those of us who are just interested in an accurate article are getting only what neither side considers objectionable. That isn't accuracy. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Still Around?
I sympathize with what you were going through on Beck's page, and you are indeed correct about it in specific and a lot of WP in general. I hope a few self absorbed partisans did not drive you off! Jersey John (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I included a reference to the FAIR article on his increasing paranoia and use of logical fallacies. We'll see how long it stays up though (I put it in the public reception section). LynnCityofsin (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You were also edit warring. Don't do that.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They were edit warring. That is the tactic the beck fans use on that page. That is why I undid their edits. I want you to tell me exactly how I lodge a complaint with wikipedia. This has gone on long enough and you know it CptonoLynnCityofsin (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have actually started a complaint about you since you again are accusing others of being fans of Beck. You can see it at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsCptnono (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. There is a clear case of people trying to bar critical entries on Beck, because of their own political viewpoints (many of the users in question proudly post their views on their user page) and you are lodging a complaint against me because I pointed that out? Don't bother, I am done with wikipedia if this is what it has become. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw this as an issue on the AN/I page and read a little of the Beck talk page to get a gist of what is going on. From what I can see I can sympathize with your outlook LynnCityofsin. If you are open to some suggestions we can talk about how to straighten things up on that particular page. I know from experience that the easiest way to get people to rally against you is to say stuff about other editors, however deserved it may be. Take comfort in the fact that they have to do it too. They have to provide reliable sources, same as we do. And if we present a fact that is significant and sourced they have to let it in the article. So, bring me what you have and we can talk about it and figure the best approach to improving the article. I don't mean to impose and I hope I'm not offending anyone. I've been here a while and have a pretty thick skin (most of the time) so I try mostly to help where I can. Padillah (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way is to start treating political celebrities the way we treat politicians. Lock the article to contributions from regular posters. Clearly there are armies of fans and armies of critics trying to edit the pages, and this results in skewed articles. I really just want the article to be accurate. The reason i went there in the first place is I was trying to get some background information on him and get an overview of the public's reaction to him. But it really looks like the page is in a perpetual edit war. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are procedures for dealing with articles that are in a constant edit war. Let's see if we can get some evidence of the situation and take that to AN/I and maybe we can take steps to calm the situation. Then, with the article in a more stable state, we can look toward adding improvements. That is, if you are still interested. I understand you may not want to put too much effort into the article, sometimes it's better for your peace of mind to just walk away. Try editing an article you don't care about. I know it sounds silly at first but it's a whole lot easier to remain objective when you don't really care. Let me know if you want help with anything, I'd be happy to help. Padillah (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am game. I think a minor step would be to change all POV elements so they are more objective. Particularly in the the reception section. Also, Beck has had time to establish some clear rhetorical techniques and very particular methods for handling critics. I think including information on this (either in his biography page or on his TV and Radio page) would be helpful. For example, he has a clear pattern of taking on his critics by doing exhaustive background checks on them, and then using that information to paint the person in a negative light on his show. I would have to look for secondary sources, but I am willing to bet there is a lot about this out there. LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good! One piece of advice, don't mention other editors at all. We're just editing the page. If it gets edited back then we will address that edit, no people. Keep in mind, if we're right it doesn't matter who the editor is, they have to let us add to the article. Also, the more they rant and rave the more ammunition we will be able to gather and present when trying to convince others of the need for closer regulation of the article. If we play it cool others will either get out of the way (and we can edit) or they will throw a fit (and we will work through DR and they will be out of the way and we can edit). Either way, we edit. Padillah (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Morphh  (talk) 2:05, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Use your authority as a club Morph. You know perfectly well I was trying to stop people from warring the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck ANI discussion
So it looks as though no administrator's want to get involved in what is going on at Talk:Glenn Beck but I'm here to ask that you please stop your personal accusations against other editors on the page. If Diggity and others say that they are not republicans or otherwise people with a COI in the article then it is pertinent that you believe them. We have a policy to assume good faith of other editors, which you can read here: WP:AGF.

I can see why you are getting frustrated with the process, but there are many things that you can do to make it easier. When you assume good faith of other editors the process goes a lot smoother. But there are other things. For example, you can find sources to back up your claims. This will allow other editors to explore your assertions on their own and come to a conclusion about whether these things are well sourced enough to be added to Wikipedia. You can find sources easily by going to Google news and doing a search. You can also ask people like myself or User:DGG who have access to reference libraries and databases to help you find new places for sources.

Not all of your sources will be accepted as valid, especially when they involve a subject as controversial as Glenn Beck. Sometimes other editors will reject your sources. This is nothing personal. You should ask these editors what they would accept as valid sources and try and find ones which are more suitable. If you feel that your sources are completely valid and that other editors are being punitive do not resort to personal attacks. Instead, ask other editors for their opinion, either on their talk pages or by going to relevant project pages (or here).

For more on what Wikipedia qualifies as a reliable source see WP:SOURCE.

If you need assistance or help with anything please let me know and I will do my best to assist you. However, assume good faith of the other editors you are working with and if you find yourself getting wound up just step away from the article for a while. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia which would benefit from your contribution and they would love to have you! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's time for this to end, I think...
Okay, Lynn, here's the deal. You and I don't agree, and I'm pretty sure we won't ever agree on a majority of things. However, that doesn't mean we can't set aside our differences. Quite frankly, I'm tired of feeling like I'm at war with you. But, as we are both adults, we can settle this like adults. I acknowledge that I have crossed the line on civility on several occasions, and that is not okay. So, here's the deal. I will agree to stop using vulgar words in my responses to you, and to others, if you will agree to stop accusing everyone with a positive attitude toward the GB BLP of a pro-Beck bias. If this deal is acceptable to you, let me know, and we can get to work. If not...well, then that says to me that you are not serious about wanting to get along with people here, and I will feel just fine and dandy about my approach to civility when dealing with certain people. (But full disclosure, I will probably not be back on here until sometime Monday, so if you respond and I don't say anything until then, it's because my mother-in-law is a philistine when it comes to technology.) J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  00:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will restrain myself. But I am sorry if there is strong pro-beck bias on the page, that is worthy of mention. If there is strong anti-Beck bias, that is worthy as well. My problem was the overwhelming number of editors on the page appeared to be in the pro-beck camp. I am an adult, and don't want a beef between us, so I will promise to assume good faith on the part of individual posters, yourself included. LynnCityofsin (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)