Jared W

Welcome!

Hello, Jared W, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 04:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the Glenn Beck page: I probably erred in unilaterally removing the comment. But if it is added back, I will flag it because it isn't NPOV. Drouillm 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I hope this is the proper way to reach you with my reply to the controversy that has erupted over my contribution to the "Headline News" section to the Glenn Beck entry. "Kuru" has removed my contribution, claiming it is abusive. I am of the opinion that it is a valid and worthy observation pertinent to this section and well written.

I am enclosing a copy of my response to "Kuru" and would like for you to instruct me on how I may appeal for a third party intervetion or overview of this dispute. many thanks Robert Schoen

Dear Kuru, As a new contributer to Wikipedia, I am appalled by your characterization of my contribution to the Glen Beck page as "Vandalism." Every element of my small contribution to the section devoted to the subsection, "Glenn Beck on Headline News." was factual and pertinent to the topic. What you may consider "Vandalism" will no doubt be regarded as honest and worthy commentary by many others. In fact, my insertion is merely a collection of pointed observations by an objective and unbiased viewer who had never heard of Glenn Beck before two days ago and could therefore have not held any previous opinion on him as a broadcaster one way or another, as opposed to someone like you who seems to be motivated by a distinct political agenda and affinity for Mr. Beck's extremist views. Through my addition to this entry, I was seeking merely to add a deeper perspective and analysis to the extraordinary circumstances under which a major news organization with a reputation for objectivity would hire such an inflammatory persona to fill their most watched newshour.

An intent to disparage Mr. Beck or create vandalism on this site would have included the use of abusive language, indiscriminant commentary, and extensive changing of any of the ten subcategories or frames prior to the section devoted to "Glenn Beck on Headline News." Instead I limited my comments to a only few sentences devoted to the reasons why CNN picked up this controversial host that was literally buried within the body of the entire article in the eleventh subsection, and addressed an area of expertise which I am qualified to contribute.

As someone truly alarmed by the decline of our nation's civility, morality and decency, my entry is a heartfelt contribution which no doubt runs contrary to much of the prevalent negative and biased political thought that dominates our nation and the irrational hopes expressed by Mr. Beck and his supporters for further war in the Middle East. Just because you do not agree with my contribution, I think you are being completely abusive to the spirit of Wikipedia, by engaging me in an "edit war" though your continued removal of my contribution and am writing to inform you that I intend to take this matter up with other editors at Wikipedia, who may question the political biases behind your ungracious actions, which from my perspective, are abusive and undemocratic. sincerely, Robert Schoen 24.252.98.130 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Critism

I am leaving this message regarding the critism section in the article on Glenn Beck. I think that you were right to revert the anon editors changes, but I do think that the section could use some work. Alot of the so-called quotes are taken way out of context. Having actually heard Beck make these comments, I can tell you that the quotes are not legit. I will leave your revert until I have updated the critism section to actually be from a NPOV. I will also leave a message on the talk page for Glenn Beck before I make the changes, as I wish to make sure that the changes will be supported by the editors. Color me invisible 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I Agree

I agree that the critism section should show the hate that Glenn receives, but I think it should only show specific comments by outside sources. Maybe it would be possible to create a rebuttal section, but that seems as if it would be redundant. I think that the critism section should show critism that Glenn received, including the entire comment or action that the critics were critizing (Phew!). It may take me awhile to update the page, so meanwhile I think that the current critism section should remain until the update is ready Color me invisible 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Glenn-Beck-Rally.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Glenn-Beck-Rally.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Glenn-Beck-Rally.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Glenn-Beck-Rally.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)