User talk:Color me invisible

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than (7) days are automatically archived to User_talk:color me invisible/Archives. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Glenn's Criticism

Thanks for sending me a note. I am also a fan of Glenn's program. I know exactly what you mean about those of us who actually listen to the show. I just want to share some of my ideas on what the criticism section should be.

First, I don't think it is possible to write a succinct "full context" criticism section. I'll be interested to see if you can do it. Personally I don't think the full quotes should be in the article at all. Readers can follow a reference link to get the full context. It just clogs up the article.

I think that a criticism section is different than a controversial statements section. The criticism section is a place where the criticism of opponents is put forward and given voice. I can't make up criticism about Glenn so I had to quote FAIR's website. I think it is ok to accurately report what people who hate Glenn say about him. That doesn't make them right or make it true. It is a big part of Glenn Beck that there are people who hate him. Leaving that out, or presenting it as a bunch of quotes from Glenn, wouldn't be right.

My vision of the criticism section in a nutshell is this:

• Not everyone agrees with Glenn, some people hate him ... a lot
• There have been organized efforts by opponents to end his career
• The opposition increased exponentially when he started his TV show
• Most of his critics hate him just because he is a prominent conservative, not really because of anything he says.

I don't know exactly how to say it in an encyclopedic way. While I believe the last point to be true, I don't think it has a place on wikipedia. But those points are what I see as important about criticism of Glenn. I really don't think that his controversial statements matter that much. And I do think that trying to list them will clog up the article and cause a lot of contention among editors.

I hope these ideas will be helpful in your efforts. Good luck. --Jared W 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the critism section should show critism that Glenn received, including the entire comment or action that the critics were critizing (Phew!). -- color me invisible

Well, I just want to wish you luck. What you are talking about is a big undertaking. I still think it'd be better to put it on a different article. I'd like to help if I can. I also think that your time would be better spent helping us build http://www.glennpedia.com That is the real resource on Glenn. --Jared W 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. Be sure to check out this http://www.glennpedia.com/index.php/Glenn_Beck#Controversial_statements it is the controversial statements stection (and article) that I wrote for glennpedia --Jared W 16:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Invisible!

Hello, Color me invisible! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia! ~ Flame viper 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: What should I call you by? "Color me invisible" is a bit long. Not that it's a bad name, but do you have a shorthand?

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Wikidoption. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. . Articles on Wikipedia programs and policies don't belong in the main article space. Thanks, NawlinWiki 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the article to your userspace at User:Color me invisible/Wikidoption. NawlinWiki 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked that out! I redirected Wikidoption to the Adopt page which you linked to for disambiguation, it is a good term which I thought of independantly but it seems you already did over 2 years ago. Tyciol (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, there!

Your page on WikiAdoption blew me away! It really pwns my rambling on the subject. Would you mind if I replaced the present content of WP:ADOPT with your page? Thanks. ~ Flame vip e r 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I'm in a sane mood again. :D

Just Ignore this

If you are interested in adopting a new user,please go to WP:ADOPT.

Hm

Well, for a new user, you sure know a lot about Wikipedia. You're a model citizen! You know the wiki markup almost better than I do (provided that you don't just use a cheat sheet like I do :P), you're civil and polished, and you participate in the project. <half-sarcastic> It seems like you've taken after me! </half-sarcastic> Anyway, it seems like you're a big kid now, and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is more for newbies - with the adoption process, you can only get basic help and such. Perhaps you should move on to the higher education of admin coaching. Regards, ~ Flameviper 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Signing,LOL, it seems that you do need some help :) When you leave a comment on a talk page, you should sign it with four tildes (~~~~). This inserts your name (linked to your user page) along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Also, if you want a cool sig, I'll be glad to help. ~ Flameviper 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Color me invisible

Hey Color me invisible, I was reading your userpage and I hope you don't mind, but I made a minor spelling correction and signed your friends list. I noticed you wish to one day become an administrator and pondered whether or not people would discriminate against you because of your age. I thought you might be interested in User:Ilyanep who is also only 14 and is one of our Bureaucrats. As well, there are many administrators your age. At RfA, most people will consider your contributions to the Wiki over a decent period of time and decide on that basis to support/oppose you. My personal advice is to take your time and not be in a hurry. I'm sure if you work hard and make lots of great contributions, you will do very well, regardless of your age. Best of luck, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiAdoption userbox

Please don't put new messages on archive pages, as you did to one of my talkpage archives. If you want to leave me a message you are welcome to do so on User talk:Cynical my talk page. Regards. Cynical 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween, KC. Hope you're not too busy to enjoy yourself. ~ Flameviper 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia Users - Adoption

Hello, I am a freelance writer working on an article about the wide array of people who make Wikipedia their life, their passion, their pastime. Wikipedia “addicts” if you will. I'm also looking at all the "behind the scenes" goings on at Wikipedia that the average reader of the site never knows about. I intend on focusing a little on several of the unofficial Wikipedia organizations that members are a part of such as Esperenza et al. To this end I would like to speak to you about your participation in the "Adoption Program". If you are interested in participating, please email me at brianwrites@gmail.com FFFearlesss 20:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Independence

When I adopted you, I expected you to be a noobish newcomer. But you turned out to be pretty good with Wikipedia. Actually, you've never asked me for help at all! I applaud your independence, KC. ~ Flameviper 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)