| Revision as of 05:14, 9 July 2006 editQuiddity (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,758 edits →[]: furthermore← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:16, 14 March 2007 edit undoGwernol (talk | contribs)94,742 edits Restore blanked page | ||
| (62 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkarchive}} | |||
| {{User USA}}] | |||
| :If Avogadro, et al., are harassing you, then so too am I, and I'm a bit distressed that you elected not to include me in your <nowiki> {{unblock}} </nowiki>. On a serious note, though, I've a few suggestions that I hope you'll once more consider: | |||
| ::(A) When you are unblocked, you might do well to contribute some to the encyclopedia mainspace. To date, most of your edits have been cursory ones to various Misplaced Pages pages, most often in order that they should display better for users viewing the site on IE 5.0 and Windows 95, especially with a low resultion, irrespective of the deleterious consequences those edits have for most users. While it is important that editors here make our text generally readable—after all, the symbiosis here continues only if new users happen upon things they enjoy and contribute therefore to the encyclopedia—but readability for a few ought not to come at the expense of readability for many (assuming the two to be mutually exclusive). Plainly, if readability is a big issue for many users, someone else will make the edits you've made, and a discussion will ensue. Your contributions within Misplaced Pages space have been, almost without exception, less-than-productive, and some have been wholly disruptive. If you were contributing substantively to the project–you have, it should be noted, made some valuable mainspace edits, but most of your mainspace contributions have been unencyclopedic and been reverted&ndashothers would be more likely to accord you leeway in other areas. Where you're not contributing to the project, most other editors, quite properly, see no reason, should you prove disruptive, to seek an indefinite community ban. | |||
| ::(B) I understand the impulse mulishly to hold one's ground in the face of the objections of many; indeed, that impulse is often driven by the fact of the copiousness of those objections. Having sustained an abdominal injury while working out, I recently saw three doctors, each of whom suggested that I was exercising exorbitantly (and likely compulsively); even as I may recognize intellectually that they're right, I continue viscerally to think myself to know better, and, indeed, am likely to resume my ridiculous regimen if only to spite them. There, though, the consequences of my choice will fall primarily on me; here, the consequences of your editing against consensus and in spite of the entreaties of many other users, devolves onto the project. Even if you think everyone to be wrong, you might do well to consider that no fewer than nine editors have objected to your sundry Misplaced Pages space edits but that not one user has argued that your edits serve the project. Even if all those editors are wrong, you ought, as I've suggested several times, to attempt to convince them of the propriety of your proposed changes and, should the community still disfavor those changes, to consider whether you're willing to comport your editing with the wishes of the community or whether you might best use your skills elsewhere. | |||
| ::(C) If you should have a moment, look at ], ], and ]. You might come to understand how disruptive users—not only those who are intentionally so but those who are recklessly or even knowingly so, irrespective of good faith—are often dealt with rather summarily in the interests of the project. The fact, as has been noted here before, that many users have come to your talk page to beseech you (or, as you might see it, to importune you) to edit differently means not that those users act with a vendetta against you but, to the contrary, that they seek to equip you best to interact with the community, believing you to be someone who could contribute productively to the encyclopedia and someone who acts in good faith (especially in view of your general neophytity here). It is, I know, very easy for one to think him/herself so important or pure that others spend time seeking to bring about his demise (I certainly think of myself in such a fashion from time to time), but you must consider whether other users would in fact spend so much time dealing with you if they didn't think you could become a productive editor or if they would prefer simply to see you blocked indefinitely pursuant to a community consensus. If you should have any questions, you should feel free, as always, to write; in the meanwhile, I hope that you'll consider–as all of us should–opening yourself to change... ] 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I consider their comments libelous and you shouldn't believe them. All of my edits have been great. They probably can't think of an article to write, so have been hazing me.--] 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, Chuck. I'm afraid very few of your edits have been "great." Your responses continue to betray that you either can't or won't take the time to actually read and absorb the feedback provided to you, let alone familiarize yourself with the long-standing policies & guidelines they refer to, all of which are vital to the continued success of this collaborative project. | |||
| ::::I suggest you take the time during this block to re-read all of the comments left for you over the past few weeks to help familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines that frame acceptable participation in this encyclopedia project. Your erased histories are here: . --] (]) 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::::Your "or else" attitude makes your idea sound stupid. You can put those links on my archive page. --] 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::The masthead states "anybody can edit." That I don't have to ask permission is the only reason this project is interesting. That I can edit what I want is the main rule of this project. For you to accuse me of breaking rules is rude. Discussing an edit on the talk page first is not a rule. The rule is "anybody can edit." It means I can edit what I want. --] 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, you can edit what you want. But by refusing to work within the guiding principles of the community, you run the risk of having unconstructive edits reverted, and perhaps additional blocks. Not all editors are as patient as those who have tried to work with you over the past weeks. The choice is yours. --] (]) 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:Main Page == | |||
| A few accounts have stated, I think, something about wanting to participate in my edits. They stated as angry accusations that I have done edits all by myself, despite the Introduction and Tutorial encouraging me to do so. Their critical tone hid what they were saying, if anything. However, I'm perfectly willing to use the help me box more often. If you write a message, please consider the possibility that you're wrong and be as calm & polite as possible. | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hi Chuck. Was this edit on ] from you: ? The IP address 4.241.30.94 seems to be in the same range of ones you have used at times before remembering to log in. If so, please log in and make your comments. If not, please disregard. --] (]) 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks == | |||
| :Hi. I'm not editing any more. Please don't write or allow any more critical comments about me, as I've been using my real name. If you don't like non-experts contributing to articles and the articles changing while your reading them, don't take it out on me. I didn't invent Wiki and I'm in no position to legislate against it. I'm not going to write on my talk page any more either. It's been taking too much time from my homework.--] 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can be sure that, in view of your having left the project, no one will make any ''critical comments'' about you or your edits. I'm disappointed that things didn't work out, because there appeared to be some areas in which your knowledge could benefit the project (many ]-related subjects, at the very least), but I hope you'll find some other venue at which to share what you know. If you should ever like to come back to the project and edit in a different fashion, you are, of course, welcome to choose an entirely new username, lest users should (inappropriately) ] in view of your history, or, if you should wish to have old edits attributed to a new name, to request ] (especially if you're concerned about your having used your real name). I'm certain we all wish you well in any case... ] 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry you've decided not to find a way to contribute to our encyclopedia project. But I did notice you made a submission to the ] queue: .Your addition was to protect an article titled ], which doesn't exist. Was there a particular article you were trying to protect? If so, I can help you properly submit it. Perhaps, however, you were just being a little cheeky in stating that ''all articles'' in the encyclopedia should be protected. In either case, cheers. --] (]) 02:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Regarding "Help:Editing" == | ||
| Chuck, please stop adding the "personal attack" tag when there are no personal attacks. Please refer to the ] - you should not refactor comments on your actions - respond to them instead. --] (]) 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Comments have been made regarding your contributions. | |||
| : It says "Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content." In my opinion, all of the comments were personal attacks which had almost no factual content. --] 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please go to the http://meta.wikimedia.org/Help_talk:Editing#Regarding_.22Help:Editing.22 | |||
| --] 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Changes to Policy == | ||
| Before making substantive changes to Misplaced Pages policy (such as you did to the ]) its usual practice to discuss these on the appropriat talk page first. Thanks, ] 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Chuck: Twice now you have removed large discussions from your talk page and , claiming, in general, that you've been the victim of "unfriendly messages," "personal attacks" and that they contain "no factual content." Nothing can be further from the truth. Virtually all of the messages have been ], patient, calm, helpful, and yes, ??''sometimes stern, in trying to guide your usage and understanding of the Misplaced Pages project and its various ]. Misplaced Pages is ]. If you feel the need to continually ignore the guidance of other members of this community, perhaps this is not the place for you. As it is, I fear you are ]''.?? | |||
| :Hi Chuck. In response to your message to Gwernol here , Gwernol's tone was not "bossy" Chuck, and its unfortunate that you took the message in that manner. It was a good faith mention that "usual practice" is to discuss substantive policy changes, which has been pointed out to you countless times. As I've noted before, you certainly can edit any page - that's the beauty of a wiki. Just be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted if you decide not to to consult with the community or build consensus first on substantive edits to policy. Cheers. --] (]) 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::To clarify my language, I didn't mean "be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted..." to be threatening or predictive. I simply mean that you might need to come to terms with the fact that such edits might be reverted if there is little attempt to discuss or arrive at consensus. (I don't mean simple content edits, but am referring to edits regarding policy, which tend to require a little more justification.) --] (]) 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Chuck, I've replied to your proposed change to the policy on the talk page. As for your edit summary, I did read the comment and the talk page before reverting. If you seriously think that "There you go again" is libelous, then I may just have to sue you over your lack of assuming ] :-) Sorry you found my previous comment bossy, as Michael points out above I was trying to help you understand how things work around here and how you can be more effective in pursuing changes. As with any group effort there are customs and rules that have evolved here. If you rush in where angels fear to tread, you are going to rub folks up the wrong way and get into trouble. Good luck, ] 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You wrote: | |||
| But, let's assume that best and hope you want to stick around and make positive contributions to this encyclopedia project. In that spirit, let me remind you of a few helpful pages: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| *While you should ] with edits, it is best to ] | |||
| ''I think people should avoid name-calling, incluing implied. If I said to you, "Just be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted," I think you would consider it insulting because you would think it implys you make "unconstructive edits." Also, that '"usual practice' is to discuss substantive policy changes, which has been pointed out to you countless times" doesn't agree with what I've read of the policy. I don't think it's usual practice and I don't know if it would be a good idea because it would limit editing to people on Misplaced Pages all day. A good edit is a good edit, whether discussed or not, and I'm not sure what you mean by discuss. It sounds like you mean a lot of messages, which again would limit editing to people who are on Misplaced Pages a lot. I've read that we explain our edits in the Edit summary box, and if we need more than 200 alphabet letters we continue on the talk page. Simply reverting a page without even reading the edit or because it wasn't discussed doesn't seem right to me. If a page doesn't need any editing, it wouldn't be possible to edit the page.--Chuck Marean 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| As always, please let me know if I can help in any way. --] (]) 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've used italics to show the parts of you're message I consider to be the wrong kind of bold. Using the word to mean impertinent is old fashioned. The modern meaning of the word is confident. I think they mean be confident.--] 05:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The point you are misunderstanding, is that "they" is represented by us. This is a completely volunteer-powered project. The community only works because we stick by the policies/habits/prior-decisions/principles (whatever you want to call them) a sample of which is linked above. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is only able to maintain its consistent improvement and appearance, and its international appeal, through those same principles. | |||
| ::You are chatting here with aussies and brits and canucks and danes and who knows what else... We are the people who sweep the floors and do the paperwork for this fascinating place. | |||
| ::Because this is such an international project, we often try to use a very formal and unambiguous way of phrasing/explaining/discussing things with eachother. This can sometimes strike people as bossy/rude, but is almost never intended that way. Especially, we don't tend to use subtle sarcasm, which I think is what you intended in the above comment, and possibly how you were assuming the "tone" to be in much earlier messages from us to you? It's simply too unlikely to get across cultural/linguistic barriers. That is the secondary meaning of "assume good faith": please please read all past/future comments on talk pages with the assumption that they were written with a positive spirit/tone/inflection/smile, and with only the best purposes of the project in mind. We all just want this to be the most profoundly important encyclopedia ever created, and would like you and everyone else in the world to help. And that works the most smoothly, if we follow these oft-mentioned routines/habits/policies/principles. That's why it all works. Sincerely, -] 06:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::(After edit conflict with Quiddity, who, from what I can tell, says the same things as I, only much more cogently and succinctly ...) It is altogether fine to construe ] to mean that, pace Mtz, one need not to seek a consensus to implement otherwise contentious edits or to contravene policies and guidelines that command the support of most editors. It is not fine, though, to act on that construction. You seem genuinely not to comprehend exactly what the project is all about, and your response to Mtz certainly helps one better to understand the problems that you have encountered or engendered here. | |||
| :::The ''they'' whom you reference is not, as you might understand it, some supreme entity (à la Jimbo) or some nebulous, largely unseen uber-deity for whom we toil; it is by and through the consent of most editors, in view of encyclopedic principles and purposes, that policies and guidelines are promulgated. To be sure, some users (e.g., sysops, bureaucrats, ArbCommers, oversight users) are invested with certain tools that other users do not have (although, of course, these tools mainly oblige one to undertake onerous tasks), but there is no ''they'' for whom we edit, and so ''be bold'' ought to be understood in view of the beliefs of most editors here, as expressed through their accession to such principles as ]. | |||
| I agree about name calling. Perhaps you might like to consider the effect of calling my edits "bossy"? Since I never said "be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted" nor did I say "which has been pointed out to you countless times" so I can't comment on those. However it is usual practice to discuss ''policy'' changes before implementing them. You are indeed free to ] and make edits regardless, but why does it surprise you if people then go ahead and are bold right back. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and so forth. | |||
| :::You will, I hope, note that the ''be bold'' qua undertake to make vast, productive changes imperative suggests also that one not be reckless (contra your interpretation that bold need only to mean ''confident'', irrespective of the consequences of one's actions); indeed, it is suggested that if one is to edit substantially a page on a controversial topic, he/she first review the page history and talk page and, most importantly, discuss changes that have been reverted prior to revert-warring (toward which see ]). BB also suggests that it is usually worth discussing ex ante major changes to frequently-used pages. | |||
| All that aside, what I mean by discussed is you go to the talk page of the article and say something like "Hey, I think the policy is wrong. Here's what's wrong ... here's a proposal to fix it ..." and wait to see if the proposed fix is supported. Other editors will either support fully or partly, may suggest changes to your proposal or may disagree with it entirely. Assuming some form of ] is reached, you then make the change. That way not only is there much less chance that someone will simply revert your change, but you'll get the benefit of the views of others on your proposal. | |||
| :::In any event, though, the letter of BB isn't particularly important here, and we often ] toward encyclopedic ends. Your understanding of Misplaced Pages, though, is fundamentally inconsistent with that of most users. There's nothing wrong with that, and I expect that I'd have great sympathy for many of your views apropos of the construction of a wiki, et cetera. The solution, though, is not to seek to impose a scheme about which even you would concede there is no consensus. Instead, you ought (a) to comport your editing with that which other editors have asked of you (very generally), mainly with an eye toward implementing changes that aren't likely to be particularly controversial or tend not to improve the encyclopedia, in order that you might benefit from the symbiotic relationship that many of us enjoy with WP; (b) if you should not be a fan of how things work here and don't desire to compromise your ideals/style of work, to find a different project online of which to partake (there are many, and there are surely some with which your style might better fit); (c) edit here productively, working with other editors, and attempt concomitantly to change the minds of other editors as to how we ought to do things ] concedes that nothing here, given the nature of a wiki, is immutable, and so if you think there is a way to improve the encyclopedia but know that there isn't support for its implementation right now, it's altogether fine for you to work ''discursively'' (cf., ''by force'') toward that support]. | |||
| This particularly applies to policy pages, because they are the rules that guide everything else on Misplaced Pages. The policies and guidelines are the community's jointly agreed principles. On article pages the usual practice is that you only need to discuss major and/or controversial changes before making them. | |||
| :::I apologize for having gone on at length. I have tried, FWIW, to avoid using ''uncommon words'', since you've previously expressed a preference for my writing in such a fashion that the meaning of any particular term might be divined from its context. I hope you will realize that users whom others write off as problematic (in some cases wrongly, such that the project suffers) are often blocked summarily and that the fact that many of us take time to write you here means not that we've a vendetta against you but that, to the contrary, we want you to stay. If you are amenable to discussion, collaboration, and compromise, I'm certain you'll be a fine Wikipedian; if not, this may not be the place for you. ] 06:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The following quotes are the parts of your letter I find impertinent:from first paragraph"otherwise contentious edits or to contravene policies and guidelines that command the support of most editors. It is not fine, though, to act on that construction. You seem genuinely not to comprehend exactly what the project is all about,"THIRD"not be reckless (contra your interpretation that bold need only to mean confident, irrespective of the consequences of one's actions"FOURTH"The solution, though, is not to seek to impose a scheme about which even you would concede there is no consensus. Instead, you ought (a) to comport your editing with that which other editors have asked of you (very generally), mainly with an eye toward implementing changes that aren't likely to be particularly controversial or tend not to improve the encyclopedia,""cf" ? "discursively" = " by force"? Fifth Paragraph"I hope you will realize that users whom others write off as problematic (in some cases wrongly, such that the project suffers) are often blocked summarily and that the fact that many of us take time to write you here means not that we've a vendetta against you but that, to the contrary, " I consider the above comments to contain false accusations for which the rest of the letter is balling me out. The letter is being bold in the impudent sense of the word. It isn't as inflammatory as the Declaration of Independence, but it does need a more realistic, friendly tone. Also, I've read Misplaced Pages statements along the lines of "Don't worry about goofing up an edit. Edit something. You can't break Misplaced Pages. You can't own a page. Don't be rude. And so on." The directions I've read do not support the idea of submitting my edit ideas to page watchers first. Getting incoherently mad that I don't is therefore ridiculous. The directions could use something like "People are encouraged to edit Misplaced Pages, so if your writing is edited don't be offended." By the way, I looked up cf and it's an abbreviation of Latin for compare. Discursive means by reasoning or thinking. So, I'm not sure what you meant by force.--] 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Chuck, ''please'' ] with all these comments. Regarding your concerns that "submitting my edit ideas to page watchers" is inconsistent with the spirit of "people are encouraged to edit," please take the time to read this guideline that has been pointed out to you repeatedly: ]. It states, in part: ''"we highly recommend that users not make these sort of style edits unilaterally or on a whim. This may seem to violate the spirit of the Wiki, but the resulting hodgepodge of design elements that are not cohesively linked, formatted, colored, and organized far outweighs this philosophical consideration. Instead, we encourage discussing changes on the appropriate talk page, and creating a draft in a sandbox. This encourages consensus and would avoid a gradual erosion of the page's design by many uncollaborative edits."'' Please try to understand the reasoning here. --] (]) 12:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've had time to read the Introduction and the Tutorial. I've read them twice because several weeks after I discovered Misplaced Pages, I noticed that boxes had appeared around the pages of the introduction and the tutorial. I'm unaware of who put them there, and I don't know or care whether or not a discussion about them had been going on. I later went to look at those boxes, and the first page was five feet wide. I did not cause it to be that way, and I asked for it to be repaired. I put a helpme box on it's talk page, because I was unable to repair the page and that's when all the criticism started. I was doing what I learned in the Introduction and the Tutorial and other things I read by trying to repair the page. I think the boxes around the pages of the Introduction and the Tutorial appeared there unilaterally and on a whim by you and the others who have been criticizing me for complaining about the page when it was five feet wide. The overall tone of the remarks to me have been arrogant and similar to the following: "Step aside. We're using this basket now." If the above statement in "discuss And draft graphical layout overhauls" was written by you, it shows you're afraid I don't like the boxes and might revert the pages to before them. The boxes are OK as long as they don't goof up the pages on my computer. Also, I think the Introduction should be part of the Tutorial. You statements in trying to get people to agree with you should have a "this is a good idea" attitude and not an "I'm in charge" attitude because anyone's "I'm in charge" attitude is automatically rejected by me. --] 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Chuck, I meant that, where you disagree with extant policies or guidelines (or, more generally, the views of most editors as to how things ought, on the whole, to work), you should attempt to convince others of the propriety of your views not by repeatedly reverting or continuing to make controversial edits (''by force'') but through discussion (''discursively''). ] 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If an edit of mine because of itself turns out to be controversial, I've noticed the page is sometimes reverted to before the edit instead of being edited. Also some pages seemed to be reverted to before my edit because it was my edit, and there have been messages left on my page stating the reverter doesn't want me to edit. I have not reverted pages very often and I have not made any bad edits, and I don't think an edit should be considered controversial to have a discussion. Discussing and edit before making it does not agree with extant policies or guidelines or the views of most editors, although it might sound like a good idea if presented in a polite way and at the introductory level. --] 18:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Again I did read your edit before reverting it, please stop accusing me of that. You'll find my full reasoning on the WP:VAN talk page. Thanks, ] 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| Please stop. If you continue to ] pages, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Test3 (Third level warning) --> -- ] 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page == | |||
| ] This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you ] a page, you ''will'' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Test4 (Fourth level warning) --> -- ] 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Chuck, what is the purpose of these edits? (with edit summary of "A picture is worth a thousand words. This edit is a suggestion.") and (with edit summary of "It turns our to be called Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers"). Please explain. --] (]) 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Chuck, you left this message on Gwernol's talk page in response my comment that you had deleted your talk page history: ''"I don't like a long talk page"'' That's a perfectly legitimate reason to archive one's talk page, but you never gave that reasoning before. It seemed to have more do to with not wanting to read "harassing messages" or something like that. No biggie. Your old talk history is currently archived on top of the page for easy access. Feel free to drop me a line if you need help with anything. Happy editing! --] (]) 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| ::::I think, that Chuck thinks help:editing is only linked to via the words "''Editing help''" next to the "save changes" button in the editing layout. Chuck, there are dozens of links-to and contexts-in-which any given help page might be linked, and this is just one more reason why it is better to not meddle in the help system until you actually understand the place top-to-bottom. -] 05:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Additionally, Chuck, this edit to ] is ] and ]: . Omniplex left standard warning messages on your talk page due to your drastic removal and redirect of content from ] (along with unintelligible edit summaries). Replying by placing the same tags on Omniplex's talk page is ''not'' the appropriate response if you want to maintain good standing in this community. --] (]) 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Omniplex left libelous warning messages on my talk page, calling my edits vandalism. They were wrong. I could in fact sue the foundation because of them if I could afford to.--] 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, he left standard community warning templates. I would leave ] right here, if i thought it would get the point across, but I doubt that it could, as you seem willfully stubborn. -] 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:16, 14 March 2007
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chuck Marean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- If Avogadro, et al., are harassing you, then so too am I, and I'm a bit distressed that you elected not to include me in your {{unblock}} . On a serious note, though, I've a few suggestions that I hope you'll once more consider:
- (A) When you are unblocked, you might do well to contribute some to the encyclopedia mainspace. To date, most of your edits have been cursory ones to various Misplaced Pages pages, most often in order that they should display better for users viewing the site on IE 5.0 and Windows 95, especially with a low resultion, irrespective of the deleterious consequences those edits have for most users. While it is important that editors here make our text generally readable—after all, the symbiosis here continues only if new users happen upon things they enjoy and contribute therefore to the encyclopedia—but readability for a few ought not to come at the expense of readability for many (assuming the two to be mutually exclusive). Plainly, if readability is a big issue for many users, someone else will make the edits you've made, and a discussion will ensue. Your contributions within Misplaced Pages space have been, almost without exception, less-than-productive, and some have been wholly disruptive. If you were contributing substantively to the project–you have, it should be noted, made some valuable mainspace edits, but most of your mainspace contributions have been unencyclopedic and been reverted&ndashothers would be more likely to accord you leeway in other areas. Where you're not contributing to the project, most other editors, quite properly, see no reason, should you prove disruptive, to seek an indefinite community ban.
- (B) I understand the impulse mulishly to hold one's ground in the face of the objections of many; indeed, that impulse is often driven by the fact of the copiousness of those objections. Having sustained an abdominal injury while working out, I recently saw three doctors, each of whom suggested that I was exercising exorbitantly (and likely compulsively); even as I may recognize intellectually that they're right, I continue viscerally to think myself to know better, and, indeed, am likely to resume my ridiculous regimen if only to spite them. There, though, the consequences of my choice will fall primarily on me; here, the consequences of your editing against consensus and in spite of the entreaties of many other users, devolves onto the project. Even if you think everyone to be wrong, you might do well to consider that no fewer than nine editors have objected to your sundry Misplaced Pages space edits but that not one user has argued that your edits serve the project. Even if all those editors are wrong, you ought, as I've suggested several times, to attempt to convince them of the propriety of your proposed changes and, should the community still disfavor those changes, to consider whether you're willing to comport your editing with the wishes of the community or whether you might best use your skills elsewhere.
- (C) If you should have a moment, look at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:RfAr. You might come to understand how disruptive users—not only those who are intentionally so but those who are recklessly or even knowingly so, irrespective of good faith—are often dealt with rather summarily in the interests of the project. The fact, as has been noted here before, that many users have come to your talk page to beseech you (or, as you might see it, to importune you) to edit differently means not that those users act with a vendetta against you but, to the contrary, that they seek to equip you best to interact with the community, believing you to be someone who could contribute productively to the encyclopedia and someone who acts in good faith (especially in view of your general neophytity here). It is, I know, very easy for one to think him/herself so important or pure that others spend time seeking to bring about his demise (I certainly think of myself in such a fashion from time to time), but you must consider whether other users would in fact spend so much time dealing with you if they didn't think you could become a productive editor or if they would prefer simply to see you blocked indefinitely pursuant to a community consensus. If you should have any questions, you should feel free, as always, to write; in the meanwhile, I hope that you'll consider–as all of us should–opening yourself to change... Joe 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I consider their comments libelous and you shouldn't believe them. All of my edits have been great. They probably can't think of an article to write, so have been hazing me.--Chuck Marean 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, Chuck. I'm afraid very few of your edits have been "great." Your responses continue to betray that you either can't or won't take the time to actually read and absorb the feedback provided to you, let alone familiarize yourself with the long-standing policies & guidelines they refer to, all of which are vital to the continued success of this collaborative project.
- I consider their comments libelous and you shouldn't believe them. All of my edits have been great. They probably can't think of an article to write, so have been hazing me.--Chuck Marean 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- (C) If you should have a moment, look at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:RfAr. You might come to understand how disruptive users—not only those who are intentionally so but those who are recklessly or even knowingly so, irrespective of good faith—are often dealt with rather summarily in the interests of the project. The fact, as has been noted here before, that many users have come to your talk page to beseech you (or, as you might see it, to importune you) to edit differently means not that those users act with a vendetta against you but, to the contrary, that they seek to equip you best to interact with the community, believing you to be someone who could contribute productively to the encyclopedia and someone who acts in good faith (especially in view of your general neophytity here). It is, I know, very easy for one to think him/herself so important or pure that others spend time seeking to bring about his demise (I certainly think of myself in such a fashion from time to time), but you must consider whether other users would in fact spend so much time dealing with you if they didn't think you could become a productive editor or if they would prefer simply to see you blocked indefinitely pursuant to a community consensus. If you should have any questions, you should feel free, as always, to write; in the meanwhile, I hope that you'll consider–as all of us should–opening yourself to change... Joe 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you take the time during this block to re-read all of the comments left for you over the past few weeks to help familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines that frame acceptable participation in this encyclopedia project. Your erased histories are here: . --mtz206 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your "or else" attitude makes your idea sound stupid. You can put those links on my archive page. --Chuck Marean 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- The masthead states "anybody can edit." That I don't have to ask permission is the only reason this project is interesting. That I can edit what I want is the main rule of this project. For you to accuse me of breaking rules is rude. Discussing an edit on the talk page first is not a rule. The rule is "anybody can edit." It means I can edit what I want. --Chuck Marean 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you can edit what you want. But by refusing to work within the guiding principles of the community, you run the risk of having unconstructive edits reverted, and perhaps additional blocks. Not all editors are as patient as those who have tried to work with you over the past weeks. The choice is yours. --mtz206 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The masthead states "anybody can edit." That I don't have to ask permission is the only reason this project is interesting. That I can edit what I want is the main rule of this project. For you to accuse me of breaking rules is rude. Discussing an edit on the talk page first is not a rule. The rule is "anybody can edit." It means I can edit what I want. --Chuck Marean 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page
Hi Chuck. Was this edit on Talk:Main Page from you: ? The IP address 4.241.30.94 seems to be in the same range of ones you have used at times before remembering to log in. If so, please log in and make your comments. If not, please disregard. --mtz206 (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not editing any more. Please don't write or allow any more critical comments about me, as I've been using my real name. If you don't like non-experts contributing to articles and the articles changing while your reading them, don't take it out on me. I didn't invent Wiki and I'm in no position to legislate against it. I'm not going to write on my talk page any more either. It's been taking too much time from my homework.--Chuck Marean 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can be sure that, in view of your having left the project, no one will make any critical comments about you or your edits. I'm disappointed that things didn't work out, because there appeared to be some areas in which your knowledge could benefit the project (many Bible-related subjects, at the very least), but I hope you'll find some other venue at which to share what you know. If you should ever like to come back to the project and edit in a different fashion, you are, of course, welcome to choose an entirely new username, lest users should (inappropriately) assume bad faith in view of your history, or, if you should wish to have old edits attributed to a new name, to request a username change (especially if you're concerned about your having used your real name). I'm certain we all wish you well in any case... Joe 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry you've decided not to find a way to contribute to our encyclopedia project. But I did notice you made a submission to the Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection queue: .Your addition was to protect an article titled All articles, which doesn't exist. Was there a particular article you were trying to protect? If so, I can help you properly submit it. Perhaps, however, you were just being a little cheeky in stating that all articles in the encyclopedia should be protected. In either case, cheers. --mtz206 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can be sure that, in view of your having left the project, no one will make any critical comments about you or your edits. I'm disappointed that things didn't work out, because there appeared to be some areas in which your knowledge could benefit the project (many Bible-related subjects, at the very least), but I hope you'll find some other venue at which to share what you know. If you should ever like to come back to the project and edit in a different fashion, you are, of course, welcome to choose an entirely new username, lest users should (inappropriately) assume bad faith in view of your history, or, if you should wish to have old edits attributed to a new name, to request a username change (especially if you're concerned about your having used your real name). I'm certain we all wish you well in any case... Joe 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "Help:Editing"
Comments have been made regarding your contributions. Please go to the http://meta.wikimedia.org/Help_talk:Editing#Regarding_.22Help:Editing.22 --Wai Wai 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Changes to Policy
Before making substantive changes to Misplaced Pages policy (such as you did to the vandalim) its usual practice to discuss these on the appropriat talk page first. Thanks, Gwernol 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Chuck. In response to your message to Gwernol here , Gwernol's tone was not "bossy" Chuck, and its unfortunate that you took the message in that manner. It was a good faith mention that "usual practice" is to discuss substantive policy changes, which has been pointed out to you countless times. As I've noted before, you certainly can edit any page - that's the beauty of a wiki. Just be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted if you decide not to to consult with the community or build consensus first on substantive edits to policy. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify my language, I didn't mean "be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted..." to be threatening or predictive. I simply mean that you might need to come to terms with the fact that such edits might be reverted if there is little attempt to discuss or arrive at consensus. (I don't mean simple content edits, but am referring to edits regarding policy, which tend to require a little more justification.) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, I've replied to your proposed change to the policy on the talk page. As for your edit summary, I did read the comment and the talk page before reverting. If you seriously think that "There you go again" is libelous, then I may just have to sue you over your lack of assuming good faith :-) Sorry you found my previous comment bossy, as Michael points out above I was trying to help you understand how things work around here and how you can be more effective in pursuing changes. As with any group effort there are customs and rules that have evolved here. If you rush in where angels fear to tread, you are going to rub folks up the wrong way and get into trouble. Good luck, Gwernol 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You wrote:
I think people should avoid name-calling, incluing implied. If I said to you, "Just be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted," I think you would consider it insulting because you would think it implys you make "unconstructive edits." Also, that '"usual practice' is to discuss substantive policy changes, which has been pointed out to you countless times" doesn't agree with what I've read of the policy. I don't think it's usual practice and I don't know if it would be a good idea because it would limit editing to people on Misplaced Pages all day. A good edit is a good edit, whether discussed or not, and I'm not sure what you mean by discuss. It sounds like you mean a lot of messages, which again would limit editing to people who are on Misplaced Pages a lot. I've read that we explain our edits in the Edit summary box, and if we need more than 200 alphabet letters we continue on the talk page. Simply reverting a page without even reading the edit or because it wasn't discussed doesn't seem right to me. If a page doesn't need any editing, it wouldn't be possible to edit the page.--Chuck Marean 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree about name calling. Perhaps you might like to consider the effect of calling my edits "bossy"? Since I never said "be prepared to have unconstructive edits reverted" nor did I say "which has been pointed out to you countless times" so I can't comment on those. However it is usual practice to discuss policy changes before implementing them. You are indeed free to be bold and make edits regardless, but why does it surprise you if people then go ahead and are bold right back. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and so forth.
All that aside, what I mean by discussed is you go to the talk page of the article and say something like "Hey, I think the policy is wrong. Here's what's wrong ... here's a proposal to fix it ..." and wait to see if the proposed fix is supported. Other editors will either support fully or partly, may suggest changes to your proposal or may disagree with it entirely. Assuming some form of consensus is reached, you then make the change. That way not only is there much less chance that someone will simply revert your change, but you'll get the benefit of the views of others on your proposal.
This particularly applies to policy pages, because they are the rules that guide everything else on Misplaced Pages. The policies and guidelines are the community's jointly agreed principles. On article pages the usual practice is that you only need to discuss major and/or controversial changes before making them.
Again I did read your edit before reverting it, please stop accusing me of that. You'll find my full reasoning on the WP:VAN talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk page
Hi Chuck, you left this message on Gwernol's talk page in response my comment that you had deleted your talk page history: "I don't like a long talk page" That's a perfectly legitimate reason to archive one's talk page, but you never gave that reasoning before. It seemed to have more do to with not wanting to read "harassing messages" or something like that. No biggie. Your old talk history is currently archived on top of the page for easy access. Feel free to drop me a line if you need help with anything. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)