Revision as of 18:47, 10 July 2006 editChuck Marean (talk | contribs)3,882 edits I use the history page to archive what I'm not going to read again.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:52, 10 July 2006 edit undoJahiegel (talk | contribs)13,228 edits more unnecessary volubility from meNext edit → | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{unblock|harassment by User:Crzrussian and others trying to get their way}} | {{unblock|harassment by User:Crzrussian and others trying to get their way}} | ||
: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) |
Revision as of 18:52, 10 July 2006
This user lives in the United States of America. |
Chuck Marean (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
harassment by User:Crzrussian and others trying to get their wayNotes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=harassment by User:Crzrussian and others trying to get their way |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=harassment by User:Crzrussian and others trying to get their way |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=harassment by User:Crzrussian and others trying to get their way |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- 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)