Misplaced Pages

User talk:Chuck Marean/Archive01

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Chuck Marean

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chuck Marean (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 10 July 2006 (response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:30, 10 July 2006 by Chuck Marean (talk | contribs) (response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This user lives in the
United States of America.


This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Chuck Marean (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

harassment by User:Crzrussian and others trying to get their way

Notes:

  • 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.
Administrator use only:

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 ~~~~}}

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

Legal threats

Request handled by: Pilotguy 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove this template from your 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 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)
No, the masthead says anybody can edit. From your comments I gather you don't agree with that most basic policy. The comments left for me over the past few weeks are a small group's policies and guidelines, not those of the majority. They state that I, me, should request on the article's talk page the edits I think of for those watching my talk page to reject, and to stay away from editing help pages, which your group of newcomers wants to gain control of. The comments have be so libelous of my reasons for editing, they could not possibly be in good faith. They were obviously fundamentally harassment, and not fully an attempt to communicate. That's what it seems like to me. I will put the three links you took the time to find, and put them on my archive page in case I ever want to look at those comments, which I doubt I will because they are a record of being picked on. --Chuck Marean 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Category: