User talk:Chuck Marean/Archive01


 * 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 .  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 Wikipedia 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&mdash;after all, the symbiosis here continues only if new users happen upon things they enjoy and contribute therefore to the encyclopedia&mdash;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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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&mdash;not only those who are intentionally so but those who are recklessly or even knowingly so, irrespective of good faith&mdash;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)
 * 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)

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 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)

Regarding "Help:Editing"
Comments have been made regarding your contributions. Please go to the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Editing#Regarding_.22Help:Editing.22 --Wai Wai 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Policy
Before making substantive changes to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)