Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZimZalaBim (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 5 July 2006 (→[]: fixing a link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived talk

This user lives in the United States of America.

I discovered this site while looking for civilized material to practice typing with. When I clicked the link to 💕, a logo appeared with ten languages around it. I began reading about the site and discovered that anyone can edit. I read more, got an account and found a few things that needed editing. I also found that because of differences of opinion, there might always be a few things that need editing. So I guess the point of this site is the editing itself, and the trusting of people. Also, it's got material to practice typing with.

TfD nomination of Template:Misplaced Pages Tutorial

Template:Misplaced Pages Tutorial has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Quiddity 19:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Help page editing

Help:Editing. The very first line reads:

This is a copy of the master help page at Meta. Do not edit this copy.

I'll ask you for a fifth time: Please stop editing the help pages. Just because this isnt a 'friendly' request, that doesnt mean you can ignore it. -Quiddity 19:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Parts of it is a copy. An editor needs to be on meta to edit those parts. The parts that are not at meta are capable of being edited. There was a big space next to the side bar, which needed to be filled with something. My last edit put the basic markup there. It looks a lot better.--Chuck Marean 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. PLEASE STOP. Your edits to the help pages are not beneficial to anyone else. I've requested politely six times now, if you persist I will be forced to seek a block against your editing them. -Quiddity 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What I've read says to edit. You should't try to boss people around. They won't like you.--Chuck Marean 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your other edits were, I sincerely believe, made in good faith; about this one I'm not sure, but I must say that it appears to be a WP:POINT issue and that, as Quiddity says, such disruptive behavior is looked upon with disfavor. Joe 21:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've read says go ahead and do a good edit.--Chuck Marean 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, this is wildly inappropriate and appears to constitute trying to make a point. I think that most other editors have been more than patient with you. Avogadro 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your statement was inappropriate. I suppose you think you're being funny, given the fact that this is Misplaced Pages.--Chuck Marean 05:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an individualistic anarchy. This is a volunteer-run website. And there is a LOT of reading that is (essentially) required before anyone can hope to understand the repurcussions/implications of some of this website's particular quirks, and some of the communities procedures.

If you are unwilling to read through 100+ policy/guideline/history-of pages, over the course of a few months, then you simply won't have the background-knowledge or overview-context to effectively participate in the background aspects of Misplaced Pages's constantly ongoing development. As you've said many times, you don't spend as much time on the computer as some people. This is why we keep encouraging you to edit articles instead.

If you have a suggestion, or a question as to why something is the way it is, in a non-article page, you should ask on the associated talkpage.

Articles, however, you should (generally) be bold and edit freely (whilst respecting policy/guidelines). That make things clearer? --Quiddity 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you worked on the tutorial—that new box. It's cool. I understand.--Chuck Marean 07:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to? I havent designed anything to do with the tutorial. -Quiddity 09:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits seem to be bother you. I really don't understand why, and I'm trying not to let edits of my edits bother me. Telling me not to edit seems to get me to want to edit all the more. However, I have homework that is more important, so I'll hang up and try to get to it.--Chuck Marean 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Having to fix every single one of your edits to the Help-space bothers me. Your refusal to pay attention to advice/requests/criticism bothers me. Your thin-skinned mis-interpretation/presumption-of-insult bothers me. Your inarticulate/incomprehensible and occasionally infantile talkpage replies bother me. Having to babysit you for almost 2 months now, just bores me.

We've tried to help you, and we've all been very patient with you. Personally, i give up. -Quiddity 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not polite to lie. Many of my edits have been good edits. I think it's dangerous to be rude. You should be more careful. Many people are not talkative, so you shouldn't be offended by it. It's not personal. Saying "We have been patient with you" isn't something you should repeat, because it's just as offensive to anyone as it would be to you. If you read a good novel, that might not be boring. Remember, I is spelled with a capital letter.--Chuck Marean 02:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense pages

Please do not create nonsense pages (as you did at Link title; even if the page would be useful in Misplaced Pages space–and I'm eminently confident that it wouldn't–it surely doesn't belong in mainspace, toward which proposition see, e.g., WP:NSR). With respect to your removing unfriendly messages, it should be noted that, even as I'll not revert your removal, it's not particularly decorous not to archive substantive and cordial messages with the content of which one disagrees. Xoloz is correct, of course, that one may remove personal attacks or unwarranted (or even relatively old) warnings from his/her talk page, but the comments you are removing are those that seek to offer advice and that come from many different users. No fewer than six editors, including two sysops, have expressed concern apropos of your edits, which are often less-than-constructive and in any case accompanied by incoherent edit summaries. Assuming arguendo that your edit summaries properly explain your edits and are simply too recondite for the diminutive comprehension of other editors, you might nevertheless consider writing differently, if only in order that others might better work with you and understand your edits. In any event, your personal style here does not lend itself toward collaboration, and your replies to constructive criticisms (namely, to ignore the criticisms, to address them in incomprehensible ways, to refuse to discuss ex ante substantial edits that are certain be poorly taken by others, or to reply with personal attacks –FWIW, I'm not at all concerned about personal attacks, but there are others who, rather untowardly, IMHO, will report them to WP:PAIN or WP:AN, in order that you should be blocked) don't evince an auspicious editing demeanor. Several editors were exceedingly patient with you several weeks back, and you, in turn, began editing mainspace pages and contributing productively and valuably. I hope that your editing will not once more devolve; I think you have much to contribute to the project, but if the overall effect of your contributions is to disrupt the project, you may well exhaust the community's patience and, notwithstanding the productive quality of some of your edits, be indefinitely blocked. I hope that you will appreciate that those of us who have taken the time to detail at length the disconcerting nature of some of your edits do not act out of malice; to the contrary, we believe you can become an excellent editor and want simply for your to comport your editing with some general standards for which a consensus of most editors exists, in order that others who are less inclined toward patience might not seek straightaway to have you blocked, even indefinitely. Once more, if you should require any help, please do not hesitate to contact any of the editors who have sought to help you; I would surely welcome any correspondence. Joe 19:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought giving Link title a page was a good idea because it's an example in the editing tool bar. Every edit I do I think is a good idea. Calling me or my edits names and threatening me not to edit is a personal attack. Name calling and threats isn't a good habit to get into. --Chuck Marean 00:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither did I threaten you nor did I ascribe any improper appellatives to you (of course, there is a profound difference between attacking a person and attacking his edits, but attacking should always be eschewed in favor of constructive criticism, which I've tried to offer); I used nonsense with respect to the page you created because it was deleted speedily pursuant to WP:CSD G2 as a test page but has, in the past, been deleted per G1 (i.e., as nonsense). In any event, I'm sorry that you've imputed threatening to my sundry messages here; I think any objective reader would find them to be exceedingly patient and would observe that not only do I not want you to be blocked as disruptive (because I think you've much to contribute), but so also am I working in order that you should change a bit and no longer be disruptive. If I thought the project to be better off without you, I'd likely raise this once more at WP:AN and seek a consensus for a community ban; at the very least, I wouldn't come here and explain to you that the road down which you are going is one that might lead to a community ban, over which I'd be sad. Each of us who acts in good faith thinks each edit he/she undertakes to be a good idea, but other editors may disagree with our judgments, and where several otherwise respected and level-headed editors appreciate a troubling pattern with respect to certain of our edits, we would do well to consider what others have to say. One should, as I noted before, be bold, and, where one believes an edit will improve the encyclopedia, he/she should always make it. Once others have civilly expressed disagreement, though, he/she should seek to discuss; in any event, one needn't to panic and defend his/her revisions at all costs. Once more, if you should require any assistance, please feel free to ask (I'm certainly not infallible or omniscient, and I surely don't pretend to be, but I'm always willing to offer–and accept–advice). Joe 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to give uncommon words a context. If what comes before or after such a word gives its meaning, that is nice and helpful.--Chuck Marean 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Staying cool

Hi Chuck. I've noticed some of the recent comments on your talk page, along with some of your replies and actions, and I want to remind you to stay cool and remain civil when participating in this community. As I've mentioned before , blanking talk pages is generally frowned upon, especially when they contain helpful advice and guidance as you learn the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Your edit summary here indicates that you refuse to archive "unfriendly messages." I urge you to review these messages again as they seem to be quite civil and patient. Many editors have taken the time to help inform and guide you. Please do not cast these discussions aside as "unfriendly" - remember, assume good faith.

Finally, I again urge you to continue practicing your typing and editing skills by working to improve articles in mainspace rather than trying to make Misplaced Pages- or Template-space articles view better in your Win 95 OS. If you come across templates or Help articles that view poorly, I suggest you simply make a comment in that article's talk page, and let a more experienced editor make these changes. Again, let me know if I can help in any way. --mtz206 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)