Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZimZalaBim (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 7 July 2006 (→Science portal: adding back Chuck's reply I mistakenly deleted with my revert). 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. --- : My apologies, that was uncivil of me. But the remainder stands.

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)

If you dont read the summaries that we ask you to read, then we have to explain or reargue every point that led to the processes (guidelines/policies/principles) that this complex project has developed (and are why it works so well). None of the messages (up till my previous message) from any of us, were in any remote way hostile; they were us doing our best to keep you informed of why we were reverting your changes. That is why there were so many "Thanks but no thanks" style template messages being left on your page. See Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace. Scan down that whole page, and get an idea of the scope they cover. It's the only efficient way to inform the volunteers of general repurcussions they are having. That's the only other way I can think to explain it. Sorry. -Quiddity 07:28, 6 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)

You've already stated a couple of times that you don't want me to edit Help articles or templates . Doing so again is in my opinion harassment. If I don't know how to do an edit, I ask for help. It seems to me you might be trying to protect your own work from being changed. I suggest you get a web site. There, you're the only editor.--Chuck Marean 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, again, you are misunderstanding my and others' concerns. Its not that I don't want you to edit Help articles or templates, but you need to consider that the majority of your edits are being reverted (by many editors) as unconstructive. So, the advice has been to work on other mainspace articles first, while you become more comfortable with WP policies and technical elements. --mtz206 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Chuck, please refrain from personal attacks, such as your closing words on this comment: . Joe has been providing you valuable feedback and guidance, and you should consider his words rather than casting them aside so easily. --mtz206 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you notice that I'm trying to do so, despite the accusations implied and unbelievable critical opinions. There seems to be a nexus between you and the other accounts that have been harassing me. I think you have an attitude of superiority. Such an attitude can not be tolerated in civilized society. Almost every message you've put on my talk page has the effect of insulting. That sort of fun is not good for anything except receiving great disrespect. --Chuck Marean 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. --mtz206 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Science portal

Chuck, is the science portal still width-scrolling on your screen? If so, what browser and settings do you use?--ragesoss 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page is a screen-and-a-half wide. I use Windows 95 with IE 5. The top two boxes are wider than the screen. The boxes that are supposed to be on the left fill the screen, and the boxes that are supposed to their right are below them and mostly off of the screen to the right.--Chuck Marean 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You experiment with the subportals box on my userspace version as well; I created a separate one for it (User:Ragesoss/template/Subportals, which links from User:Ragesoss/template).--ragesoss 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack but a terse notice to let you know that your "fixes" to Portal:Science have been reverted because they break for 99% of Wikipedian readers. Avogadro 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. Your trying to give me a hard time, because that's the sort of person you are. --Chuck Marean 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, your comment above is a personal attack. -mtz206 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. --Chuck Marean 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To be entirely frank, you are quickly exhausting the patience of the community. The net effect of your edits, your good faith notwithstanding, has been to disrupt, rather than to benefit, the project. Because you have made some constructive mainspace edits, I think you can surely become a great contributor, but if you continue to act against consensus with deleterious effect (and, more importantly, to eschew discussion), it is certain that you will be blocked. Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in anarchy, a free-speech zone, or a venue in which those who edit with benign, encyclopedic purposes may edit wantonly, irrespective of the wishes of others; if you desire to partake of such a project, you might do well to look elsewhere. Many, many users have been exceedingly patient with you, because we see that you are acting in good faith and contravening policies not out of malice but out of ignorance of those policies; nevertheless, if you consume inordinately time that other editors might spend on the project, one's patience will run out. Joe 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joe, and urge you to re-consider his (and others') previous suggestions made to you here and . If I can help, please let me know. --mtz206 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm replacing the comments Chuck erased. There are no personal attacks in there at all. A personal attack is a highly-charged negative comment concerning a user's personality/character. The above comments are all concerning your actions, not your personality. Please assume good faith. -Quiddity 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is important to understand that according to Chuck, a criticism of an editor's edits constitutes a personal attack. I don't know whether this is a good place for you, given that there is a well-established set of norms regarding style and edits. Avogadro 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, boys. I don't believe what you said about me, & there are parts of your comments I consider inflammatory. Hazing is also against the law.--Chuck Marean 22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Message on Portal talk:Science

Chuck, you have a message on Portal talk:Science. We've tried some formatting experiments in the Portal:Sandbox and would like your feedback on how they look for you? We need to work out the formatting in the sandbox to something agreeable to you and everyone. Please respond on Portal talk:Science. Thanks. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Stumbling in

I was about to ask a very helpful guy about a graphics issue, saw a post about you (Personal attack removed) As a member of the welcoming committee (WP:Wc), I frequently drop this following link on newcomers as an aid to learning... who I hope, understand this is a community, with rules (policies), and Norms (guidelines) and expected behaviours (Personal attack removed).

In any event, see: User:fabartus/Welcome message, which I certainly didn't make up just for you (Personal attack removed). Since we aren't involved in any spitting contests, take this message in the spirit tendered—as from one trying to help the whole community. Among other things, I informally also occasionally mediate disputes as you can see from my user page.

(Personal attack removed) In simple terms: If you are making mistakes (Personal attack removed) resolve to learn the ropes better. There are plenty of us willing to help— the learning curve is rather steep, after all—as is the requisite knowledge needed to go about making quality contributions.

(Personal attack removed) If you need advice, or help, feel free to ask. But do learn from others complaints and guidance (Personal attack removed).

On the browser problems: Have you tried Mozilla's Firefox, which is free and modern and not handicapped by Microsoft's failure to follow standards? (system requirements download page) Sincere Best Wishes // FrankB 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope my edits have been helpful. I removed the link to the typing site when I noticed what it was doing. I've read the introduction and the tutorial where it encourages newcommers to edit. I try to do well. I'm aware the encyclopedia is online with articles brought to readers by Google, etc. When people revert pages to before my edits just for fun, I try not to get upset about it. I did get interested in learning about web pages after I happened to find this site. Thank you for your concern. --Chuck Marean 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Chuck, please stop adding the "personal attack" tag when there are no personal attacks. Please refer to the this page - you should not refactor comments on your actions - respond to them instead. --mtz206 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)