This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chuck Marean (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 9 July 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:41, 9 July 2006 by Chuck Marean (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user lives in the United States of America. |
A few accounts have stated, I think, something about wanting to participate in my edits. They stated as angry accusations that I have done edits all by myself, despite the Introduction and Tutorial encouraging me to do so. Their critical tone hid what they were saying, if anything. However, I'm perfectly willing to use the help me box more often. If you write a message, please consider the possibility that you're wrong and be as calm & polite as possible.
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)
- It says "Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content." In my opinion, all of the comments were personal attacks which had almost no factual content. --Chuck Marean 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's start over
Chuck: Twice now you have removed large discussions from your talk page and , claiming, in general, that you've been the victim of "unfriendly messages," "personal attacks" and that they contain "no factual content." Nothing can be further from the truth. Virtually all of the messages have been in good faith, patient, calm, helpful, and yes, ??sometimes stern, in trying to guide your usage and understanding of the Misplaced Pages project and its various policies and guidelines. Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in anarchy. If you feel the need to continually ignore the guidance of other members of this community, perhaps this is not the place for you. As it is, I fear you are exhausting the community's patience.??
But, let's assume that best and hope you want to stick around and make positive contributions to this encyclopedia project. In that spirit, let me remind you of a few helpful pages:
- Welcome page
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- What Misplaced Pages is not
- Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and Misplaced Pages simplified ruleset
- Assume good faith
- Stay cool and be civil
- While you should be bold with edits, it is best to discuss and draft significant graphical layout overhauls
As always, please let me know if I can help in any way. --mtz206 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've used italics to show the parts of you're message I consider to be the wrong kind of bold. Using the word to mean impertinent is old fashioned. The modern meaning of the word is confident. I think they mean be confident.--Chuck Marean 05:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The point you are misunderstanding, is that "they" is represented by us. This is a completely volunteer-powered project. The community only works because we stick by the policies/habits/prior-decisions/principles (whatever you want to call them) a sample of which is linked above. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is only able to maintain its consistent improvement and appearance, and its international appeal, through those same principles.
- You are chatting here with aussies and brits and canucks and danes and who knows what else... We are the people who sweep the floors and do the paperwork for this fascinating place.
- Because this is such an international project, we often try to use a very formal and unambiguous way of phrasing/explaining/discussing things with eachother. This can sometimes strike people as bossy/rude, but is almost never intended that way. Especially, we don't tend to use subtle sarcasm, which I think is what you intended in the above comment, and possibly how you were assuming the "tone" to be in much earlier messages from us to you? It's simply too unlikely to get across cultural/linguistic barriers. That is the secondary meaning of "assume good faith": please please read all past/future comments on talk pages with the assumption that they were written with a positive spirit/tone/inflection/smile, and with only the best purposes of the project in mind. We all just want this to be the most profoundly important encyclopedia ever created, and would like you and everyone else in the world to help. And that works the most smoothly, if we follow these oft-mentioned routines/habits/policies/principles. That's why it all works. Sincerely, -Quiddity 06:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict with Quiddity, who, from what I can tell, says the same things as I, only much more cogently and succinctly ...) It is altogether fine to construe WP:BB to mean that, pace Mtz, one need not to seek a consensus to implement otherwise contentious edits or to contravene policies and guidelines that command the support of most editors. It is not fine, though, to act on that construction. You seem genuinely not to comprehend exactly what the project is all about, and your response to Mtz certainly helps one better to understand the problems that you have encountered or engendered here.
- The they whom you reference is not, as you might understand it, some supreme entity (à la Jimbo) or some nebulous, largely unseen uber-deity for whom we toil; it is by and through the consent of most editors, in view of encyclopedic principles and purposes, that policies and guidelines are promulgated. To be sure, some users (e.g., sysops, bureaucrats, ArbCommers, oversight users) are invested with certain tools that other users do not have (although, of course, these tools mainly oblige one to undertake onerous tasks), but there is no they for whom we edit, and so be bold ought to be understood in view of the beliefs of most editors here, as expressed through their accession to such principles as WP:BB.
- You will, I hope, note that the be bold qua undertake to make vast, productive changes imperative suggests also that one not be reckless (contra your interpretation that bold need only to mean confident, irrespective of the consequences of one's actions); indeed, it is suggested that if one is to edit substantially a page on a controversial topic, he/she first review the page history and talk page and, most importantly, discuss changes that have been reverted prior to revert-warring (toward which see WP:BRD). BB also suggests that it is usually worth discussing ex ante major changes to frequently-used pages.
- In any event, though, the letter of BB isn't particularly important here, and we often ignore certain rules toward encyclopedic ends. Your understanding of Misplaced Pages, though, is fundamentally inconsistent with that of most users. There's nothing wrong with that, and I expect that I'd have great sympathy for many of your views apropos of the construction of a wiki, et cetera. The solution, though, is not to seek to impose a scheme about which even you would concede there is no consensus. Instead, you ought (a) to comport your editing with that which other editors have asked of you (very generally), mainly with an eye toward implementing changes that aren't likely to be particularly controversial or tend not to improve the encyclopedia, in order that you might benefit from the symbiotic relationship that many of us enjoy with WP; (b) if you should not be a fan of how things work here and don't desire to compromise your ideals/style of work, to find a different project online of which to partake (there are many, and there are surely some with which your style might better fit); (c) edit here productively, working with other editors, and attempt concomitantly to change the minds of other editors as to how we ought to do things .
- I apologize for having gone on at length. I have tried, FWIW, to avoid using uncommon words, since you've previously expressed a preference for my writing in such a fashion that the meaning of any particular term might be divined from its context. I hope you will realize that users whom others write off as problematic (in some cases wrongly, such that the project suffers) are often blocked summarily and that the fact that many of us take time to write you here means not that we've a vendetta against you but that, to the contrary, we want you to stay. If you are amenable to discussion, collaboration, and compromise, I'm certain you'll be a fine Wikipedian; if not, this may not be the place for you. Joe 06:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The following quotes are the parts of your letter I find impertinent:from first paragraph"otherwise contentious edits or to contravene policies and guidelines that command the support of most editors. It is not fine, though, to act on that construction. You seem genuinely not to comprehend exactly what the project is all about,"THIRD"not be reckless (contra your interpretation that bold need only to mean confident, irrespective of the consequences of one's actions"FOURTH"The solution, though, is not to seek to impose a scheme about which even you would concede there is no consensus. Instead, you ought (a) to comport your editing with that which other editors have asked of you (very generally), mainly with an eye toward implementing changes that aren't likely to be particularly controversial or tend not to improve the encyclopedia,""cf" ? "discursively" = " by force"? Fifth Paragraph"I hope you will realize that users whom others write off as problematic (in some cases wrongly, such that the project suffers) are often blocked summarily and that the fact that many of us take time to write you here means not that we've a vendetta against you but that, to the contrary, " I consider the above comments to contain false accusations for which the rest of the letter is balling me out. The letter is being bold in the impudent sense of the word. It isn't as inflammatory as the Declaration of Independence, but it does need a more realistic, friendly tone. Also, I've read Misplaced Pages statements along the lines of "Don't worry about goofing up an edit. Edit something. You can't break Misplaced Pages. You can't own a page. Don't be rude. And so on." The directions I've read do not support the idea of submitting my edit ideas to page watchers first. Getting incoherently mad that I don't is therefore ridiculous. The directions could use something like "People are encouraged to edit Misplaced Pages, so if your writing is edited don't be offended." By the way, I looked up cf and it's an abbreviation of Latin for compare. Discursive means by reasoning or thinking. So, I'm not sure what you meant by force.--Chuck Marean 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chuck, please assume good faith with all these comments. Regarding your concerns that "submitting my edit ideas to page watchers" is inconsistent with the spirit of "people are encouraged to edit," please take the time to read this guideline that has been pointed out to you repeatedly: Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls. It states, in part: "we highly recommend that users not make these sort of style edits unilaterally or on a whim. This may seem to violate the spirit of the Wiki, but the resulting hodgepodge of design elements that are not cohesively linked, formatted, colored, and organized far outweighs this philosophical consideration. Instead, we encourage discussing changes on the appropriate talk page, and creating a draft in a sandbox. This encourages consensus and would avoid a gradual erosion of the page's design by many uncollaborative edits." Please try to understand the reasoning here. --mtz206 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've had time to read the Introduction and the Tutorial. I've read them twice because several weeks after I discovered Misplaced Pages, I noticed that boxes had appeared around the pages of the introduction and the tutorial. I'm unaware of who put them there, and I don't know or care whether or not a discussion about them had been going on. I later went to look at those boxes, and the first page was five feet wide. I did not cause it to be that way, and I asked for it to be repaired. I put a helpme box on it's talk page, because I was unable to repair the page and that's when all the criticism started. I was doing what I learned in the Introduction and the Tutorial and other things I read by trying to repair the page. I think the boxes around the pages of the Introduction and the Tutorial appeared there unilaterally and on a whim by you and the others who have been criticizing me for complaining about the page when it was five feet wide. The overall tone of the remarks to me have been arrogant and similar to the following: "Step aside. We're using this basket now." If the above statement in "discuss And draft graphical layout overhauls" was written by you, it shows you're afraid I don't like the boxes and might revert the pages to before them. The boxes are OK as long as they don't goof up the pages on my computer. Also, I think the Introduction should be part of the Tutorial. You statements in trying to get people to agree with you should have a "this is a good idea" attitude and not an "I'm in charge" attitude because anyone's "I'm in charge" attitude is automatically rejected by me. --Chuck Marean 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chuck, I meant that, where you disagree with extant policies or guidelines (or, more generally, the views of most editors as to how things ought, on the whole, to work), you should attempt to convince others of the propriety of your views not by repeatedly reverting or continuing to make controversial edits (by force) but through discussion (discursively). Joe 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- If an edit of mine because of itself turns out to be controversial, I've noticed the page is sometimes reverted to before the edit instead of being edited. Also some pages seemed to be reverted to before my edit because it was my edit, and there have been messages left on my page stating the reverter doesn't want me to edit. I have not reverted pages very often and I have not made any bad edits, and I don't think an edit should be considered controversial to have a discussion. Discussing and edit before making it does not agree with extant policies or guidelines or the views of most editors, although it might sound like a good idea if presented in a polite way and at the introductory level. --Chuck Marean 18:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chuck, please assume good faith with all these comments. Regarding your concerns that "submitting my edit ideas to page watchers" is inconsistent with the spirit of "people are encouraged to edit," please take the time to read this guideline that has been pointed out to you repeatedly: Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls. It states, in part: "we highly recommend that users not make these sort of style edits unilaterally or on a whim. This may seem to violate the spirit of the Wiki, but the resulting hodgepodge of design elements that are not cohesively linked, formatted, colored, and organized far outweighs this philosophical consideration. Instead, we encourage discussing changes on the appropriate talk page, and creating a draft in a sandbox. This encourages consensus and would avoid a gradual erosion of the page's design by many uncollaborative edits." Please try to understand the reasoning here. --mtz206 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The following quotes are the parts of your letter I find impertinent:from first paragraph"otherwise contentious edits or to contravene policies and guidelines that command the support of most editors. It is not fine, though, to act on that construction. You seem genuinely not to comprehend exactly what the project is all about,"THIRD"not be reckless (contra your interpretation that bold need only to mean confident, irrespective of the consequences of one's actions"FOURTH"The solution, though, is not to seek to impose a scheme about which even you would concede there is no consensus. Instead, you ought (a) to comport your editing with that which other editors have asked of you (very generally), mainly with an eye toward implementing changes that aren't likely to be particularly controversial or tend not to improve the encyclopedia,""cf" ? "discursively" = " by force"? Fifth Paragraph"I hope you will realize that users whom others write off as problematic (in some cases wrongly, such that the project suffers) are often blocked summarily and that the fact that many of us take time to write you here means not that we've a vendetta against you but that, to the contrary, " I consider the above comments to contain false accusations for which the rest of the letter is balling me out. The letter is being bold in the impudent sense of the word. It isn't as inflammatory as the Declaration of Independence, but it does need a more realistic, friendly tone. Also, I've read Misplaced Pages statements along the lines of "Don't worry about goofing up an edit. Edit something. You can't break Misplaced Pages. You can't own a page. Don't be rude. And so on." The directions I've read do not support the idea of submitting my edit ideas to page watchers first. Getting incoherently mad that I don't is therefore ridiculous. The directions could use something like "People are encouraged to edit Misplaced Pages, so if your writing is edited don't be offended." By the way, I looked up cf and it's an abbreviation of Latin for compare. Discursive means by reasoning or thinking. So, I'm not sure what you meant by force.--Chuck Marean 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for having gone on at length. I have tried, FWIW, to avoid using uncommon words, since you've previously expressed a preference for my writing in such a fashion that the meaning of any particular term might be divined from its context. I hope you will realize that users whom others write off as problematic (in some cases wrongly, such that the project suffers) are often blocked summarily and that the fact that many of us take time to write you here means not that we've a vendetta against you but that, to the contrary, we want you to stay. If you are amenable to discussion, collaboration, and compromise, I'm certain you'll be a fine Wikipedian; if not, this may not be the place for you. Joe 06:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Help:Editing
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. -- Omniplex 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. -- Omniplex 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chuck, what is the purpose of these edits? (with edit summary of "A picture is worth a thousand words. This edit is a suggestion.") and (with edit summary of "It turns our to be called Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers"). Please explain. --mtz206 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Showing my great edit idea, since only newcomers would look at that page--Chuck Marean 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think, that Chuck thinks help:editing is only linked to via the words "Editing help" next to the "save changes" button in the editing layout. Chuck, there are dozens of links-to and contexts-in-which any given help page might be linked, and this is just one more reason why it is better to not meddle in the help system until you actually understand the place top-to-bottom. -Quiddity 05:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Anyhow, calling someone a vandal is rude and a lie and allowing it could possibly get the foundation into trouble.--Chuck Marean 05:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think, that Chuck thinks help:editing is only linked to via the words "Editing help" next to the "save changes" button in the editing layout. Chuck, there are dozens of links-to and contexts-in-which any given help page might be linked, and this is just one more reason why it is better to not meddle in the help system until you actually understand the place top-to-bottom. -Quiddity 05:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Showing my great edit idea, since only newcomers would look at that page--Chuck Marean 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, Chuck, this edit to User talk:Omniplex is uncivil and vandalism: . Omniplex left standard warning messages on your talk page due to your drastic removal and redirect of content from Help:Editing (along with unintelligible edit summaries). Replying by placing the same tags on Omniplex's talk page is not the appropriate response if you want to maintain good standing in this community. --mtz206 (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Omniplex left libelous warning messages on my talk page, calling my edits vandalism. They were wrong. I could in fact sue the foundation because of them if I could afford to.--Chuck Marean 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, he left standard community warning templates. I would leave this template right here, if i thought it would get the point across, but I doubt that it could, as you seem willfully stubborn. -Quiddity 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Willfully stubborn" is name-calling too. Name-calling muddles the thinking. --Chuck Marean 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want to pile on, and IANAL, but, while you surely could sue the foundation for anything you'd like, a case based upon Omniplex's "libelous warning messages" would be summarily dismissed. There is absolutely no proper action you could essay here. Of course, Quiddity is right: legal threats or suggestions of off-Wiki undertakings (especially where conditioned in such a fashion as to coerce action ) are not looked upon kindly. If you want to sue the foundation, go ahead (remember that NLT counsels that if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so...if you do so, then you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels); if you don't (or, as you say, can't, in view of pecuniary restrictions), then don't talk about it. As to the issue of ascribing to a good faith edit the appellative vandalism: even as an edit behind which lies a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia isn't vandalism when first made, editing becomes vandalism when, having been apprised of the community's disfavoring of a given edit, one nevertheless continues to edit. The semantic discussion as to what is vandalism is irrelevant; a pattern of edits that has the effect of disrupting the project is, for all practical purposes, the same as simple vandalism, if not more insidious because one doesn't block straightaway a user who has made good contributions. I will suggest once more that you consider contributing to mainspace a bit, in order that the problems with respect to Wikispace pages should not continue to arise. Cordially, Joe 17:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I was repeating a cross saying I've heard on TV and elsewhere. --Chuck Marean 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, he left standard community warning templates. I would leave this template right here, if i thought it would get the point across, but I doubt that it could, as you seem willfully stubborn. -Quiddity 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Omniplex left libelous warning messages on my talk page, calling my edits vandalism. They were wrong. I could in fact sue the foundation because of them if I could afford to.--Chuck Marean 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chuck, what is the purpose of these edits? (with edit summary of "A picture is worth a thousand words. This edit is a suggestion.") and (with edit summary of "It turns our to be called Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers"). Please explain. --mtz206 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)