Jump to content

User talk:Chris53516

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chris53516 (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 25 July 2007 (removed image comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

READ THESE GUIDELINES BEFORE POSTING:

This is Chris53516's talk page.

My general guidelines:
  • If you would like to respond to a comment I left on your talk page, please respond to the comment on your talk page, not here.
  • Before adding a new comment, please look for similar entries. Otherwise, leave a new comment, and I will respond here.
  • Place new comments after existing ones within relevant topic sections.
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.

Archives

re Understanding by Design

Well, yes, and all that, but you are the sole contributor to the above article.... It's a bit difficult to know where else to take it. Anyway, when you do come back you might want to expand it a bit (like you said you would in the edit summary) if it hasn't already been deleted. As it is I won't even slap a {{Wikify}} template on it so as not to arouse any attention to it.

BTW, I don't think I've ever interacted with you (and I am one of the more arrogant editors on WP) but I hope you come back refreshed and enthusiastic and stuff. LessHeard vanU 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. When new articles are made, they need to go through a process in which notability is questioned. I thought that perhaps there were others out there who would know about it and find the page. If not, then it's not really notable. By the way, you should work on your writing. Some of what you wrote is not clear (e.g., the first sentence--what question are you answering?). — Chris53516 (Talk) 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Histiocytosis

Hi Chris, Did not mean to delete references...must say, there are some serious factual problems with the histiocytosis page., Did you get the ., ? it's not a mistake. Deleting references was my first experience with posting. Decided not to share my wealth of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kristina6461 (talk • contribs).

Would you mind reading my guidelines at the top of the page??? Given the way you write, I'm not surprised I reverted your edits. Give me a break! Did you even re-read what you wrote above? It hardly makes sense! — Chris53516 (Talk) 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Reading splash screen

I added a bit, per your request. As I recall, that "screen" can be browsed as a bitmap either on the install CDs or on a PC/Mac after installation. Also, it's not fair to say the software has been made completely obsolete, as I know of a number of schools/districts which are still using the 2.x product line, as they have no funds to upgrade to the RP hosting model. --JohnDBuell 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Histiocytosis

Hi, regarding the copyvio tag which was placed on this article. (before the cleanup) Please don't remove those tags like you did but wait till someone from Wikipedia:Copyright problems clears it up. Unless it's really obvious not a copyvio, but that was definitely not the case with this article. Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard/Piano

Hi Chris The article you started List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra overlaps with the List of compositions for piano and orchestra. Are you implying in creating that first list that one merge the two presumably under the more generic title of keyboard)? If so, have you undertaken to establish consensus for such a merge? I really don't think the two should co-exist as they do at present, given duplication issues. Let me know your thoughts. I will post at the composers project page as well, so you can comment there if you prefer. Eusebeus 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had moved the piano page, but perhaps I forgot about it or someone restored it. Yes, I think there should be just one page for all compositions, especially since many are interchangeable between instruments. — Chris53516 (Talk) 18:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AS Neo.jpg

Hi, thanks for finding a free content replacement image, I already deleted the old image. Regarding the template, the current tag is sufficient. Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free media rationale

Brilliant edit. I didn't think of using <noinclude> to hide the template instructions. That was why I moved them to footnotes in the first place--I thought it was distracting to the reader. Thanks! — Chris53516 (Talk) 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad I was able to help! Taric25 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your report to WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report about 24.154.14.56 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Sorry for the templated response, but saves me typing everything out. In this case it looks like 24.154.14.56 has not vandalised since your final warnings, or for about 16 hours. Any other problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri 14:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We hatesss him, yesss, my preciousss, we doesss. -- Gollum
Very good was just about to fire off a vandalism warning at some Gollum fella. Cheers Khukri 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh heh.... -- Gollum

Make peace

Chris53516, I hope that you will consider ending your participation in this edit war. My edits to the articles you have worked on have not been personal, nor do the articles belong to you. Please let's end these shenanigans and let our WP work continue in a healthy way. I see you area seasoned editor, and we apparently have some interests in common. I would much rather collaborate with your editing than struggle against it. - Freechild 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really believe you. If you really wanted to collaborate with me or other editors, you would have discussed major changes first. If you continue to act in such a way, it demonstrates a lack of respect for others and the collaborative process.
For example, I did not want to restore "List of tests in the United States." I was happy with the more specific title of "List of standardized tests in the United States," but unhappy that you limited it to only the NCLB definition of standardized tests, which if you had read the article or any other paper on standardized tests, you would have realized that they have been around longer than NCLB or the state tests.
Furthermore, the fact that you are trying to hide that the third list you created (the k-12 test list) is not a fork of the original is deceptive. (The title of the list you created is not concise, either. Nor does it fully demonstrate the definition or scope of standardized tests.) Adding the standardized test list to the AfD is unfair as well, especially since the content is different.
Restoring the article and creating the AfD was nothing but a slap in the face to me and a complete lack of regard for communication and collaboration. It was completely unnecessary to start the AfD. I wanted to turn the page into a redirect. Did you bother to ask? No. Frankly, I do not want to work with or against you at all because of your behavior. I am so upset by your behavior that I would rather not edit the same articles you edit at all. — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris53516, I hope that I can appeal to your sense of fairness about this. You disputed my original attempt to refine the article you created by creating a fork with the same content. Then you hijacked the article I created with the same content yet again. I do see the validity of a list of specific tests; however, having a giant pile of standardized tests of all kinds? That's simply too much.
RE: the AfD, there is a process in place for removing articles and having multiple viewpoints involved - that's why I began it. Anytime there's too much "heat" between 2 editors more perspectives should be brought it. Its not personal - and I'm afraid you're taking it that way.
RE: collaboration, I am sorry you doubt my sincerity, primarily because that is the only reason why I participate in editing WP. I love the online collaboration, even when its challenging and sucks. You and I agreed quickly about creating a list on State education agency; I hope that you can see that as light at the end of this tunnel. If we're not able to work this out between you and I, would you be willing to take it to WP's conflict resolution process? - Freechild 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Subject matter. How do you know that a list of standardized tests would be too large until you make it? We should start with a general article, then when it is too large, split it up appropriately. The only tests I can think of adding to the current list are the rest of the state tests, which won't be very many.
RE: Fork. I did not create a fork, you did. The original was "List of tests...", then you made "List of standardized test...", at which time I restored "List of tests..." because you deleted content without asking any about it. Then you created another fork, "List of standardized tests for grade schools...". I made no forks, and I attempted to shut down the "List of tests..." but you had to make an AfD for it, perpetuating what BOTH agreed to be a bad title, and simply embarrassing me on the AfD, since I did create the list.
RE: Collaboration. No, I would not like to move to a resolution process. If you haven't been paying attention, I don't care about "List of tests...", I wanted to delete/redirect it. I believe there is validity in "List of standardized tests..." unless it can be shown that the page would be too big and would warrant splitting. However, that should be an entirely separate AfD. — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done. I am detaching from these articles; good luck with your editing. - – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how your behavior can be called collaboration. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on Template:Non-free media rationale

I'm not sure I understand some of your recent changes (see here). What exactly did you do? Did you changes make the replaceable part optional? Could you explain it here or on the template's talk page? — Chris53516 (Talk) 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the template still functions exactly the same way, but the Resolution parameter is now named Low_resolution for clarity (using the Resolution parameter will still work for the benefit of old rationales). I also made a couple of minor stylistic changes to make the template look nicer. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Dude, calm down. On Talk:List of standardized tests in the United States all I did was reorganize your comments. I did NOT actually edit the comments. You're splitting up a discussion about the same thing for no reason, and it's confusing. Furthermore, putting commas and periods in subject headings makes the hyperlink very odd and sometimes breaks it entirely. — Chris53516 (Talk) 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your above comment from my talk page to yours to avoid duplication. I will watchlist your user talk page for awhile. It is OK to edit one's own talk page in any way. It is not OK to change the edits of other editors on article talk pages in any way without their permission. Except in exceptional circumstances explained at WP:TALK. The subject headings work fine. Browsers long ago solved that problem. And in any case people can link to the talk page, and then use the table of contents. I had my reasons for all my edits on the talk page. Leave my comments alone. You don't WP:OWN my comments, the article talk page, or wikipedia. And please stop with the "dude" familiarity. We don't know each other, and it is uncivil false familiarity. See WP:CIVIL. Also, please stop with the "calm down" stuff. The problem is on your end. You broke the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you want to be confusing, that's your problem. By the way, you can stop accusing me of things I haven't done. I did not edit your comments in any way. Sorting your comments is NOT the same as editing them. Additionally, you have assumed that I think I "own" something here, when it is not the case. I am trying to IMPROVE Wikipedia, and the manner in which you are using the talk page is confusing. If you really want to inhibit clarity and create confusion, then go ahead, I won't try to help others in trying to read your comments. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Centralized discussion: Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea, creating discussions in separate places with no interchange of ideas. This is rarely desirable, and leads to redundant effort where an idea that has already been adequately addressed has to be considered all over again. Instead, solicit discussion in only one location, either an existing talk page or a new project page, and if needed advertise that in other locations using a link. See also: meatball:ForestFire
"If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link.
...
"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting.
"Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed. There are exceptions, however. Some are:
...
  • "When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible."
--Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

(unindent) I think you forgot to sign your last comment. Pulling info in from other talk pages is mainly what your quotes are about. And even there you would not have a right to edit or move around the comments on the original talk page where the comment was originally made. Copying them to other talk pages is OK, as long as you indicate that you have pasted in a copy. That way people will not think the editor made the commment on the new page. Otherwise it could be taken out of context. My comments did not have any formatting errors making them difficult to read. I had my reasons for creating the section headings I created, and for the order of my comments. I like your current method of connecting some sections by adding your own directional comments. --Timeshifter 15:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are these unidentified reasons for splitting your conversation? To me, it appears that there isn't one. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not waste time on this type of stuff, please. It is like arguing over the shape of the negotiating table. --Timeshifter 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone is going to waste time trying to figure out why you split your conversation. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Chris53516, just a note to let you know I appreciate all the "hunting" you've done for List of standardized tests in the United States. Also, I hope you take the concerns several people have voiced about the article in mind while you continue on that article. I left you a suggestion at the page, and I hope you'll consider it. Best wishes. – Freechild (BoomCha) 09:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada standardized tests

Hi, Chris. I appreciate the frustration that caused you to add a paragraph about Nevada in List of standardized tests in the United States. However, the fact that the state administers many tests (in fact, most states do!) does not necessitate a paragraph there. Instead, I suggest that you write an article about Nevada Proficiency Examination Program (which is linked in the list), discussing all of the individual tests that the program includes. (Similarly, Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program is about a program that administers several different named tests.) --orlady 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris53516&oldid=146995754"