Jump to content

User talk:Chuck Marean/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Chuck Marean

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 2 July 2006 (WP doesn't generally speedy talk pages -- they're good for the record. You may blank them (and refuse to archive the unfriendly message, though.) If the messages revealed personal info, tell me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed you have created the Guide to Editing. There are many similar pages such as Help:Editing, Wikipedia:How to edit a page, Wikipedia:Tutorial and Help:Starting a new page. There are also a number of style guidelines - see my post here, where I propose merging some/all of them. I feel that your guide is unnecessary duplication. Please note there is a Welcoming committee which tries to provide notices to new users such as this:


Welcome!

Hello, Chuck Marean/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 


Sorry no one has got around to you previously. I felt you might be trying to create something akin to the message above. I have taken the liberty of changing Guide to Editing to use a table I found on another Wikimedia Foundation site. I like it, but don't quite know where it should go on Wikipedia, and I thought the page would provide a good location (at least temporarily). If you want your page back, revert my changes. Finally, if you are interested in editing the help pages, consider joining the Wikipedia:Help Project. Feel free to talk to me if you need any help whilst editing Wikipedia! Gareth Aus 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Chuck Marean/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fuhghettaboutit 22:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheatsheet and sandboxes

Hi, just a cpl things i wanted to mention. I've made some comments on the cheatsheet image issue at Wikipedia talk:Quick guide.

And concerning sandbox links, the problem with making numerous individual-per-page sandboxes, is that they're open to vandalism without oversight. So horrific profanity could be left intact for indefinite time periods. This is why it's better to redirect sandbox links to the main sandbox, which gets automatically cleaned every 12 hours: as here. Thanks :) -Quiddity 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also a sandbox link provided at the bottom of every "edit page", as mentioned in the 1st section at Wikipedia:Tutorial (Keep in mind). :) -Quiddity 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Browse and Wikipedia:Browse are Not the same.

Absolutely :) but they're not Wikipedia:Browse by overview or any of the other Wikipedia:Category schemes either. There are dozens of ways to access/list/categorize/ontologize the contents of wikipedia, (most are listed at "Category schemes"), but adding additional links to each of them from each page is more confusing than helpful.

Some, like the "List of basic topic lists", are woefully incomplete; and whilst they should be linked from somewhere, so that they can be slowly improved, they shouldnt be linked so prominently at the top of a page like Portal:Browse.

What i meant by my edit summary of "those links break consistent design, there are more suitable templates that could go at the bottom or in the sidebar" was that the links at top are counter to the consistent visual design we are currently using on those pages. It would be better to add a template such as the one that appears at the bottom of Wikipedia:Browse. I'll do that now at "Portal:Browse".

I hope that all makes sense to you. Reply here, i'll watchlist for changes. Thanks :) -Quiddity 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. And you might want to take a look at How to archive a talk page. Thanks again. :) -Quiddity 18:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I've been thinking of using the discussion section of my sandbox for that sort of thing, since it's not really a talk page.--Chuck Marean 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean? Are you wanting to archive your talk page to "user talk:chuck marean/sandbox"? That would be fine too. But the normal method, practiced by the vast majority of wikipedia editors, is to archive talk pages to username/archive. And then provide a link at the top of their talk page to the old archives. See the last 2 points under "deleting": Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...
I'll demonstrate here for you, so you can see what i mean. (You can move the entire page using the "move" button at the top, should you still desire to have it in an irregular place.) Hope that's ok :)
Also, it's best to use colons (:) to indent replies on talk pages. Partly for consistency with everyone else, partly for semantic reasons (using an asterisk is only intended for list items).
With over a million participants, it's good (and complicated!) to keep things consistent for clarity's sake. Thanks :) -Quiddity 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

--To explain, My night computer doesn't get the editing tool bar. So I'm thinking of putting my notes on editing, or the quick guide or the cheatsheet, in the discussion section of my sandbox for convenience.

The archive is interesting. I hadn't thought of keeping letters. I suppose it's easier to find letters than using the history list. --Chuck Marean 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

June 2

archive

The archive is interesting. I hadn't thought of keeping letters. I suppose it's easier to find letters than using the history list. --Chuck Marean 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to archive everything immediately either. It's easier to just let it build up over a few months/weeks, then archive it to a new page once it gets unwieldy.
A table of contents will automatically appear when they're are more than 3 sections headings, so navigation remains easy.
And yeah, it's much easier than having to search the history file everytime, eg if you need to find a link you mentioned only a few weeks ago. -Quiddity 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tutorial changes

Hello, Chuck. I would suggest that you discuss potentially drastic changes, such as this one, on the talk page of the article before enacting it. I don't think it would have consensus. (You removed the sidebar that most would regard as an important convenience. Second, all of the text has been removed and I feel that I am not the only one to believe that the text was helpful in situating and introducing the reader.) I've reverted the changes and want to make you aware. (You should feel free to revert back if you don't agree with me that such a drastic change needs discussion.) --DanDanRevolution 01:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna repeat my comments from earlier: On such important pages (as tutorial, portal:browse, help pages, etc), things are in a continuous state of improvement everywhere, and many of these pages have a group of active maintainers, with a plan they're slowly working towards, or from!

Might i humbly suggest, that you spend more time editing article pages, and observing the general procedures/methodologies at work here, before jumping into fixing backend pages headfirst? Plus the articles are what need the most help!

There are all kinds of things to do and read, listed at the Community Portal.

I hope that all kinda makes sense :) Thanks again. -Quiddity 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction

Although this page is not a sandbox, the page itself urges people to edit the page and try things out. The current comment has long been the standard - short and to the point. I suggest discussing your proposed changes on the talk page.

Thanks!!! for helping revert the vandalism - since the bot has been effective at watching the page, vandalism watch requires much less effort; however, keeping off profanity and copyrighted material is a human task - so any help you could give in that area would be much appreciated especially by me :) - Trödel 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also you should review the reply to your protection request.

Why it is important that this page remain editable

The whole purpose of this page is 1) to let people edit, and 2) to show the trust/welcoming nature of the community. Unfortunately that means that the page is vandalized frequently; however, if you review the history, the number of inappropriate edits << (is much less than) the number of total edits. If you are concerned, please sign up at Cleaning Department - Dust Removal on Introduction to help keep it clean :)
For me, it is very important to remain editable, because that says to new users of wikipedia: "Welcome, we trust you, join our community and help us build the a great encyclopedia." (in a way much better than words) Trödel 07:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

June 7

Sorry. Too many messages not to answer just on this page.

sandboxes

Well, it does mention sandbox. That's true. However, computers can't read so those bots seem to be a bad idea.--Chuck Marean 01:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC) User talk

The bots are absolutely necessary - the vandalism was so much worse before they were in use - and the edits per day has about doubled. Trödel 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me users tend to select-all-delete when they start using a sandbox, so it seems to me the directions should be on a totally separate page than the sandbox itself. This would be more in the spirit of Wikipedia as I understand it. After all, any valid edit would be felt by any author to be vandalism.--Chuck Marean 17:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what your concern is. The point of the introduction is to explain and let people try it out - it gives the user a feeling of welcomeness and power/wonder (they can really edit the page). Of course some delete all the text - but the bot fixes that within 2-3 seconds in my testing - so it doesn't matter. Admins realize that users are new when they edit the introduction and don't consider it vandalism. Trödel 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • what if somebody's working on something in that sandbox? There's nothing I've read that tells people not to press save--Chuck Marean 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    I would suggest that a sandbox (by it nature a place where anyone can stir up sand) is not a good place for working on a complex task. I would use something like User:Chuck Marean/Sandbox where you can edit in peace and practice stuff with little worry that someone will mess it up by pressing save. Additionally, if someone has deleted some of your hard work, use the history to view the page before your edits were deleted and click edit this page - there you can copy and paste the text to your personal sandbox. Trödel 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've already got my own sandbox.Thanks. And,they seem to think their work is better, yet they didn't start that page either.Oh well. --Chuck Marean 17:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All those sandboxes

Hi,

I will shortly close the MfD begun on several of the new sandbox spaces that you created. Please be aware that making new test pages in policy areas is probably not the best use of a new user's time -- someone else has to spend effort cleaning up later. :) Please restrict your own "sandbox" editing to your userspace or pre-existing community sandboxes. Thanks and happy editing! Xoloz 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't get it. How to clean it could be in the directions.

Web directories

Hi. Sorry if you felt that I removed something important. For the most part, I left your edits intact. All I removed was a self-referencing sentence and the list of links. Including a list like that is simply asking for trouble, because spammers will add links to the list until it becomes completely unusable. In addition, there already is a list at List of web directories. Please feel free to improve the list (though simply adding additional external links would not be helpful). That list has been plagued by spammers, and we don't need the headaches that another list would cause. Thanks. - EurekaLott 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Eureka means external link spamming. --mtz206 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete my list again. Thanks--Chuck Marean 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Keep working at making good edits to the article but you can't be too concerned if other people modify them, especially as you get acclimated to the editing standards. For example, lists of links are very much discouraged as they encourage spam. And be prepared for people to completely change what you submit as the edit page says

"Please note:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Some things that helped me when I started were the Manual of Style and finding a Wikiproject related to an area in which I had an interest. Sticking to articles in which you have experience is also a good idea, as is seeing how others edit, and how they interact with the community through the "User contributions" link to the left of any user page. Some places where you can get help as a new user are Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, Wikipedia:Esperanza, and copying the text "{{helpme}}" into your talk page - someone will be along shortly and leave a msg on your talk page. Keep up the good work! Trödel 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
--thanks--Chuck Marean 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Chuck - I'm not sure what is going on in Web directories, but from what I can tell below you are trying to do something against the general concensus. Again, I suggest you read up on how the community interacts. If you don't you will probably end up being blocked for a day or so. trying to help - Trödel 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page: List of web directories is, by definition, a list of articles about web directories. Wikipedia is not a list of external links. If you want some of these external sites included in the article, please integrate them in a manner fitting the rest of the article. --mtz206 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting long lists of external links into the web directory and list of web directories articles. They are not appropriate, and you have been asked to stop multiple times by a number of editors. You are already in violation of the three-revert rule, and if you continue to violate policy, you will be blocked. - EurekaLott 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete my list again.--Chuck Marean 21:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil and try not to make demands. You do not own these articles, and your edits must adhere to WP's policies and guidelines. I suggest you review the five pillars and try to contribute constructively WP. Cheers --mtz206 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to your comment here [1], I urge you to assume good faith - no one is trying to own articles. Please try to work towards consensus on articles by asking for help or discussing edits first, rather than just re-inserting them and making demands. --mtz206 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to List of web directories

Your recent edit to List of web directories was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

This edit is disruptive [2]. Do not make edits in order to make a point. Please try to understand and work within policies. --mtz206 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As was this edit [3]. --mtz206 (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As I just noted above, please keep cool. --mtz206 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to Web Directories

Please do not create redundant pages, or pages that violate the WP policy stating that WP is not a repository of links. If it is so important to you that these external links exist somewhere, I suggest you create your own webpage outside of Wikipedia. --mtz206 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Merging Web directory and List of web directories was a splendid idea. --mtz206 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Chuck Marean 07:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

june 7 5:16 PM archiving

Archive

BTW, it is probably not a good idea to Archive messages and warnings for an ongoing issue. --mtz206 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to Web Directories

Please do not create redundant pages, or pages that violate the WP policy stating that WP is not a repository of links. If it is so important to you that these external links exist somewhere, I suggest you create your own webpage outside of Wikipedia. --mtz206 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, this page should not exist. It was previously speedy deleted [4], and should not be reposted. Please read the deletion policy for guidance. --mtz206 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it would get MSN and other search engines to list web directoris.--Chuck Marean 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not the purpose of Wikipedia - this is an encyclopedia. --mtz206 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I did not repost it. I was saying something different. --Chuck Marean 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing WP:NOT

Please do not make edits to WP:NOT. This is an official policy of Wikipedia that is decided upon by consensus. Please feel free to discuss policy on its talk page, or at the appropriate village pump. --mtz206 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'll edit whatever I want.--Chuck Marean 17:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
All editors help set official policy. The wording needed to be better.--Chuck Marean 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"repository" needs to be defined, since it's not english. And "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" is not worded well.--Chuck Marean 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but surely you agree that it should be discussed first rather than unilaterally changed. Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. Please try to work with the community, rather than flatly stating "I'll edit whatever I want." --mtz206 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This suggestion was made to your at least once before. --mtz206 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Merging Web directory and List of web directories was a splendid idea. --mtz206 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Chuck Marean 07:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems some editors didn't agree with this merger: see Talk:List of web directories. Both have been reverted to pre-merger state. Perhaps you should build consensus first, using the guidelines and tags at WP:MM. --mtz206 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and proposed the mergers. Feel free to comment on it at the appropriate talk pages. --mtz206 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok --Chuck Marean 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You still sound bossy though. You should change your tone of voice.--Chuck Marean 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, as I'm trying to be both polite & patient. But I do take the policies and pillars of Wikipedia seriously, and want to ensure you do to. --mtz206 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please don't mistake formality for bossiness. A formal writing tone is often the least ambiguous, and hence most common around here. Especially for interacting with new users. Tone of voice is incredibly hard to determine in intercultural communication; this is one of the main reasons behind the policy of assume good faith.
Please also recognize that you are VERY new at dealing with computers, and that many of your assumptions are mistaken. (I'm guessing you're new, because of this photograph of your monitor as a "screenshot". Which is almost as hilarious as putting a computer monitor on top of a photocopier to make a "printout" (see screenshot for how to take a screenshot) ;-)
Re: editing WP:NOT -- I'll recommend, Strongly, a third time, that you refrain from trying to change wikipedia policy and tutorial pages and the like, until you have a lot more experience, and understand Why many of the things (procedures, pages, etc) have developed to the way they are today, including the various core philosophies of this community, and the internet in general.
A good place to start editing, might be with something local to you, like San Diego, California, or something connected there. Thank you. -Quiddity 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

June 17, 2006

What does "Watch this page" mean?

I think it could be referring to the Watchlist. See Help:Watching pages--Commander Keane 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Chuck Marean 07:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Helpme

Only use {helpme} on yor own talk page, here. It is rather disruptive to place it on the community bulletin board. I will answer your question soon.--Commander Keane 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. You question was:
THE COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD BOX IS TOO WIDE FOR WINDOWS 95. WITH MY WINDOWS 95 COMPUTER, I HAVE TO SCROLL TO THE RIGHT ABOUT 3 SCREEN WIDTHS OR SO JUST TO GET TO WHERE IT SAYS "Community bulletin board".THIS PAGE SHOULD BE MADE THIN ENOUGH FOR ME TO READ IT.
Please, never use all caps like this. It's considered shouting, is rude and distracting. I use a small resolution (800 x 600) and the community board is ok - what is your resolution (check by right clicking on your desktop, then go to properties then settings. The approach to this problem is to place a note on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Community Portal) - although I don't know if it will be changed. You might also try using a different skin (in Special:Preferences) that doesn't take up so much room (eg chick).--Commander Keane 15:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. (I'm using the star to keep track of what I've already read on this page).--Chuck Marean 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit should not have been made [5], especially since you've already posted it (twice) to the Wikipedia talk:Community Portal page, which has received replies. Are you watching that page? --mtz206 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm not going to bother putting it back. Maybe somebody read it already.--Chuck Marean 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Oh, and I'm not watching pages. I'm new.--Chuck Marean 17:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you read the watching pages help page that was pointed out to you above. It shows you how you can be notified whenever someone makes a change to a page, or replies to a question you have posted. As long as you check the "Watch this page" button when editing a page (or the Watch tab on the top of the page), you can view changes to that page in your Special:Watchlist. Try it out - you'll find it quite helpful. --mtz206 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
In case you are not watching the page, I thought I'd let you know here that someone posted a response to your question at Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal#THE_PROJUCT_PAGE_IS_TOO_WIDE. --mtz206 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal

Chuck - I'm not sure what you were trying to do with this edit [6], but no, it didn't help. As noted here, your struggles reading this page have to do with your choice of operating system and browser, not the page itself.--mtz206 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC) When I was studing the page a little, I noticed this "[[Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board|Post]]" might be safer to the page than this "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Announcements/Community_bulletin_board&action=edit Post]" because it would give people just surfing the net time to notice not to type in there.--Chuck Marean 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But the resulting page after your edit [7] was a significant change in layout and general usability of the page. I would suggest that you discuss such major changes first, especially since its been pointed out to you that your browser and operating system are outdated and that it is unlikely that the layout and structure of WP articles will be changed to accommodate such old software. --mtz206 (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, please read Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, have you heeded the advice given you? Have you read Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls? You really shouldn't make graphical or layout changes to articles just so they are viewable on your outdated software configuration [8]. Please discuss them first. I'm concerned that if you continue you might exhaust the community's patience. --mtz206 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue in this manner, I, or someone else will report you to an admin. Thank you in advance. --digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Chuck! Please stop trying to "fix" the pages! When you make the page viewable for IE5, Win95, you break the page for the 90% of Wikipedia users that are actually using updated browsers. Instead of making Wikipedia better, you are making many editors take time to try to clean things back up again. Avogadro 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Some companies repair and sell used computers. This decreases the amount of electronics in the landfill.--Chuck Marean 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, you are aware that your "fixes" and other edits to the various Community Portal pages [9] [10] are being reverted, right? Please be sure to read the comments there if you haven't yet learned to watch pages, especially Quiddity's (patient but stern) reply [11]. --mtz206 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I must echo the comments supra of, inter al., Mtz, Avogadro, and Digital. As I explained here, it is eminently clear that you are editing in good faith and that any concomitant disruption is avolitional. Nevertheless, the net effect of your contributions is disruptive: even as you've made some valuable edits to articles, you have made many less-than-constructive edits to sundry Wikipedia space pages, consuming the time and energy of other editors who might otherwise be contributing in mainspace. Plainly, when a user, irrespective of his intentions, proves a baneful influence, the community might elect to block him indefinitely. I am certain that the relationship betwixt Wikipedia and you can be symbiotic; you've noted that you gain experience typing here, and the encyclopedia can surely gain from your substantive edits, and so I remain confident that no block will be necessary. You must realize, though, that your fellow editors are much more likely to abide your errors or gauche/confused queries if it appears that you are willing to embrace the collaborative spirit that underlies the project. Whether a result of intrinsic intractability, intellectual infirmity, non-conversance with the project, or some combination thereof, the fashion in which you have posed questions, edited projectspace pages, and interacted with other editors is not particularly auspicious. I do hope that you will act to comport your editing with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and, more to the point, the polite and deliberative entreaties of your fellow editors. You surely have much to contribute to the project, but you apprehend how best you can make contributions. If you should require help, I am certain any number of Wikipedians would be willing to advise and assist you, but you ought perhaps less often to act unilaterally (at least with respect to project space; with respect to articles, where your edits will improve a given page, be bold). Cordially, Joe 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to read the Wikipedia:Community Portal page with my IE 5 browser. I've discovered more than one way to do that. Whoever wrote the page is probably able to correct the page so it is able to be read by IE 5. I think the table in "Community bulletin board," under the heading "New pages seeking contributors," is the "culprit". The instructions in the template somehow affect the those of the "Community bulletin board", causing IE 5 to show a five-feet wide page. If people like the table, then somebody else will have to get it so it stops disrupting the page for IE 5 users, because I don't know how to.--Chuck Marean 05:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be fixed already. -Quiddity 05:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is. I just read it. It's an important page.--Chuck Marean 06:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Regarding your edit at Wikipedia [12], please don't add links to that portion of the template. The article is using the standard website infobox template [13], and adding such ad hoc changes defeats the purpose of using a template (ie, consistency). --mtz206 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts hostile to particular editors waste storage. Restoring link to the top ten Wikipedias, since people click the picture otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck Marean (talk • contribs)
Why are you calling my revert "hostile"? And what does "particular editors waste storage" mean? I just don't think adding a link and changing the text of an established template is appropriate, at least not without discussion first. Perhaps you could justify why you think that change from standard layout style is appropriate on Talk:Wikipedia. Or add that link elsewhere in the article? --mtz206 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, you are continuing to try the patience of many other editors. Irrespective of the quality of your edits, it is the intransigence you often display in your dealings with other editors that is most disconcerting; the project, after all, depends on collaboration, and you don't seem overly amenable to listening to the constructive criticisms of other editors. There's nothing at all wrong with your being unfamiliar with certain policies and guidelines here–other editors oughtn't to bite a newbie–but when you find that several editors don't think certain of your contributions to be appropriate, you must consider what they have to say; blind reversion (with, as Mtz notes, odd or incoherent non sequiturs for edit summaries) isn't helpful. I write not to attack you, and I hope you'll impute no malice to my remarks; I am concerned only that you are alienating other editors and that your participation continues to be more disruptive than constructive. Both for the encyclopedia and for you, I hope that you might open yourself to collective, rather than unilateral, editing. Should you have any questions, I, as well, I'm certain, as Mtz, Eureka, et al., would be altogether willing to help you. Joe 20:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think mtz206's automatic reverts are against the purpose of open editing. The comments above by mtz206 (18:58, 14 June 2006 & 17:19, 14 June 2006) don't seem to know what the edit was. My edit was a good edit. The edit made the page better.--Chuck Marean 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, I am fully aware of what your edits were. (I commented that it wasn't the proper place for such a link in my edit summary when I reverted it, and I pasted of copy of your edit above, with explanation.) I recognize that you are trying to improve pages in good faith, but as has been pointed out to you before, your methods can be disruptive at times. In this particular case, the Wikipedia page is using a standard website infobox template [14], common to most articles about a website. The top of that template is meant to be the name of the website. Changing that to a hyperlink, and adding different text is a significant change to the way the template is supposed to be used (and alters the way the page has existed for months). As suggested to you already, such changes should be discussed first. Again, please read Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls. I hope you are taking the time to read the comments and policies suggested for you. Please feel free to ask me for any help. --mtz206 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, just in response to your concern that my edits are "against the purpose of open editing," please take note that Wikipedia is not an exercise in anarchy and works by building consensus. I'm just trying to help you work towards collaborative editing. --mtz206 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you wouldn't mind this edit, [15] , which someone anonymously opposed. Also, the automated edit by Tawkerbot2 (11:12, June 14, 2006) on your behalf was clearly against policy.--Chuck Marean 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, in my opinion there should not be any kind of link in the name of the website on the template. I would likely have reverted that edit. And Tawkerbot2 is not doing anything on my behalf - that is a bot. --mtz206 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck:Any experienced editor would have reverted that edit. You are missing a few key points in our advice to you:

  • Wikipedia is not a web portal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
  • Wikipedia works via consensus and community input on each issue, until a rational and generally agreed upon course of action is decided on. This takes time, and debate.
  • 5 years of work and over a million people have added up to a LOT of intelligent past decisions, which you are not free to ignore, if you wish your edits to remain intact.
  • There is a self-consistent, and coherent, and complete, set of navigational structures that have been growing for the last 5 years, along with the text/image content. If you ignore "the way that things are done around here", you'll continue to be reverted and face conflict.

There are only three ways to learn how to work here. Either read a lot of the help pages, Or ask for personal help at one of the many places available (eg Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, Or copy what you see other people doing at good articles. -Quiddity 01:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC) See my comments in Talk:Wikipedia, automatic reverts--Chuck Marean 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I regret to say that your responses, here and elsewhere, aren't particularly clear or cogent (and this from someone whose own style of writing, w/r/to clarity, leaves much to be desired). You continue to speak past others (reflexive replies of "automatic reverts", which fail to assume good faith, have little basis in fact, and, well, don't make much sense), ostensibly failing to comprehend the advice given you (or perhaps simply ignoring it), and surely misunderstanding the collaborative nature of the project. Most editors whom you will meet here are exceedingly patient, polite, and kind and will be so to you (especially since it's fairly clear you're acting in good faith), but you would do well to consider some of the advice offered you by others. Even as a newcomer may, on his first day, edit valuably and constructively and benefit the project without/prior to learning the intricacies of policies and guidelines, but when apprised of his edits' impropriety, he ought at least to consider learning a bit about the operation of the encyclopedia, in order that his edits shouldn't be summarily reverted. As I've said before, I'm certain you've much to add to the project, and I imagine that you're here because you find some joy in partaking of the project as well. Please, then, in order that you might participate successfully, engage other editors in a dialogue; both you and the project will be better for it. Joe 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages

Chuck, blanking of your talk/archive pages, and putting them up for speedy deletion, [16] [17] is frowned upon and disruptive, especially when discussions and concerns are ongoing. An administrator has put them back here so we can continue. Further, comments like this [18] are borderline uncivil. IMO, no one has left you "angry" messages, and taking a non-responsive stance will not help matters. I urge you to consider heeding the good advice given to you above. Let me know how I can help. --mtz206 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, you are continuing to disrupt the project. Your good-faith edits are not serving to improve the encyclopedia, and your apparent unwillingness to discuss civilly your points-of-view is profoundly disconcerting. An ignorance of past practice/policies or an inability to comprehend the implorations of others (or to appreciate the specifics of those implorations) is one thing; a willing disregard of the views of the community (especially where such views are held for the good on the encyclopedia) is something altogether different. I, amongst others, have explained many times to you that no one is acting out of malice here, and that other editors will continue to be patient with you if you demonstrate a willingness to discuss ex ante major edits and to consider the comments of others. Your contumacity, though, seems to indicate that you're willing to disfavor encyclopedic concerns against personal feelings, and that's not good. Mtz and I, inter al., are as supplicants here to you. The community might well benefit from your contributions, but you're not going to be able to contribute if you continue in this fashion. I suggest that you work on an article other than Wikipedia, if only to establish that your presence here is not exclusively disruptive. You are quickly exhausting the patience of the community (at the very least, of me, as well as of several others who've written you), and you may soon be blocked. Joe 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote what you wrote.--Chuck Marean 00:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, Chuck. First you were ready to say "sorry" [19], but then changed your reply to this non-response? Your refusal to even acknowledge the community's comments on this page is starting to try even my patience. --mtz206 (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There was an editing conflict. It didn't look to me like that had been saved. Your statements along the lines of " . . .changing an established template . . ." at first sounded to me like a malicious lie. After days of thinking about it, I think you meant, "People might use that edit as a template; the pattern for that infobox has never included hiding the url from printers."--Chuck Marean 15:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll assume good faith, but if you just thought it was an "editing conflict," I don't understand why you erased it, and then inserted a completely different message 8 minutes later. Whatever. But back on point, you are not correctly interpreting the concern regarding templates. It is not a concern that people might mistakenly use you edit as a template, but that your edit was changing the use of a standard template (as I've noted above). I'm not sure if you're understanding the use of templates on pages, so perhaps reviewing this page would help: Wikipedia:Template namespace. But as Joe suggested above, perhaps you would be better off making more basic edits on articles whose topics you are familiar with, such as San Diego, California. Let me know if I can help. --mtz206 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chuck_Marean/Archive1&oldid=61688849"