User talk:Chuck Marean/Archive01

Archive1

Messages

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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 [1], 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

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Chuck - I'm not sure what you were trying to do with this edit [2], 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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 [5] [6] 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 [7]. --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

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding your edit at Wikipedia [8], please don't add links to that portion of the template. The article is using the standard website infobox template [9], 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 [10], 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, [11] , 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 [User:Tawkerbot2|Tawkerbot2]] is not doing anything on my behalf - that is a bot. --mtz206 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)