User talk:Chuck Marean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Archive

About - 7/8/2006, - 9/6/06, - 8/606, - 7/20/06, - 9/ 22/06, - 3/207, -7/29/07, - 2/5/08, - 3/8/08

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Edit-this-page-largeg.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Edit-this-page-largeg.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Musamies (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I put in the proper copyright tag for Chuck ({{Wikipedia-screenshot}}). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:95%col-begin

A tag has been placed on Template:95%col-begin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block and unblock requests

[edit] Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruption and personal attacks. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quit it. Let me edit. I might have a good idea. -- Chuck Marean 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request 1

I have never done any personal attacks --Chuck Marean 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, as ZimZalaBim pointed out on this talk page, this edit is a clear personal attack on me. Describing (again on this page) ZimZalaBim as a liar, and accusing him (and me) of leaving defamatory comments on your talk page [1] are similarly personal attacks. Gwernol 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That edit is not a personal attack. I said, "I would like User:Gwernol to stop harassing me. This Admin has left on my talk page arrogant messages which misrepresented my edits." On the other page I put the standard template which says, "your recent edits to User talk:Chuck Marean have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Also, I did not Describe ZimZalaBim as a liar; I said, "You're lying too." Sorry, I had to say that because it was true.They were not personal attacks. The statements were 100% true.--Chuck Marean 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have been trying to be a good editor. For you to say otherwise is unfair. Please unblock me because as you know, I am innocent and you shouldn't be mean to people.--Chuck Marean 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you can been blocked in truth, the administrator has been telling the truth. Just looking at your Special:Contributions/Chuck_Marean shows this. You require a consensus for major edits, as the above administrators have stated. The Helpful

One ^(Review) 12:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the policy. The policy is "don't wait for a consensus." --Chuck Marean 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS certainly is a policy - it says so right at the top of that page. I have asked you to read and follow this policy on several occasions. If you keep ignoring advice and help from people, it is not very surprising that you keep finding yourself in trouble, is it? I don't quite understand that you are trying to achieve by misrepresenting facts that can be easily demonstrated by looking at your contributions. Gwernol 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Consensus says, “Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.” Therefore, there was nothing wrong with me editing. -- Chuck Marean 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Chuck: I received a note I believe is from you, pointing to User_talk:4.241.18.128 (the note is reproduced there) and asking for an unblock. That IP is not blocked as far as I can tell. Perhaps autoblocked. But I think you (who may not have a clear understanding of how things work) are asking for an unblock of your user. I see in the discussion on this page, and in your contributions, clear evidence that you don't really understand our policies, and have been somewhat disruptive in approach. I urge you to spend time reviewing our policies and practices, if you cannot conform to how things are done, and work collegially with others, you will not be successful here. I see no reason to unblock at this time and would not support an unblock by another admin. I hope that is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I have never been disruptive at all. Look the word up.--Chuck Marean 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request 2 (by email)

Sorry you have given no reason to why should be unblocked, and unblocks are usually only carried out as you have done with the unblock template above, not private e-mails. ^Khukri 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason I gave is a good reason.--Chuck Marean 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean;

Dear ,User:Khukri

I should be unblocked because I am innocent.

Sincerely,

User:Chuck Marean

I'd say that reason comes in on the thin side for justifications for unblocking, when your editing history denotes otherwise, and as before you only read what you want to read. I wrote above, the unblock template is what is used to request unblocking, not personal e-mails. ^Khukri 08:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not denote otherwise, as anyone who cares to can find out.--Chuck Marean 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove otherwise, no one else. ^Khukri 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in the U.S. but I suppose it would be a good idea to list my contributions. That will take a while, since I have other things to do. -- Chuck Marean 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Chuck. Stop your obstinate behavior. Multiple editors have reviewed the situation. Persistently claiming "innocence" or that Gwernol is "mean" is neither helpful nor true. Neither is randomly e-mailing editors, as you appear to be doing. Take a break] from Wikipedia, learn from the block and your history, or you risk further action. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m great and you know it. -- Chuck Marean 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request 3

It was not. I have never harassed anyone. Your reference is not an example of harassment. Instead, shows that I used Template:uw-defamatory1 which said, "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits to User talk:Chuck Marean have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you." The message was put on Gwernol's talk page in response to his statements on my talk page in the section about my good edits to Template:Uw-vandalism1. Unlike Gwernol's lies on this page, my edits were good and I have never made personal attacks or disrupted Wikipedia or even thought about it. -- Chuck Marean 16:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request 4

As a side note, you have now asked for, and been refused, an unblock request 4 times. I suggest you accept the block and simply sit it out - continuing, without justification, to request a review and an unblock could constitute disruption, and your usertalk page may therefore be protected for the duration of your block to prevent such disruption continuing. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request 5

Chuck, I strongly recommend you stop abusing the unblock requests like this. Four separate admins have refused to unblock you. You have been clearly warned that you should not continue to request unblocks. Continuing along this path is likely to lead to protection of this page and possibly an extension to the existing block duration. And please don't continue to remove existing unblock requests and the block notice from your talk page. Gwernol 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evading via 121.90.255.23

Chuck, I suspect you are using 121.90.255.23 (talk · contribs) to evade your block and talk page protection in order to place yet another unblock request. (diff). It also appears you are making other random unblock requests with no reason, possibly as an attempt to cover your tracks. Stop it now or you risk having your block extended for continued disruption. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Chuck. According to this, you appear to be the victim of a vandal. I've stricken the above warning. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been reviewing my editing history and notice a few of my eddits might be hard to understand by people watching new changes. Hovever, giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I can find a reasonable explanation for those edits. For example, I once removed a link to "Help:editing" from "Wikipedia:How to edit a page" because at the time "Help:editing" was a copy of "Wikipedia:How to edit a page." That was so obvious to me at the time I gave no direct explanation of the edit. Instead, I said something like, "The articles are on Google" meaning "Why on earth would that link be there when both pages are the same." I know my intentions have always been good, so I have considered criticism and warnings to be somewhat unbelievable and definiately unfair. --Chuck (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports PNF

Hi Chuck. I noticed you created the article Sports PNF, which appears to be your summary of a book on the topic. However, as others have pointed out, there already is an article on PNF stretching, and your article seems to be redundant. I suggest you integrate any unique content from your article into that existing one (but please don't simply cut and paste it in its entirety). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, please reply to this request. Also, the article clearly does not meet the criteria for "featured article" status -- your nomination was very premature. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a letter. I favor the article I wrote. It’s longer. It has a more limited subject. I think the two articles should be separate articles. If the photo permissions I sent for arrive, I’ll add more illustrations to the article I wrote. Chuck (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Length is not proportional to neither quality nor acceptability of an article. The fact of the matter is that Sports PNF is merely your summary of a book on the topic, which is not what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. Articles are meant to describe particular subjects. This subject is a type of stretching known as PNF, which has an article already. If the book you have offers particular insights, they should simply be added to that existing article. Put simply, we don't create articles to summarize the contents of a particular book (unless, of course, that books is notable in its own right, but that's not the case here). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Chuck. I've merged some of the introductory text, the history section, and the gallery from Sports PNF into PNF stretching. The rest of your article was too much simply a summary of the referenced book, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I have also redirected Sports PNF to PNF stretching. If you have new, and suitable, content to add on the topic, please do so at PNF stretching. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Window dressing

I have nominated Window dressing, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Window dressing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)