User talk:Dcharris1

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page J. I. Packer, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 20:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Driscoll. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at J. I. Packer, you may be blocked from editing. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at J. I. Packer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dcharris1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not think it was vandalism to remove the picture of Dr. Packer with Mark Driscoll, because my intention was (and is) to post a portrait of him without another person in it. It seems to me, that Mark Driscoll or whoever posted that picture, is merely trying to benefit from association with Dr. Packer. It only makes sense that the page would be improved with a picture of Dr. Packer alone, hence I was not vandalizing the page, I was trying to improve the page in good faith. I would add that I have known Dr. Packer, so I feel license to make this change. I do not know Mark Driscoll, so I have no intention of tampering with his page. Please unblock me, I'm a newb, and I'm learning my way around.Dcharris1 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were asked to stop doing this several times (that's what those warnings above were about). You kept doing it again and again. Aside from that, we don't remove pictures just because other people are in them whose motives might be suspect. You haven't shown enough understanding of your mistake to justify an unblock yet IMO. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your request to delete this talk page

Accounts, and user talk pages, are not deleted, see WP:DELTALK, as the history is needed for the record. If you do not wish to contribute, you can exercise the WP:Right to vanish, but it is simpler just to stop using the account. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dcharris1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If that's how it is, then I'm going to stick around and argue my case more strongly.

First, I am VERY new to wiki, so I maintain that I did not see ANY warnings, only indications that someone had changed my edit back. Again, I did not see any warnings, and wiki is a very difficult site to get used to. There is no "inbox." I had no idea that I was being warned, and why would I have? I didn't do anything wrong, and I'm brand new. What website lables a person as a vandal the very moment they enroll and try to make a change??? Sheesh!

Second, I DID make the edit in good faith, not as a "vandal," because I think people should indeed have the clarity to know who they are looking at. Would anyone disagree with that? ie, Which person is Mark Driscoll? Which person is J.I. Packer? My attempt to remove the picture was with the full intention of posting another one, a better one, that depicts the subject of the article, namely, Dr. Packer.

Third, apparently I am not allowed as a new user to post a picture when I have made less than 10 edits. Well, that's crazy. The only edit I wanted to make is a change of this picture, which will imporove things by removing the ambiguity as to who people are

And lastly, why on earth do you guys have this set up so that people have to use code to communicate? Get with the times.Dcharris1 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined due to your abusive response to people just trying to help you understand the way Wikipedia works, below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I find it very hard to believe that you could not have seen a day-glow orange box with the sentence "You have new messages" with a link to your talk page at the top of the page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 14:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to this editor, sometimes when an edit takes you to a deep section link the new-message bar is not visible. Nor do new users who do see it realize that it might be something other than a boilerplate welcome message. I'm not necessarily sure that's what happened here, but good faith says we should make that assumption unless and until we know otherwise.

Because of this response to me decline above, I'm leaning towards possibly unblocking this user. However, I would like for him/her to affirm below that they understand now how they receive messages here (and this incident does suggest we ought to find a better way of making newer users aware that they have messages and what, exactly, those messages concern, especially with a lot of newer users conditioned by their Facebook or other social-network experience) and that they've read the relevant policies linked above and understand them (NOTE: Don't use a new unblock request; just follow up below).

Further, let me explain the way to deal with the issue that got you editing: If the image is of two people, used solely to depict one of them, and it is otherwise in compliance with our image use and fair-use policies, and it is technically and aesthetically possible, then the solution would be to download the image and crop the other person out of it. For example, a while back I found that we had this lovely, relatively recent picture of Anna Wintour and Alexa Chung. I wanted to use the picture as the lead image in the article about the former, which I developed to A-class status and continue to maintain and improve as necessary with an eye toward featured-article status at some point, so I just cropped Ms. Chung out of it, an action permitted by the CC-BY license on it, and we have this. See? Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to address your last question, which I think refers to the non-WYSIWYG qualities of the interface, we're aware that's an issue. We'd very much like to have it that way, but there have been some problems getting any one that people have developed to handle the templates (those things, like your unblock requests, that are inside the curly brackets when you type) which we use for so many things. If you can code in PHP, or know someone who can, and are interesting/is interested in solving this our developers would love to have you or them on board. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further explanation, which may be helpful, of the way Wikipedia works: see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you think a change would improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it; but if it is then reverted, don't just make it again, discuss it on the article talk page and try to reach a WP:Consensus with other users. If that fails, there are WP:Dispute resolution processes. That avoids WP:Edit warring, which is strongly discouraged because it means the article ends in the state preferred by the most obstinate combatant.

If you indicate below that you have read and understood this, it is likely that you will be unblocked. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JohnCD for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Jeremy - thank you for nothing.

In all honesty, I love using Wikipedia in general, and I have never thought of myself as qualified in any regard to update or change anthing in the articles I have read - Unitl I saw the picture of Dr. Packer, who is a professor of mine. I think it would be an improvement to put a portrait picture of him only, rather than the one that is currently up there, which has Dr. Packer in the background, and Mark Driscoll in the foreground. It seems appropriate to me. I have no intention of causing trouble, and never did. I am simply looking out for the public integrity of my professor, a man whom I love and admire.

As for Wikipedia's entirely non-user-friendly interface: Jeremy, again, give me a break. Every single page here looks just like a wiki info page, and there's so much text to read I have no idea where to start. Not only that, nothing looks at all like my own "inbox." Moreover, I didn't come here to register for email. So if you find it hard to believe that I felt lost immediately after enrolling, then I'm sorry you're in charge of fencing new people. My gosh, I remove a picture and I'm suddenly labeled a vandal. What's up with that? All I saw was that someone (MarB4) kept stubbornly putting the picture back. At the time I thought (S)HE was the vandal!

So please, yes, I ask for mercy, clemency, and leniency, and that you would please put me back in good standing here. I will formally submit the case for changing the picture, using the proper channel, and hopefully the world of theology students will rejoice at not having to look at Mark Driscoll when they are wanting to learn about J.I. Packer.

That's my piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcharris1 (talk • contribs)

Um, I had gently suggested that you not use another unblock request to follow up as long as the previous one remained open. You did it anyway. Some administrators dislike this.

And I am now a little concerned by a) the fact that you went after Jeremy in your second open unblock request, even though he had not responded to other comments here, and b) your overall mildly combative tone. Per the first, take heed of the advice here; per the second, I commend you to this page. I'm beginning to be concerned about how you might handle disputes with other editors, and having some third thoughts. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the second unblock request to a mere comment. Dcharris1 - I urge you to read the many pieces of advice that you were given. One of them basically flat out said "understand WP:CONSENSUS, and tell us you understand it, and you will be unblocked" ... you turn around and complain about things instead. We're bending over backwards to help you, a new editor, actually learn how to use this entire site properly, and you're complaining about everyone who helps you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if that's how things are, just please delete my user page. I'm not interested in impressing you or anyone here with etiqute. If this is how people are treated when they log onto Wikipedia - assumed guitly at the outset and then lectured by a group of strangers, then called a liar - then please do me the kindness of deleting my user page. I would happily, at my own leisure, take the time to learn and study up on how to do this correctly, but if I've got to brown-nose and convince every mod on here that I'm honest and legitimate, then please - remove my page. In my view this whole "jury trial" is counter to the spirit of the internet.

And by the way, yes you DO remove user pages: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_my_page_deleted%3F

So please remove mine. I want nothing to do with this site anymore, thanks to you self-appointed internet cops.

Did anyone here, Dcharris included, think about simply cropping Driscoll out of the offending photograph? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yes. I did, if you had read my response above with the same deliberate care with which I wrote it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I skimmed the discussion above – sorry 'bout that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ME: Yeah, but why do that? There are 1000 pictures of Packer out there. Here's just one -- http://www.theopedia.com/J.I._Packer

The people at Theopedia know how to do this. Why is it so difficult? The thing that gets me is this is a no-brainer, accept for all these self-righteous mods who have their heads up their asses. Dcharris

Replacing the picture with a better one would be fine - but just removing the existing one rather than replacing it is not. And edit-warring over it is definitely not fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? is about deleting articles, not User Talk pages -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ME: Well then here's an idea - why not one of you geniuses who has the power to block people upload it? You certanly are great at PREVENTING people from making improvements.

Oh, and by the way, Boing, the point is, it can be done:

"Deleting others' user pagesIn general other users' user pages are managed by that user. Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion (see above). However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}, {{db-copyvio}} or {{db-G11}}, other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion.

Take special care to speak appropriately and explain the concern; many users will take it as a personal affront or attack if an unknown user announces they are going to delete a userspace image or page and an uncivil or heavy duty approach can discourage new users who are unaware of expectations and might enjoy contributing. Remember that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two are usually allowed if the page reasonably complies with other requirements.

Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion, although clear advertising and promotional use is. The only CSD exceptions are that test edits and the re-creation of deleted material (within limits) are permitted in user space. A user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material. They may have simply created their page as their first edit, and could return at any time. Such pages should be sent to Miscellany for deletion and the user notified as normal."

The relevant information for User Talk pages where current sanctions are in force can be found at WP:BLANKING. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I no longer care. Ciao.