Jump to content

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Chuck Marean

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:

[edit]

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer:yes, skimmed.

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer:content dispute.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer:responded a little.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer:an end to the needless criticism and an improvement of Special:Categories.

Summary:

[edit]

Some editors seem to make a habit of challenging my edits. I wish they would stop. This time they were trying to keep me from improving the categories list. I discovered it's possible to have the special page (that's called Categories) begin with lists of categories instead of the category called Albums. Yet, they opposed the change, needlessly. Chuck Marean 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Discussion:

[edit]

Hi, I'm User:Pedant, and I'm here to help you. This section right here is the best place to discuss your issue that you requested help with, it's just for you and I, and we can discuss without extra distraction. What can I help you with? User:Pedant 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should be allowed to edit without being harassed. The fact is almost every comment that has ever been left on my talk page has been uncivil, and that should not have been the case. The latest dispute that's been going on is about Categories. ZimZalaBim,Gwernol, and EurekaLott--probably all puppets--took credit for the deletion of Category:!!!!aaaaCategories. Instead of giving a senseable reason, used name-calling and threats and demands for obedience. They then bragged about deleting Category:!Art and culture,Category:!Geography and places,Category:!History and events,Category:!Mathematics and abstractions,Category:!People and self,Category:!Philosophy,Category:!Physical sciences and nature,Category:!Religion and spirituality,Category:!Social sciences and societ,Category:!Technology and invention. Instead of giving a sensible reason, they feigned ignorance of what the categories were for and used name-calling, threats and demands for obedience. ZimZalaBim then deleted Category:! Top-level Categories ! and instead of giving a sensible reason, used name-calling, threats and demands for obedience. ZimZalaBim then admitted understanding of what they were for but continued the bullying, taking the position that the Special:Categories page being "difficult to navigate" was good. Most of the comments left for me on my talk page have been of the name-calling, threats, and demands for obedience type and many have been worded very similar, as if someone has about ten puppets. The fact is, putting a Table of Contents at the top of the Special:Categories page wouldn't hurt the page at all and would improve the page without there being a great need of it. -- Chuck Marean 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response and summary.

Category:Categories is the page I think you are looking for, (if you want the top category with descending categories inside it) Special:Categories is automatically compiled by alphabetical order, and is not intended as "the top of the category tree" (because every single category, subcategory and sub-sub-sub-subcategory on wikipedia is in Special:Categories is "on the root")... in fact categories on wikipedia do not and are not intended to form a tree, they form a 'more general directed acyclic graph' (sort of) and dozens of category structures coexist.

For instance, if you want a category tree, you can use this:

Categories
no subcategories

.

Would you please read WP:Categories before we go further, it will help us both with our discussion. I'm going to spend a couple days researching this, so take your time and read that whole page, please. If you want to change how categories work on wikipedia, like if you have an idea to make them better, Wikipedia talk:Categorization is the place to discuss it with all the editors involved in making categories work better. I can work with you on the civility issues, that's simple, but your edits to try to improve the category structure aren't doing what I think you want them to do. So you really need to read up a bit on that, after you do it will be simpler for me to help you with that issue as well.

Meanwhile, try not to get in any fights with other editors, it will make it easier on me. Thanks User:Pedant 05:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. -- Chuck Marean 09:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categorization does not say "you're terrible." It says,"Redirected categories . . . not generally recommended because . . . Articles added to the "redirected" category do not show up as in the target category." -- Chuck Marean 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Did someone tell you "you're terrible." ? Please let me know if you are still having a conflict or if you need more help with categories, or, well... anything I could do to help. Most particularly, is someone still being uncivil? Let me know if you still need an advocate for something. If for some reason you'd like a different advocate, I won't feel insulted, and would be glad to find you someone else . On the other hand, I'm still glad to help if needed.User:Pedant 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In different words, and if they claim “I’m terrible” again I intend to point it out so they notice what they’re doing. Also, today I noticed the arrow in front of a section name (on a history page) leads to that section. I decided the way I’ll start a section (if there isn’t anything to say) is to say “Started this section” because I noticed there isn’t an arrow in front of the section name where I just started it with a period.-- Chuck Marean 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are no longer having conflicts about categories, which is cool. Is there still a need to pursue the 'personal attacks issue' part of your AMA request, or should I consider the case closed, or what? Even if we close the case, I would still be here and handy to help if or when you need it. Or just want to talk or anything. User:Pedant 02:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to get there to be a link from the Categories page to the 'Categorical index' because all it said was Wikipedia:Browse. What does Browse mean,anyway. Someone agreed. It now says 'Categorical index'. Maybe that was about to be done anyhow. The part about some users trying to make me sound bad--I hope they've stopped being like that. They shouldn't hate others. They should be nice. -- Chuck Marean 08:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've recently been involved in a dispute in which I stopped being nice, and your simple advice that wikipedia users should be nice is a helpful bit of advice. We are emotional animals, and sometimes our emotions are too strong for our rational mind... User:Pedant 17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:

[edit]

When the case is closed, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:Yes.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:Yes.

On a scale of 1 to 5, how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:4.

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:4.

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:4.

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:More stress on not accusing, because accusing (calling someone a sinner) is rude.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:Not use the word puppet, because now I realize explanations are more important to me than votes.


AMA Information

[edit]

Case Status: closed

awaiting advocee follow-up Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/September_2006/Chuck_Marean&oldid=1137460763"