Jump to content

User talk:Chuck Marean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chuck_Marean.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation
This is the User talk page for Chuck Marean, where you can send messages and comments to Chuck Marean.

Hello, Chuck Marean, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy changing! Barras talk 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[change source]

I removed the conclusion section from Conservatives in the United States because it seemed to be based on original research. It made a strong claim about conservatives and what they wanted in relation to the government that was not directly stated in the sources. Kansan (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk: Conservatives in the United States[change source]

Hi Chuck, I made some changes to Conservatives in the United States, removing unreferenced quotes, etc. Full explanation is on the Talk page. Thanks, Ted (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous that you pay no heed to the repeated assertions of fellow editors that you are adding unreferenced, non-NPOV original research into the above article. I worry that you consider Wikipedia your personal soapbox. Find a reliable source, or don't write it. Goodvac (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear Chuck. Goodvac is right - you've been told by many editors that, sadly, the information you're adding is not from a neutral point of view. Please try to keep this in mind when you write. Thank you! Sincerely, —Clementina talk 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted several section from the article and explained my reasoning point-by-point on the Talk page. Please stop wasting editors' time by continuing to build this rambling, biased collection of unsupported statements, propaganda, random stuff like images of animals. Gotanda (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors over time have continually raised problems with the neutrality of Conservatives in the United States. Please do not remove the "Neutral point of view" tag again. To prevent edit warring, we'll need more of a consensus before the tag can be removed. Kansan (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You been running free with this behavior for a while. You are a banned user from English Wikipedia Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) back to pursue further POV-pushing. Note that there is a 1-strike rule for banned users coming from other projects. Personally, I believe you have gone above and beyond this rule. Clean up your act, or you will find yourself blocked. Goodvac (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been writing the best I can. I think Conservatives in the United States is a good article. Of course, I wrote it. How about getting me unbanned from English Wikipedia? I have not been POV-pushing. I've been using my real name, and if you think it is POV-pushing you are wrong. Or, if it is, I apologize. It's not my fault if some people use people's names as slang. I see no POV-pushing in my article, Conservatives in the United States. I don't know what you think my point of view is. I think you should remove your POV tag from the article. Obviously, it is going to be about Conservatism. That is what the article is about. --Chuck Marean (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I was given the boot in the place, Conservapedia might want you. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what esle to write in Conservatives in the United States so I gurss I've finished the article. I've got another book on Conservatism. I haven't read it yet except part of chapter one. I'm sort of tired of the subject for now. I haven't found much in support of coining money for welfare. The conservatives want to cut goveernment spending year after year to lower their taxes. I wonder why they aren't for coining money for helping me. They also don't seem to understand that the supply and demand curve means some people such as me are not able to afford to buy things we need or want. Therefore, why aren't they for coining money? Instead they are for lower government spending. I don't get them. I might read that book someday. Maybe I'll write about something else for a while. If I think of something to write about. --Chuck Marean (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[change source]

There have been concerns raised that some of the sources that you used on Edward Drinker Cope did not reflect what was actually put in your version of the article. While it appears that you copied the source list from the English Wikipedia, the information that you put in the article did not necessarily reflect what those sources (books, etc.) actually said. Please do not do this again. Kansan (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? Cite Wikipedia instead?--Chuck Marean (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is that if you say that something is from a book, what you say needs to be from that book. Kansan (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything from a book. I said something from a Wikipedia article. I'll point that out on the talk page.--Chuck Marean (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Conservatives in the United States[change source]

Hi Chuck,

I just wanted to be fair and direct and let you know I made a bold change to Conservatives in the United States. I explained the change on the Peer Review page. Since you had asked for the review and written all of the article, I wanted to tell you so that you could respond if you wanted to. I'll inform others who commented also. Regards, Gotanda (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the article all you want. I did my best on that article. That doesn't mean it was perfect.--Chuck Marean (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autobiography of Mark Twain cover.jpg[change source]

Hi Chuck! Could you please clarify why the photograph on the book cover File:Autobiography of Mark Twain cover.jpg is out of copyright? E.g. from which year is it? When did the photographer die? Please read commons:COM:L for more information and always make the permission clear on future uploads which contain material by other authors. If you have any questions, please ask at my de.wp talk page or here (I will check back in a week or so). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info from the book jacket. Also, I contacted OTRS to make sure. I saw many photos of books on Commons. I followed their example. By the way the photo on the book was taken in 1906, unlike many of the other photos of books. I don't know where the University of California found it. Probably the Library of Congress. --Chuck Marean (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated for deletion three articles that you created. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Yellow Arrows, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Endust Duster, and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Masslinn Dusting Cloth. Goodvac (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chuck. I have unfortunately had to block your account per our reciprocal bans rule, where it says editors who are blocked at en can be blocked here without the normal amount of warnings. At enwp there were many concerns raised over WP:POV in articles you wrote, and issues with how you were sourcing your articles. Looking at the discussions above, I still see issues with POV and sourcing. Just now I had to delete an article you created as the text was a copy and paste of the article at ENWP without any attribution. This to me, shows that while you may have the want to help out, you have been unable to edit within our rules. As always, you are free to request unblock using the {{unblock|REASON HERE}} template, and another administrator will review my block and make a decision. I wish you the best, --Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not copy and paste anything. The reference was playboy.com and there was nothing wrong with using that reference. All of my writing is my own. You lied about me. Then you used that lie as a reason to attack me. I don't understand people like you. The reasons I was blocked on en were lies also. Wikipedia has a serious orginizational problem. You should be blocked.--Chuck Marean (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chuck_Marean (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

I never copied and pasted anything from anywhere to this site or any other. You and those who blocked me at English Wikipedia (if there are others) are a liar and hostile for some unknown reason. Again, I will not write for this site without a byline. People like you are a serious problem with this site. You are interfering with the creation of a free encyclopedia. I will never subscribe to any online encyclopedia or newspaper. There is no market for them from me. You probably never wrote anything for this site. How someone like you became an administrator, I’ll probably never know. I consider you a vandal, to use common Wikipedia terminology. I am very angry, especially at your lies. However, as a Christian, I’m supposed to forgive you. So, I’ll let it go. It is a mystery why God is allowing you to behave in this extremely evil manner. As it is not your fault, I’ll let it go. Also, there is nothing I can do about you anyhow. I wrote every word of what I added to this site. If my account was used to copy and paste something, it was not done by me. I would never do that, since the point of writing for this site is the writing. And the byline. I will never ghost write for anyone. All my writing was good, and those who say otherwise are wrong. You were wrong to block my account and are a mystery, as were the hoodlums in junior high. I am willing to write things for Wikipedia for fun, but I will never give Wikipedia a dime or any other online encyclopedia. Internet access itself is too expensive. --Chuck Marean (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edits on enwp are problematic (POV), and your edits here are similar. Sorry, but no unblock. -- fr33kman 20:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your gratuitous smears and personal attacks have shattered any chance of an unblock. Goodvac (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My writing was good. Liars such as you claimed it was not. I hope you get better morals. Fake name(s) and all. I hate you. --Chuck Marean (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your talk page access because of personal attacks such as in your last comment. Any further appeals should be done through email. Kansan (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]