EducatedRedneck

Welcome EducatedRedneck!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 40,559,010 registered editors!

Hello EducatedRedneck. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Fantastic user name, btw. :) S0091 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING by User:Veverve?

Hi,

I'm still new, so didn't want to make a post on Ani if it'd be a waste of time. Similarly, I didn't want to issue any warnings in case I'm mistaken.

I noticed that User:Veverve has, despite being blocked from editing, sternly instructing other editors on how to edit on their talk page. Aside from the tone of it, which is rude but not worth raising a complaint, it seems like they're trying to effect edits while they're still blocked, which sounds to me like asking for the other users to effectively edit on Veverve's behalf. I'm hoping an experienced editor can either confirm that this is worth broader community attention, in which case advice on what I should do next is appreciated, or if this isn't WP:PROXYING, to let me know so I can make a note and avoid wasting more time.

Thank you for your time and attention! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against Veverve, either file it at WP:ANI or contact the blocking administrator. Using the adminhelp template is not the way to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Roger that. It wasn't intended as a complaint, just trying to figure out if I understood policy enough to make one, but I see that it ends up being functionally the same. Thank you for the help! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"made a sock, copied their old task list, then realized that it was incriminating and tried to cover their tracks"

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For having the courage to file an SPI report. Identifying sock-puppets and meat-puppets is invisible to the readers and often invisible to many editors. And yet, your efforts help protect both the wiki and the integrity of blocks being circumvented in this manner. Please don't be too afraid of being mistaken. I didn't file because I bought the plausible cover story. Had you done as I did, the puppet would still be on the loose. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I felt a little bad after the explanation was posted, but I guess I was right for the wrong reasons? I appreciate the props; thank you! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Btw if you're interested

At WP:ANI, my username was on the list over that Timo Werner affair. I archived what was on my talk page earlier. Anyway, I feel as if I can trust you more. Please look after the Werner article. Peace, happy editing, Govvy (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you in advance

Could you help me get it into my head once and for all not to make any cosmetic edits? JackkBrown (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown If I can help, I'd love to! I do agree that the way Wikipedia's markup interprets things can be weird. Most of the templates I still have to use the "preview" button 3 to 5 times to make sure it displays correctly. (And even then, I usually have to look up the template instructions.) So I can understand wanting to add or remove whitespace to make the code look better. I guess where I ended up on it is, if I can't tell that something changed after I edited it, it's probably better not to change it. Does that help? Or, if you were asking for something else, then my apologies, and please let me know what would be more helpful! EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: or, if I think I'm about to save a cosmetic edit, I can check for missing commas in the text, so that there are no problems if I save the edit. JackkBrown (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown Oh, I think I may have misspoken. While it is better to have some substantive change in an edit rather than not, what I'm getting at is that edits which change any whitespace (that is, parts which don't change how something is displayed) might be better to be avoided. For instance, in this edit, even if the change of redirects was good, there was no reason to also add all that extra whitespace. So if you have a choice between making an edit that A) adds some necessary commas, or B) adds some necessary commas AND changes whitespace, just skip the whitespace parts and do only edit A. Does that make more sense? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Re:Capital after colon

Hi. Yes, of course! Please point me to the pages where I wrote "recognised", so that I can correct. Thank you in advance. The Jack (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Thanks! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: hi, feel free to delete these two edits of mine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baccal%C3%A0_mantecato&diff=prev&oldid=1212951854, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarde_in_saor&diff=1212957542&oldid=1212957360&variant=en. I thought these two articles were written in British English, and honestly I would have preferred it (no offence, but I like British English better). The Jack (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think both those edits were improvements, so no need to delete them! I did change the spelling (appetiser -> appetizer) in the first link, to be consistent with the infobox, but for the second one, I saw nothing to suggest one variety of English over the other. Unless someone else objects, that article is now in British English! Thank you again for your help, and for being so ready to change course as you learn new things; that's an admirable quality! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: thank you for the compliment! So, since you didn't edit the second article, I assume it's written entirely in British English. The Jack (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is my assumption as well. :) EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B

The problem with ANI and other forums is that in general they consider behaviour or rather how behaviour is presented, they don't consider content. Thomas happens to be very familiar with the Tim Hunt controversy and identified a number of issues related to WP:NPOV. This is one of those cases, where familiarity with content makes the whole picture clearer.

To summarise the controversy in a nutshell, Tim Hunt was asked at short notice to make an impromptu speech at a conference, the speech was actually fairly well received but although a prominent scientist he is less than worldly and a rather awkward speaker. His remarks were misreported, accusations of sexism being amplified by false claims ie the controversy was sparked by the reporting not his speech. Another reason the controversy took hold was an infamous "telephone" interview on Radio 4, in which Tim Hunt appeared to confirm the allegations made against him. Except it wasn't really an interview, he was ambushed boarding a plane and recorded a brief message. The message taken out of context was then broadcast. Later a leaked report essentially confirmed his version of events, which were also confirmed by another journalist present. The general consensus now is that he was a fairly naive victim of a social media controversy but as a prominent scientist has always been an ally of women in science. This is why many prominent feminist writers were amongst his strongest supporters.

The article as now written bears no resemblance to this narrative, retreating back to the narrative he made a sexist speech and that he himself confirmed it. Its like someone turned the clock back to when the controversy erupted. Anyone who simply points this out is shouted down, a noisy group of editors claim they have a consensus for how they've rewritten the article.

So as ANI considers only behaviour, when you have a lone editor trying to raise an issue, its actually pretty easy to make it look problematic. And Thomas has not been alone, I count at least 5 editors who've raised concerns about the content there, myself included, and all have basically walked away because of the toxic environment. WCM_email 19:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster First, thank you so much for taking the time to try to explain; while there are a few bad actors around, I feel like the vast majority of conflicts could be solved by people just talking to each other, so you choosing to do just that makes me happy.

It sounds like you've found quite a few sources that don't line up with the narrative in the current article. I haven't seen them, so I can't comment on their overall impact, and I won't ask you to dig them up and present them here, because your history seems to indicate that you do, indeed, have sources if you say you do. Given all the hubub around the article itself, what if we started by sorting out the linked and more detailed summary at Online shaming#Tim Hunt controversy?

I suggest this for two reasons. First: For good or ill, it does seem that there's a consensus at this time for the inclusion of the controversy. The chief objection to it seems to be (and rightly is) that it's undue to have almost as much about three minutes of talking from him as his Nobel prize and other achievements. Add more into the controversy section to clarify would run counter to this purpose, further inflating that section. The alternative, of changing it entirely to the new narrative, seems to go against the very recently established consensus. (Even if the consensus is wrong.) Therefore, I don't think adding to the current article's controversy section is likely to succeed.

Second: As far as I'm aware, there's no RFC for the Online shaming article, and it has no such constraints for balance and due. That makes it an excellent place to clarify what happened. Strategically, once the Tim Hunt section of that article has been brought in line with what the sources say, it will be FAR easier to come back and say, "See what this other article says? See how it has sources? We should make our discussion of the controversy like that one." There will still be a fight, I expect (you're right in that there are definitely some editors who are more interested in proving themselves right rather than becoming right) but it will be from a much stronger position of, "Here's a viable alternative which is already accepted elsewhere."

Do you think this is a viable way forward? I'm highly reluctant to act counter to an incorrect consensus because, well, if it goes against me I usually think it's wrong, but that doesn't always make it so! So I'm hoping we can find a way that an accurate reading of WP:RS can make its way into Wikipedia without putting any more editors through unnecessary unpleasantness.

Thank you again for taking the time to explain what's going on to me; you were in no way obligated to, so I'm very grateful you took the time to anyway! EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree that the way to resolve conflicts it to discuss things in a calm and rational manner. You are right in that now the issue is there are entrenched camps looking to sources to confirm their opinions rather than looking to sources to guide content. I already had it mind to disengage and write an article on the controversy itself; there is already a great deal of material upon which an article could be based. But that would be six months down the line.

I would take you up on that suggestion, the problem being that any edit I would make - even on this related article would be reverted on sight at the moment. The content would be immaterial, I would simply be tag teamed and in an impossible situation.

BTW I differ from Thomas B in that I don't oppose mention of the controversy and never have. My concerns has always been that the topic is treated in accordance with our WP:BLP policy and written from a neutral view point. I am walking away mainly because I see this headed toward an arbcom case and I really don't wish to go there. The problem with Wikipedia's approach to conflict resolution is that it long ago gave up looking at content to look at behavioural issues. And that is why conflict is rarely resolved without everyone involved feeling bruised and victimised. WCM_email 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster I'm sorry to hear that your edits are likely to be reverted out of turn. That'd be against policy, but I can also see how "but they were wrong!" wouldn't land you in less hot water for edit warring, so there's not really a path to success for you at this moment.

With that in mind, would you be willing to share your sources with me? I doubt I'd be as effective an advocate as you would be, but I am (more or less) uninvolved, so perhaps I could prime other editors for a useful discussion rather than a fight.

If you'd rather just stay away, I completely understand; this whole thing seems very stressful for those going through it, and as nice a project as Wikipedia is, it's not worth anyone's mental health, so I certainly won't gainsay you if you decide it's not worth it.

Thank you again for the conversation; it's interactions like this that give me faith that Wikipedia can continue. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, I may take you up on that at some point but not for now as my every edit is being scrutinised. [1] WCM_email 22:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

More than fair; I'm a bit flummoxed that talking to another editor on their talk page about sourcing is being considered a black mark, but there's no rush, anyway. Best of luck, and when you feel ready, I'd be happy to have a task I can help with to better the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Cat predation discussion

Hey, I really appreciate what you've been doing to keep the talk page discussion on track. Iamnotabunny (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Iamnotabunny Thank you! It's getting to be a bit of a headache, unfortunately. But hey, at least we're making progress! (I think!) EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the short wikibreak I took, that was a good idea, and I'm sorry to see that things have been going rather more stressfully for you in the meantime. It seems the word "fringe" is very emotionally laden and difficult to have peaceful discussions about. The curse of the talking past each other just keeps on giving. I send my sympathies for your frustration. Iamnotabunny (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Iamnotabunny I'm really glad your wikibreak served you! I may have to do something similar, soon. I fear my frustration is making it harder for me to cooperate, and that's no good for anybody. I agree that I don't like the use of the word "fringe" in that context; it's part of why I was hoping we could get other editors to chime in and accept a criteria by which we could get past the whole issue. Ah well, perhaps another day. For now, thank you again for the kind words, and for your thorough and level-headed response on the talk page! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2018_Kerala_floods

		The Third Opinion Award
		Thank you for your input at Talk:2018_Kerala_floods — Celjski Grad (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ipswich, Queensland

		A beer on me!
		The next round is on me as a token of my appreciation for your attempts to mediate this dispute. You made a genuine effort to de-escalate and understand both points of view while maintaining a friendly demeanour, patience, tolerance and a healthy level of scepticism throughout the discussion. Regardless of my thoughts on the outcome, I thank you! Dfadden (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dfadden Thank you! I'm glad that (even if the outcome isn't ideal) I wasn't too annoying, asking to be schooled on Australian Governance 101; I appreciate you helping get me up to speed, and being so cordial throughout the process! EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughts on the COI/sock case at ANI. Unfortunately I spotted the evidence re: sockpuppetry some hours ago and then went down a bit of a rabbithole investigating further, while simultaneously engaging in a rather frustrating and pointless 1:1 discussion with the COI sockmaster.

If I had the time again I now realise that I should have slowed things down and waited for America to wake up, because it was only when that happened that the discussion swiftly took a positive turn. I suppose I had set out some decent evidence not previously addressed by the OP, but I should have waited for the appearance of more experienced editors who could take things forward.

My main concern before that happened was that it was all going to turn into a case of "too long; didn't read", which was clearly a bad thing for me to have risked happening.

If I did anything else stupid then do let me know, as I do realise I fouled up pretty badly...

Thanks again. Axad12 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 I'm glad to hear my presence was helpful; I often worry that I'm just taking up space and not adding anything to the conversation. :p

For what it's worth, I think you did just fine. I try not to criticize people with "boots on the ground" so to speak. What was going through my head this time was that if I were cleaning trash from my yard, I don't think I'd respond well to someone throwing more litter on it. I figured you were actively cleaning up the mess, and so had used up a great deal of patience before it got to ANI.

I'll also point out that, 1) you got more attention on the problem, including an investigation, and 2) got more editors to chime in with more evidence of past issues. Sounds to me like it didn't hit the tl;dr mark, nor was it fouled up! And I do apologize that my note at ANI gave you the impression that you had; I clearly need to watch my tone better!

Finally, thanks for adding to my somewhat anemic SPI as well; the more evidence, the greater a chance a clerk will take a look. While it's possible the accounts are unrelated (in which case the SPI will let us get on with editing and focus on the COI issues instead), if they're not, this will solve the problem decisively. This process seems to me to show good teamwork; everyone pitching in for the common good. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened was that I was already under the impression that I had fouled up, and your post basically confirmed that impression to me. But it was more to do with what was already in my mind than anything in relation to the tone of your post, of that I am quite sure!

Something else I probably did wrong: no point in trying to get an offender to confess, better just to put the evidence on the table and let others decide what action needs to be taken.

Anyway, it looks like it will all end up with a positive result and that's the main thing. Thanks also for the SPI.

Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)