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: | Some
common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
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:
|
|
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:
~~~~
at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your
signature, a link to your talk page, and a
timestamp.Sincerely,
S0091 (
talk) 22:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
(Leave me a message)
Fantastic user name, btw. :) S0091 ( talk) 22:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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. W C M email 19:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: | Some
common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
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:
|
|
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:
~~~~
at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your
signature, a link to your talk page, and a
timestamp.Sincerely,
S0091 (
talk) 22:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
(Leave me a message)
Fantastic user name, btw. :) S0091 ( talk) 22:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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. W C M email 19:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)