User talk:EducatedonENS

Welcome!
Hello, EducatedonENS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Socking
Has this account any relationship to the account? Please be aware of the policy on WP:SOCKing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No educatedonENS and me Ensadvocate have no relationship i do not even know educatedonens--Ensadvocate (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's right - likewise, I have no clue who Ensadvocate is EducatedonENS (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)EducatedonENS

A note on advocacy in Wikipedia
Please do read this, and think about it.

A lot of people come to Wikipedia because they are very passionate about something. That is in some ways great, and in some ways terrible.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy. Please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY. "What Wikipedia is Not" is both a policy and a "pillar" - something very essential to the very guts of this place. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to hijack it from its mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge." Some people come here and try to create promotional content about their companies (classic "COI"), some come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes... we get all kinds of advocacy (financial COI is just a subset of it) It all comes down to violations of NOTADVOCACY. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

For non-COI advocacy issues, we have three very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how advocacy editors tend to behave. Please do read those.

So, while I hear you that you are passionate about ENS in the real world, but please do try to check that at the login page. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)

Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.

In terms of behavior, the really key behavioral policies are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:DR, and the key guideline is WP:TPG. If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course.

But do try to aim everything you do and write in Wikipedia to further Wikipedia's mission (not your mission) and base everything you do on the spirit (not just the letter) of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Your passions will determine what you work on, but they shouldn't guide how you work here. I hope that makes sense.

If you have questions about working in WP at any time going forward, or about anything I wrote above, please ask me. I am happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to Talk page logistics
Hi EducatedonENS. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment - and 'only at the end, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work in. Sorry about that.

It looks like this: First comment by 1st person (signature)
 * response to that by 2nd person (signature)
 * response to 2nd person by 1st person (signature)
 * response to 1st person by second person (signature)
 * additional response to 1st comment by 3rd person (signature)

Like that. see? Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, as noted in a previous discussion with you, I am working on following the formatting (indentation) for responses, but I do appreciate you clarifying the exact format for indentations, so I can follow it precisely; however, I have almost always included tildas and a signature at the end of my statements, so I probably didn't need a reminder on the latter point. But hopefully this all will be useful to all participants of the Talk section.  Thanks, jytdog.EducatedonENS (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)EducatedonENS

EducatedonENS
Educatedonens please join me on my talk page so we a construct a consensus opener re ens i also invited grey bridge Ensadvocate (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit talk page entries that have been replied to
You have recently made several edits at Talk:Empty nose syndrome that significantly alter comments of yours that have been responded to. This is not acceptable on talk pages, per WP:REDACT. I have rolled back the edits - please don't do this again as it alters the context and deletes the record of the discussion. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This also applies to entries that have not been replied to, but have been there more than 'a short while'- basically, long enough for people to have read and considered when contributing elsewhere.
 * It's perfectly fine to go back and make cosmetic or formatting changes
 * If you've changed your mind about something it's OK to go back and use wikicode to strike through text as long as you leave a note to explain why and when you did this
 * I am not for a moment suggesting you did this with anything other than the best intentions! Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 15:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Shoot - thank you for acknowledging I did this with best intentions, as I wanted to improve readability/flow and remove comments that don't add to the discussionEducatedonENS (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)EducatedonENS


 * Not a problem - I understand the inclination but it's best to let comments stand, whether unaltered or struck through, so there is a proper record of the discussion. I'm sorry if my reverts got rid of anything new or any recent unreplied-to comments which are OK to delete. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 15:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Invite to edit
Please join me at the page wikipedia page i built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloderm I recently built it perhaps you could do some edits and help improve the page it would help me and you progress as editors with equal standing and hone our skills as editors here i was thinking better references supporting the claim Alloderm is an ecm biomaterial from secondary sources as per as per WP:MEDRS and other uses for alloderm that i have not presented Ensadvocate (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)