User talk:Ensadvocate

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Ensadvocate. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Please do take some time to review the information in the links above. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to Talk page logistics
Hi Ensadvocate. 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 on. 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) 04:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note on advocacy
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) 04:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Invitation
This is the place where we can do consensus building ensadvocate greybeard (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Ensadvocate (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

":" Dear greybeard educatedonens do you wish to do a coll-berate to do a opener by the supported by good research that we can live with that would be acceptable to the administrators here?Ensadvocate (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles should be discussed at the article Talk page. Please do read WP:CONSENSUS - agreement at a single article cannot override the consensus established in the policies and guidelines, and the best way to move toward local consensus on a specific issue that complies with the policies and guidelines is to discuss that at the article Talk page.


 * If you want me to provide you, or any of you, with a rundown of the key content and behavioral policies and guidelines I would be happy to provide that. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog are you saying that semiprivate consensus building upon ones talk page is upon ones frowned upon by the wikipedia rules? I am not familiar with the wikipedia rules thank you.


 * By the way i will read all the the links re consensus that you sent soon.Ensadvocate (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking with me! Well hm.  Caucusing with people who are like minded is kind of frowned on. See WP:GANG.  And going and doing it outside of WP together and then coming back here would be what we call WP:MEAT.  My bigger concern is that none of you understand Wikipedia very well, and because of that your ability to come up with some content that you agree on that also complies with Wikipedia's' policies is pretty slim... especially given that each of you have very strong feelings about this topic.  if you were to do this it would probably be a waste of your time, and worse, all three of you would end up committed to something that doesn't comply with policy and this would just lead to a lot of drama, that would waste yet more people's time.  So yes, doing that is arguably against policy and the spirit of what we do here, and is just unwise. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)