User talk:EducatedRedneck

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Welcome EducatedRedneck!

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

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please take the time to read through the AN/EW thread about the Daisy Chain Fields conflict which you brought up at AN/I. As you can see, it did not end up with me being branded a villain or solely at fault. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

TA, it's really hard when you say things like that. I understand that you've been reduced to tears, and I truly am sorry for that. Nobody is trying to brand you a villain. What's a problem, however, is your behavior, where you edit war, and you seem treat others disagreeing with you as persecution. That Edit Warring noticeboard is clear that you did edit war; ToBeFree has said, All I currently wonder is if I block both or the war is stale. The issue to me is that you don't seem to acknowledge that edit warring is wrong, nor that treating other editors as opponents is contrary to the nature of a collaborative project. Also, you tend to write a lot which makes it difficult to converse with you. I don't know you from Adam, and have no animosity for you as a person. I just see the disruption from what you're doing and want the behavior to change. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-41404-95 I wanted to make sure you saw this, as your latest post at ANI seems to suggest you didn't. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would it help if only females were allowed to edit the Daisy Chain Fields article?! ~2026-33739-85 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you think this would help. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You appear to be engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.

Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 14:42, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please take the time to read my message to you on the talk page of the article you unrightfully reverted me at. ChristopherBashirov (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I saw you reply to my (now removed) unblock request, and I want to clarify two things.

First, I like your advice about how to actually make an unblock request. I'm confident that I actually understand what I'm doing wrong. I made Bushranger un-archive the entire thread, which made everyone disappointed at me, and I even replied to other threads about situations I'm not involved in. This caused JBL to start the thread up there.

Second, the answer to your question is that I need to be unblocked although I'm not going to be at ANI because the block also affects other Wikipedia-namespace pages and affects my future on Wikipedia. A temporary unblock will be a bit inconvenient. We live on the opposite ends of the planet, so I have to request a temporary unblock, sleep for like eight hours, and wake up, hoping to see a reply. I think that's a waste of time. For example, I was participating at AfD discussions, which also have the raw Wikipedia-namespaces. The "slightly calmer places" were places like the Teahouse, AfD, Help Desk, and Village pump. I'm using the "suggested edits" feature to find other articles to fix. That's what I'm meant to do on Wikipedia. We don't know for certain what's going to happen in the years to come. I want to fight against vandalism. I want to report disruptive users to you guys. Maybe I can rank up. I know Wikipedia is prone to these issues, and I want to be somebody and contribute something to Wikipedia. SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 05:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Honestly speaking, a pBlock from the entirety of WP space still doesn't really look necessary to me; I was participating too much at ANI only. Star still has a point about my conduct at AfD being tied to WP:CIR, and this gives me an idea for a second essay. See and . SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 04:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I did not mean to publish that unfinished message on WP:ANI. I actually was trying to delete it, but I published the message on accident. Whoops! TheAwesomeHwyh 00:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries; I've made my fair share of errors as well, and that one was pretty harmless. I'm just waiting for the day my toddler gets to my keyboard and I have to self-revert dozens of posts of "yhjjuinjcvghadsxcklsssssssssssssssssssssssmklkli". EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know you were a parent, Redneck! SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 06:07, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Re "And WP:TALKNOTFORUM doesn't seem to apply, as it's about article talk pages" . WP:TALKNOTFORUM is confusingly written, but nowhere does it explicitly say that it is only about article talk pages, even though it could be interpreted that way.

It is part of WP:TALK which covers all sorts of talk pages.

The wording of TALKNOTFORUM is

"[Behavior that is unacceptable includes] Using the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, or as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it."

In the text above, the first link is to WP:FORUM, which says

"Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else".

So that link does explicitly talk only about article talk pages.

The second link in the above text is to is to WP:SOAP, which explicitly says

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages." (emphasis added).

Note that it was battleground behavior that I was reporting.

When I tried to clarify the confusing wording, I was told "Seems covered by WP:OWNTALK", which in turn says

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively"

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough; I appreciate the acknowledgement that it could be interpreted thus, but also yield in turn that this was my interpretation, not ironclad as it was written.

I also can see the argument for BATTLEGROUND, especially looking through their archives more. I expect we'll end up back at ANI eventually, I'm just loathe to tell people what opinions they can express in their userspace. Perhaps it's a bit of my American "dohnt trahmple mah raights!" shining through.

Thanks for reaching out to clarify; I really appreciate it. It helps me understand better for whatever comes next. Also, props to you for withdrawing the complaint; it's hard to do when it still feels like you're right, but man, that's a classy thing to do. Cheers! EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's a real quandary. On the one hand we really do want people to express their opinions even if their opinion is that everyone who has ever criticized them sucks, but not if they want to name them. We want to allow the opinion I expressed at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Updates on the Board elections process but not the opinion that drinking bleach cures COVID. We want to allow someone to say that Larry Sanger was right and that we are doing everything wrong, but not to say that Hitler was right and that all the gays and cripples should be murdered. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi EducatedRedneck — back in early August, you looked at a dispute on two noticeboards over whether HIP 99770 b should be called a planet (the long-standing description backed by the peer-reviewed literature) or whether the classification should hedge based on an interpretation of other work: a planet or a brown dwarf.

I wanted to notify you that the decision you made as a neutral editor based on the consensus of uninvolved editors is being reverted (again) and kindly request you look at this situation. In this dispute, another editor repeatedly reverted the long-standing description, often for ever-changing reasons but ultimately based on inferring a classification from a plot shown in a single paper (Franson & Bowler 2023) on a different topic.

Consequentially, I filed a notice on the “No original research” board which is archived here. In response, the other editor filed on a separate board here: NPOVN filing.

You found that reading a “brown dwarf” classification off a figure in Franson & Bowler (2023) was WP:SYNTH, as did all the commenters on the “no original research” notice board save for the other editor. You thus removed his edits on the main HIP 99770 b article and closed his NPOVN filing on that basis, listing it as "Resolved Elsewhere".

Yesterday, this editor (Stevinger) has resurfaced, reverting your changes, and reopened the argument on the talk page here Talk:HIP_99770_b (see last subject heading). He also describes your finding as “an erroneous headcount of one of the participants” rather than a consensus.

His note reaffirms his position that your finding of WP:SYNTH is not demonstrated and includes the same OR:MEDIA / deuterium-burning-limit arguments as before, while citing a new paper on a different object (TOI-201 c). Note that the papers referred to on TOI-201 c do not even mention HIP 99770 b at all, let alone clearly indicate that their analysis has any implication for HIP 99770 b.

Although this action seems to directly contradict your formal close on a messageboard topic, I wanted to first flag this issue to you personally since it concerns your ‘close’ decision. 2632cgn (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HIP 99770 b --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gods Goolies, that's a lot of text. I've reverted them again and explained that they need to get consensus, and that their walls of text do not build consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's a lot of text but the same fundamental problems of them misreading peer-reviewed literature and engaging in WP:SYNTH.

One note on your reply: it looks like you got the status history a bit backwards. =) That is, the long-standing description -- backed by the literature -- is that HIP 99770 b is a planet. The disputed SYNTH material he repeatedly added/edit-warred is effectively that it is "a planet or brown dwarf". 2632cgn (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Whoops! I better edit that in. It's clearly been a while. Thanks for the catch! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder to anyone reading this (most of you already know this), WP:AN and WP:ANI are, by design, only allowed to address user behavior, never article content. And the current report I filed asked that a general warning be posted before singling out individual users. For example, I am seeing at least three editors who are using edit comments in the article as a substitute for comments on the article talk page. I will put together an ANI case if what I asked for at AN doesn't work. Probably better to let me post it as someone who has never had an opinion on HIP 99770 b. All I care about is that everyone follows WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:EW --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I think you deserve this barnstar because of your help against disruptive users, and I hope you keep continuing like this! Jako96 (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm especially thankful for your recent help. Do you think we have an ANI situation about this and this? Jako96 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I think so. Given their previous block was for personal attacks, their aggressive posture and hostile response to being directed toward guidelines doesn't bode well for their continued participation here. I'd say give it a while longer, see if the problems persist in a day or two. If so, then we've warned and advised and otherwise done what we can; we can bring it to ANI and it'll be in the community's wheelhouse then. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm thankful for your reply. Yeah, fair, let's wait. Jako96 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply