User:Ihuntrocks
About Me
I'm from Texas. I'm literate and legalistic (not always a good combination here). My interests include, but are certainly not limited to: Geology, information security, Presbyterianism, and United States politics and political figures (mostly current).
I created my account back in 2013 with the intention of editing, but that never really happened. My editing adventure began on March 19, 2019, with removing an incidence of vandalism. A long pause ensued as I moved and few times and adjusted to a new job. I now have considerably more free time and have returned. I hope to do what we're all here for: to make Wikipedia better than when we found it, one edit at a time.
My hobbies include learning additional languages, microscope photography/videography, and finally getting around to editing Wikipedia.
Pages On Which I've Worked
The Rubin Report | Removed vandalism
Scott Presler | a work in progress
Jack Posobiec | a work in progress, see talk page, NPOV noticeboard, and BLP noticeboard
Dave Rubin | see talk page
Rachel Maddow | see talk page
Useful Links
I'll continue to update this as I go along, but the following links are very useful:
Wikipedia's three core policies:
Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, No Original Research
Other useful policy pages:
Policies and Guidelines, Onus (Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) Reliable Sources, News Organizations (from Reliable Sources), Recentism, Biographies of Living Persons, Fringe Theories, Edit Warring, Three-Revert Rule (from Edit Warring), Dispute Resolution, Consensus, Coatrack, Post-1932 United States Politics (American Politics 2)
Noticeboards:
Administrators' Noticeboard, Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents), Arbitration Requests/Enforcement, Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard
Favorite Quotes From Other Wikipedia Editors
(Written in response to a comment referencing Wikipedia:There is no deadline at the RFC on Biographies of living people)
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the living people about whom we write. There is a deadline for them: it is the moment that Google puts our article about them in their top-5 results. That is something that was never contemplated at the time that Wikipedia was created. We must be responsive to changes in circumstances; this is about as big a change as can be. This is part of Wikipedia maturing and becoming a responsible citizen of the information world; when we were small and unnoticed, we had almost no impact on the life of an article subject. Now, what is published in our pages can (and sometimes does) cause long-lasting harm. Why do you think Google now crawls our articles incessantly to ensure it reflects the most current version of a page? We are no longer a little upstart in a distant corner of the Internet: we are now a top-10 website whose words, whether they should be or not, are taken as relatively accurate if not entirely authoritative. Not a day goes by that someone being interviewed on radio or television isn't confronted with a question that starts "I looked up your Wikipedia entry and it says..." The failure of individuals to recognise this collective responsibility to get things right about real people does more to harm the reputation and credibility of this project than any other error that is made.
—Risker (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Things I've Learned As An Editor
1: Some things are not amenable to change, even if all indicators, reason, and just plain common sense would point to a need for change and illuminate a clear path to it.
2: There is a vast gulf between policy and practice in editing. This is unfortunate.
3: The best way to learn conduct policies is to enter a discussion about a contentious subject and offer a cogent, well-reasoned argument. If you do this, you are almost guaranteed to be bitten and will receive an absolute deluge of conduct policies as responses, rather than a treatment of whatever argument it is you have raised. This will likely happen even if none of the policies are applicable to you or your behavior. It's great for getting people to provide you with links, but not great for making progress in a discussion. You have been warned.
4: Consensus in other areas of life can be a good decision-making system, despite potential drawbacks. Consensus, as practiced on Wikipedia, may not always reflect how it is practiced elsewhere, and also may not reflect how it is outlined in the guidelines. Approach this process with caution.
5: Consensus may be a good process for deciding what to do. It is not, under any circumstances, a good process for deciding "what is." In short, "consensus reality", as encountered on Wikipedia, is a fundamentally dangerous thing. This is particularly true in biographies of living persons. It is most especially true in post-1932 United States Politics topics. (See above section on "Favorite Quotes From Other Wikipedia Editors", first entry.)
I share a house with, and may occasionally share an IP address with, a family member who also has an account. Username Mongreltaceae. Aside from this, I have no other connections to any other Wikipedia editors to disclose and I have no other Wikipedia accounts.