Chm-aus

December 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Eupoecila intricata, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

My changes are valid and referenced. Any other edits will require references. Do not undo my changes unless you have authority in this field and can prove so. Th7r98k2 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

YOUR edits are disruptive. Th7r98k2 (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, the text you sent says ""discuss the matter with the editor...". Neither you nor Materialscientist made any attempt to discuss my edits and you immediately undid my changes. Th7r98k2 (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Eupoecila intricata shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Incremental improvement is a great way to start - or talk big changes out on talk pages

I just wanted to provide you with some insights and support in getting started. If you are looking to make " significant changes" on an existing article the best way to start is on the talk page of the article. The talk page allows you to discuss proposed changes with others as to find consensus on support. There are processes and conventions in working with other people in the editing of articles. Incremental improvements to an existing article or discussion before big changes are made is the way to go. If you need some help getting started send me a message on my talk page. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance Fibbertigibbets. I understand. However, this short article was to a large exten incorrect, not salvageable and required replacement. I do not accept the complete reversion back to the incorrect text by Materialscientist. 110.174.22.158 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Look, I am a relatively new editor; what is surprising to me is that I can "correct" misstatements or errors on some high profile articles with lots of people involved; but sometimes correcting established articles can be difficult. For example, I sail with a World cup sailor and several seriously licenced captains yet it was hard to make a big change on Jibe but I did make a change that helped the reader.

When I look at some articles say on "advanced mathematics" sometimes there are heated discussions on "fact" which is incredible to me.. but then again Buckminster Fuller suggested there are very few factual absolutes.

Sometimes I will work hard on something and it will be reverted in an instant; it's just not personal..

Hundreds of people are involved in editing so there is an approach that needs to be taken; more so with people sometimes.

So I would say just reset any hard feelings and cool down... Start to learn the process like alphabet blocks and have some fun here. It is very addicting and frustrating....

Try doing edits away from your field starting with proofing. There is a homepage tool which is very useful, it suggests articles to edit and tasks which range from entry level to creating articles. I actually created two articles! which is sort of amazing.

The people are important (and have feelings) the content evolves with a bit of patience. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate what you say and I get all of it. I'm not going to detail my work in science since nowadays obviously everyone is an expert. In a nutshell, this is a very specialised area and there are two people in the world who work on this group actively - unlike sailing (millions) and maths (100 thousands?). The info I provided is authoritative, meaning properly researched and referenced. I am more than happy to engage in meaningful discussion with anyone about the info I provided in my new version. I've just started with Wikidpedia and there are around 200 pages that require updateing and creating that fall in my area of study. I have feelings too and when I spend an hour of my valuable time writing a replacement for a mostly incorrect article written by someone without credentials then my feelings are hurt when Materialscientist and Bbb23 delete my content. 110.174.22.158 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not a good idea for you to be editing logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Logged in now. Chm-aus (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's why I am saying "cool down" first.. It's not at all personal..

Anyone can write on Wikipedia... and anything written on Wikipedia is volatile in that it is subject to change...

You are talking to (I think) two administrators and a noob (me). To some extent the administrators are process based (how things are done) and they are managing thousands of personalities, tens of thousands of edits, vandals, and they may/may not be looking deeply at the content. They are doing a volunteer job in Good faith (assume good faith)

So, you are running into a "process" without knowing how the process works. I appreciate that you can improve a hundred(s) of articles so I am trying to help you. The assumption back to you is (good faith).

Learning how to contribute is no easy task... (Take a look at my talk page and you will find that I am thinking about some of the processes.) BTW the problem I have with some of the sailing articles is that they are not understandable to a reader (they are too complex) that knows nothing about an activity I am passionate about. - and no there are not too many expert sailors.

I call a "do over" (for everyone involved)

Suggest you do some small editing in areas not related to your field; something you don't know about. The learning curve on the platform is high. Find a "new user" tool on your homepage.

BTW everyone here is generally friendly Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your attempt to mediate, Fibbertigibbets.

I'm done with this. I do primary research and I can't spend days arguing about every improvement I make. Wrong platform. May the info for all my beetles stay incorrect, as it is now. Chm-aus (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert it bbe23. Chm-aus (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Chm-aus, 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 complete 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)