User talk:Darroncullen

Welcome!
Hello, Darroncullen, 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.

I'd like to take a moment, if that's all right with you, to explain why I reverted your uncited changes to the lead (the introductory section) of Locust. Firstly, the job of the lead is to summarize what is in the body (the rest of the article). If the lead contains new material, it is failing in its job of summarizing the text. Secondly, all claims on Wikipedia must be cited to reliable sources, but you provided no sources. In any case, the lead is not (for the reason I just gave) the place for anything new, and it isn't really right - for the same reason - to add citations to the lead (unless some fact is highly contentious, in which case the citation in the body can be repeated in the lead). Thirdly, radical change to an established article - and Locust is a "good article", meaning it has been independently reviewed and checked for proper structure, coverage, citations, and so on - should be made cautiously. Fourthly, your talk page message - and I welcome your willingness to discuss things there - sounded distinctly aggressive (I hope I am wrong about that): "I am currently in the process of editing the Locust wiki page. It is outdated, and makes generalizations ...", as if you had taken over the article, and knew more than everybody else put together. Wikipedia is a shared encyclopedia, which everyone can edit, so we have to rely on cited sources, not on claims of personal knowledge. If you are a researcher in the area, for example, your command of research sources will soon reveal itself in simplicity of explanation, quality of selection of sources, and care and attention to detail.

By the way, if you are familiar with research papers, you should be aware (and I'm sorry to have to go into this much detail straight away) that articles should generally be supported by secondary sources, such as textbooks on insects or review papers. Primary research papers are subject to challenge and revision, so they have to be used with great care on Wikipedia. This is quite different from what you might do in a PhD thesis or research paper, where of course you have to cite the existing primary sources, and textbooks or reviews are very much second-best. Guidance for researchers can be found at an entomologist's page, which you might like to look at.

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! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Chiswick Chap, thanks again for your help. As I said before, I'm unfamiliar with protocol and certainly didn't mean to sound aggressive in any way. I've been looking at the Locust page intermittently for many years, and my colleagues and I have always agreed that it wasn't reliable. This isn't surprising given that much of the scientific consensus on locusts is bound up in the non-accessible, subscription-only literature, as with a lot of science. I looked again today, and decided to do something about it - I didn't think I was treading on anyone's toes by editing it, but I appreciate that there needs to be some discussion before I just wade in and do it. So, sorry again! I'd prefer to keep discussion on the topic on the Locust board now, for simplicity. I will list some relevant references (books and reviews) that will support my proposed edits. Darroncullen (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, good plan. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to David Patrikarakos has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: David Patrikarakos was changed by Darroncullen (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.857549 on 2020-05-23T21:06:58+00:00