User talk:Dr.Decapod

Reliable sources
Please see WP:RS - youtube videos such as the one you are trying to add are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It isn't a random youtube video. It is an upload of the full documentary from the termite research project. Produeced by the Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague I also included the official website of the film. Youtube is simply the easiest way to view it in english.
 * "Published means any source that was "made available to the public in some form". The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet"
 * Under Definition of published on the page you linked. Dr.Decapod (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still not a reliable source, and it is trivia anyway. MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Research by the Czech University of Life Sciences isn't reliable? Did you even check the source? And how is that trivia but "Termites and ants comprise about 1% of insect species, but represent more than 50% of insect biomass." that follows isn't? Dr.Decapod (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Hello, Dr.Decapod. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Termite) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason I was the one blocked even though they were the one who reverted my additions over and over again? Dr.Decapod (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You violated the three revert rule, so you were blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They did that first and no one blocked them. I made the addition, by definition they reverted 3 times before I did. Dr.Decapod (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, to have warned them and then reverted is blatant. Any discussion about your block needs to be about your actions, not the actions of anybody else. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They warned me then reverted? How is that not a double standard? Dr.Decapod (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They did not revert after warning you. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)