User talk:Emoneill

July 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Natural selection, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   18:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. - You may be correct about the definition of natural selection. However, even being correct is not an acceptable reason to edit war here.  Contribute to the discussion on the article's Talk page and to achieving consensus.  If you are unwilling to do so, please leave the article alone.   General Ization   Talk   18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to correct the definition and I provided a citation for the last entry. Why do you keep undoing my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoneill (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the comments I left on your talk page.  General Ization  Talk   18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The last edit I made was not simply undoing a previous edit, but providing a new and accurate definition with a published third party reference (a textbook on the subject). The entry that you reverted too is not an accurate definition and provided no reference to anything.Emoneill (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So should I conclude that you are unwilling to join the discussion on the article's Talk page? If so, I should warn you that if you revert the edit again, you will be in violation of WP:3RR and are likely to be blocked from editing.  I encourage you to read the several policies linked in this conversation and on your Talk page to better understand why what you are doing is not constructive.  General Ization   Talk   18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly willing to join the discussion on the talk page. Did not know how to get there until now.Emoneill (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Natural selection
Hi Emoneil. Thanks for joining Wikipedia and interest in building up the encyclopedia. Please notice, however, that you should never revert any changes (besides obvious vandalism) unless that is what's wanted by the community. In this particular case, two editors (me and Vanamonde93) have agreed the previous version is so confusing it's virtually mumbo jumbo! If you have another, proposed wording, share on the talk page before implementing it or reverting my edits. Furthermore, sentences like "I have a PhD in evolutionary biology" wouldn't help you the slightest bit on Wikipedia has everything must be referenced to published, reliable third-party sources; Wikipedia doesn't care if you're a teenage or a professor—social status doesn't matter at all, even though editors with PhD's are, of course, considered wanted contributors. I can see in the section right above this one you have been involved in an edit war regarding the same article, so please take this into consideration. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonas, the warning above pertained to the current sequence of reversions; not some prior event.  General Ization  Talk   18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the notice General Ization. Misunderstanding on my part I apologize for. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@ General Ization I am happy to provide a definition that is referenced to a published, reliable third-party source. However I will point out that you did not. In fact my last entry was exaclty that, however it appears to have been reverted simply because someone thinks I am trying to get into a war. I am not. Emoneill (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the definition of edit warring. It is pretty clear from your responses that you have not taken the time to do so, so do not understand why the way you are contributing to the article is not constructive, even if your definition is correct.  General Ization   Talk   19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther I am happy to provide a definition that is referenced to a published, reliable third-party source. Would you accept that? Your definition had no reference, so I see no reason why it was preferable. Emoneill (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@ General Ization BTW I think you two have revert to your preferred version more times than I have. My most recent edit provided a definition that is referenced to a published, reliable third-party source, however while I was adding the reference, it was reverted again! So who exactly needs to understand edit waring? Emoneill (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that the edit history of the page says otherwise. Now that you have engaged with other editors on the article's Talk page and achieved consensus on the changes, I think we can safely say that the edit war is over, but I still strongly urge you to read these two Wikipedia policies: edit warring and consensus which were previously brought to your attention, so that you will better understand what was happening and why you were asked to stop reverting and discuss the changes.  Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so being right about something is not always the only consideration.  General Ization   Talk   20:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @General Ization I have contributed to the talk page for Natural Selection. Please stop the edit war on me now. Thank you. Emoneill (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not an edit war on you; General Ization was defining Wikipedia's definition of an edit war which you clearly didn't understand. Also, I've responded on the articles talk page regarding your latest comment. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the above having been said, thank you for your contribution of your expertise to the Natural selection article, and for your time spent and patience learning about Wikipedia policies and procedures.  General Ization  Talk   21:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi Emoneill. I stopped working on Evolution quite some time ago. There are too many strong views around there. This leads to long discussions and very little results in terms of more or better article text. The Wikipedia task is to improve the articles, after all. I should have kept staying away. Maybe you too can find other articles where your efforts can be more fruitfull. --Ettrig (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)