User talk:Jeschken

Hello, Jeschken, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Below are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! User:FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I was sorry to see your edit to insect decline got reverted, though unfortunately there is a case for that per Wikipedia rules & especially per common practice on that sort of article. Even science professors can find it hard to get edits accepted on some of our science articles - it's maybe the most challenging area to contribute to. If you're still interested in editing here, there may be a case to edit in other topics first, to gain some experience with Wikipedia.

If though you especially feel adding something from the Gatter study is an important improvement, let me know, there may be a way we can mention it. (Though it would be easier if we wait until it gets cited more by review articles or at least in more science journalism) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi FeydHuxtable. The study was widely covered by the press and by politics. I added this now in the history section. I thus believe this study is very important to mention here, especially as it is the study covering the longest timespan by using standardised methods.

Science topics
It looks like you're running into some issues as a new editor, so first let me caution you to slow down and avoid what we call edit warring like you did here. That was ignoring WP:CONSENSUS policy, and when your edits were challenged, you had gain consensus on the talk page for edits related to that Gatter study. Please use the article talk page to gain consensus for related edits at this point if you feel strongly about including something instead of reinserting.

What you're trying to insert is what is called a primary study. Those have limited use in Wikipedia, especially in articles that already use secondary sources to give summary level content. Wikipedia is not a place to give an expose' on an individual primary study barring very exceptional circumstances. Instead, we rely on secondary scientific sources to determine if the content is worth including (or WP:DUE). Right now, you're only providing political or newspaper-type sources, and Identifying_reliable_sources_(science) gives guidance on why that is problematic. If secondary scientific sources like reviews or meta-analyses cite the study in the future, that may then warrant some form of inclusion, but the level of detail you're trying to bring in is not what we would typically include even if covered by a secondary source unless it was considered a seminal study.

Also, in your limited edits, you appear to be a WP:SPA for this Gatter study given your focus on it to the point that it appears you might have a conflict of interest. If you are affiliated with either the study or the Randecker Maar program, you need to disclose that. The WP:COI guideline gives guidance on what to do if that is the case. It's similar to how if I take one of my journal articles I've published, I can't try to give it prominence on Wikipedia myself. Your edits very much have the appearance of doing that, so that is why I bring it up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)