User talk:Pszczola-osa

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Pszczola-osa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Haploidavey (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Insect
As I said in my edit summary, I think I see what you're trying to say; but I believe the essentials have already been said (and cited) in the sections above and below. If, however, you wish to make an additional point, observation or interpretation regarding eusocial insects - that is, something not already covered in the article and its supporting, cited sources - you must offer a WP:Reliable source that explicitly supports the material you add, or any other substantial changes you make. If you can do that, please go ahead, and welcome. Please be assured, no one's trying to put you off editing this or any other articles. If English is not your first language, that's really not a problem. We've many en wikipedia editors in that position, and it doesn't (and shouldn't) stop them contributing. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm not saying you're "wrong"; only just that your statements (entirely reasonable in themselves) need the support of a cited reliable source. Perhaps you'd best post your concerns at the article talk-page. That's the best place for discussion of article content issues. Haploidavey (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

--- I read as suggested the "sections above and below" I do not think this sense and character of eusocial live (constant care for young) is mentioned at all. Regarding cites/sources I would be happy to fulfill you wish. However I do not have the citation. Except written science, wise guys' books is something as common knowledge. Every beekeeper and etymologist see it at first glance. You can believe me I opened thousand times honey bee hives and everywhere it is the same :))) thus I did not care to confirm the obvious in a book. The only concept of opposition to this basic observation can be just English. Let me know if you still think you can request a citation from me. Regards,--Pszczola-osa (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your observation seems simpler than I first thought, and (as it turns out) is supported by some of the article's existing citations. I'm working towards a slightly different version on a user-page, expanding and explaining the issues for the hypothetical "average reader" because what's obvious, commonplace and self-evident to entomologists and beekeepers may not be so to a general readership. Inline citations offer those readers opportunities to verify all article content; that's an editorial obligation, really. I'll take care of this in due course, sometime over the next couple of days. Cheers. Haploidavey (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference
I appreciate your help, thank you. For future reference, however, so you don't get in trouble with the administrators - if something is removed don't immediately try to put it back or do this multiple times. Try discussing it in the talk page instead.   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  20:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, You seems to be more reasonable than the other bunch of "friends". 1. I found the talk page entrance regarding my edit by accident only. Nobody was kind of to give me a clue: somebody finally decided to discus with me changes to the article. 2. Administrator should look in first into quality of the edit instead who accuse anybody for something "unpleased". 3. I return automatically my paragraph (which is with reasonable resources) if the ERASER do not start with arguments and proposed changes. 4. I am not going to start discussion if somebody start and continue with repeated ERASEANINGS. Administrator should block the ERASER instead RETURNER of resourced scientific info. Thank you --Pszczola-osa (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, most of the admins are indifferent to whether or not it is "erasing" or "returning." You're just going to have to learn how to "walk on eggshells" like I had to. As for the references, I would have to change them to a more appropriate format, which doesn't mean they're necessarily bad; only I didn't understand the first ref, Microsoft Encarta 2000? I think it would be better if you can direct me towards a link. Your friend, Getbee, re-added the moved text back to the same spot, is it fine if I take the initiative of removing it since I reworded it and incorporated it to the latter paragraph of the lead?   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Insect
Your edit summary here shows a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy: It is not an 'offence to push the user out to the talk page.' If there is a dispute, the matter should be resolved by consensus on talk before you restore material to the article again. If you continue to revert without gaining a talk page consensus, you may be blocked under our WP:Edit warring policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)