User talk:Schmayler

Would you please stop trying to fix "typos" at Koi? If you take the time to read the article, you will notice that we are following a recent re-classification that has indeed placed the koi into species rubrofuscus rather than carpio. That may be a matter for discussion, which is provided in section "History", but it is definitely not a "typo". -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I will keep changing the article.
im a retired dnr officer in northern wisconsin with a aquatic biology major from university of akron who currently breeds koi. koi are not a variety of grass carp and a simple look at the two fish would confirm this. koi are a variety of common carp. i shouldnt have to debate this. if you do not stop editing this page to display false information i have every right to talk action to other moderators and possible higher sources even than that. keep this edit the way it is. im not going to ask again. thankyou.( edit. please just leave the page as i edit it. this senseless spreading of mass information is rather ridiculous and i believe we can both agree you make good edits in the paleontology field of pages. but if you could be so kind as to leave the aquatic fauna to me. that would be greatly appreciated. im not going to fight and bicker about this.) ~ Officer Schaub Schmayler (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be labouring under a number of false impressions here.
 * a) "Common sense" or even proclaimed expert knowledge does not come into it. We follow published sources, we summarize what they say, and we put that into the article, accompanied by unambiguous citations of these sources. That is what currently in place at Koi, and it is the model that you will have to adhere to. You will kindly not ask anyone to leave any particular topic to you, because you do not own any topic nor article.
 * b) Wikipedia is consensus-based. In other words, you absolutely do have to debate this. If you disagree with current consensus as expressed in an article, then the route to follow is laid out for you at WP:BRD (one of the primary guidelines of this project): you implement your change; then anyone who disagrees with it is entitled to revert it, citing reasons. The next step is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, possibly to arrive at a new consensus.
 * c) One thing you absolutely can't do is just repeatedly forcing in your new, preferred version without a consensus having been established. That is called edit-warring and will get you into trouble with administrators real quick. Everyone else here is within their rights to "take action with moderators" in this regard, and there is no doubt which way that will swing when there is edit-warring and refusal to communicate one one side.


 * In summary, your options here are to either make your case on the article's talk page, arguing from reliable sources and backing up your arguments with references; or leaving the classification issue alone. Option number three is continuing to edit-war and getting blocked in short order, which I suspect is in no one's interest. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

the agression is not needed
you have anger issues that need solving. im just trying to stop the spread of misinformation. not have a fight. so please. cease the agression and have fun with your misinformation. keyboard warrior esque behavior isnt going to help anything but your ego. stop adding to this discussion. andi urge you for the sake of keeping information true and right and not tainting wikipedias name just to leave the wikipedia home page and possibly admin sub-wikis/fandom wikis that suit you. im done arguing and fighting. im not one to argue and fight kn the internet. it requires no skill and is embarrassing to watvh unfold. good day Schmayler (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)