Robert Rossi
Welcome!
Hello, Robert Rossi, 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:
- 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
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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Help me! edit
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... I am mostly a Wikipedia user, but also an occasional editor, and trying to help. But on two separate recent occasions now I've had edits I have made reverted almost immediately, for what seem to be flippant reasons, by people who seem more dedicated to lording over the pages they consider theirs (or something?) than trying to improve Wikipedia. It is extremely demoralizing, and the most recent one just plain made me mad. I can understand no reasonable basis for it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereoisomerism&oldid=prev&diff=1056591772 I added the see also section because the formatting [italicization, capitalization] of chemical descriptors is a common source of confusion for my students when writing papers, and the best resource I have found on that isn't linked to by almost any of the Wikipedia articles on related topics.) Should I try to engage the person who reverted the page in talk somehow, or take some other response, or just give up (this is what I'm leaning toward, as I do not have time to play endless games...I edit when I find a hole in Wikipedia in the course of trying to use it) and leave editing to the "professionals?" That's how it feels right now. This is not a rush/priority matter (in fact, it is the last week of classes so I am pretty swamped). Thanks. Robert Rossi (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Robert Rossi (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- The short answer is that yes, discussion is almost always the best way forward. I don't think either of the editors who undid your changes did so with any sort of malice or because they were "lording over" the page; there are (some would argue too many) guidelines, rules, and regulations about what should, can, and might be included in a page. Regarding Stereoisomerism, the rationale was given in the undo - almost all of the links in the see also section were already prominently linked elsewhere in the article, and "see also" sections are generally for other similar content that is related but not necessarily discussed in the body of the text.
- Either way, I do agree with you that Wikipedia can occasionally be confusing, often frustrating, and sometimes a headache. That being said, doing your best to keep a cool head and discuss the matter with the individual who did the revert (or a related WikiProject, if the person is unresponsive or unwilling to change their mind) is almost always the best way forward.
- Really, though, everyone gets reverted on occasion (even someone like me, who has been here for many years!), and the key is to not sweat it too much. Unless someone is maliciously attacking your edits or otherwise harassing you, they're probably just trying to do what they feel is best for Wikipedia.
- If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)