[mistrial9]

sadly, I can jump in on the "Wikipedia fails" train here, also. In about five attempts to really change an article (different ones) in about five years, every single change was rejected, as far as I know. The changes were different, one was writing style and order of facts on a public historical event in this century; one was adding a lot of detail to the description of a popular fantasy fiction series; one was removing a controversial and provocative one-liner at the top of a page about people at the edge of (western) society; and another .. hmm I forget now, because I just gave up !

My aging colleague tells me, just keep doing the changes, they cant stop everything. However, my direct (and limited) experience is.. they do stop everything (that I try). I was logged in twice and used anonymous three times, and added citation a bit, too.

To the point of the article, FOSS projects in wikipedia ? hmm maybe there could be a clear category for that ? software projects are proliferating rapidly.. dunno

[zozbot234]

The way around mindless reverts is to first detail the proposed change on the talk page, then wait for anyone interested to object. If no one does, you can make the change live, pointing out that no objections were raised. Even if someone does object, such objections should ultimately be made actionable, i.e. it should be made clear how to address them to the other party's satisfaction.

[wffurr]

Did you read the reasons for rejection and try to modify subsequent submissions to better comply with Wikipedia's published guidelines?

[mistrial9]

yes, I did, and I feel that this revert behavior was more hazing/article control than substantive in all cases but one, and that one I dont personally agree.

[ErrantX]

Have you got an example?