User talk:Corgimaster4

Welcome!

Hello, Corgimaster4!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 08:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 08:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Corgimaster4! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits).

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARBECR

Note that per WP:ARBECR, you are currently restricted to the making of straightforward edit requests and nothing more. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not sure what this means because on the page you linked to I cannot find the word "straightforward" and so do not know what that is defined as here exactly. However, based on the commonly understood meaning of the word "straightforward", all of my edit requests so far have been straightforward. They have just been about following definitions of words and commonly known facts correctly, and the changes should be very easy to implement. Right? or if you believe not, why not based on my explanations in the edit suggestions? Corgimaster4 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did click on the link to edit requests, right? Because none of your talk page posts met the criteria. Arguing about semantics is irrelevant, for instance. We don't make editorial decisions based on semantics, only based on our policies and guidelines. At Talk:State of Palestine your post was reverted as not being an edit request by User:Selfstudier. What is was was a discussion of the issue, and talk pages are not forums for discussing the issues. In fact it says that at the top:

"This page is not a forum for general discussion about State of Palestine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about State of Palestine at the Reference desk."

Did you not read that? If not, why not? Your second one, discussing the map, was again discussing the topic of the boundaries, with no reference to policies, sources, etc, just your opinions.

Please stop these posts. Two were reverted, the third denied because you didn't provide any sources, just your opinions. If you continue now such posts can be considered to be disruptive. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Semantics is always relevant. We use the words we do as speakers of the dialect of a language (with linguistic competence in it) to describe certain things because those things meet the descriptions that are given by the meanings of the words. Since this is an encyclopedia composed of words, and it is an encyclopedia that aims to be accurate, the words used must aim to be accurate as well. I thought your policies and guidelines included trying to make the encyclopedia as accurate as possible and not misleading or vague and thus using the most appropriate words to describe things in the world (or universe). Do they not? Please explain. Corgimaster4 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you edit less contentious areas of the encyclopedia for now and gain familiarity with WP policies and practice until you are EC. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do you mean by "contentious"? What qualifies a page as "contentious" or not? Is contentiousness relevant for attempts to do simple things like change word choice to better reflect fact? Corgimaster4 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first alert I gave you. Do you see the word contentious in the first sentence? Did you know you can click on it? Doug Weller talk 06:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in responding to your question as you haven't answered my questions above or responded to my statement that " We don't make editorial decisions based on semantics, only based on our policies and guidelines." So, did you read the notices at the top of the talk page for State of Palestine or not? If you don't bother to read our policies and guidelines which I added to the top of this page, or simply can't understand them, you aren't a good fit for this encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just going through your message sentence by sentence until I found one I don't understand so that I can understand the rest of the message bast on prior information. You made a statement about semantics being irrelevant, which I know to be false because I have a PhD in linguistics with research that centered around semantics for years. There is a point to responding to my last message because the message itself raises important questions regardless of other questions. There is no reason to delay addressing it until after other questions have been discussed. Corgimaster4 (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to go to some horrendous chemotherapy. This is an encyclopedia with policies and guidelines, and "semantics" isn't part of them aand can't overrule our dependence on reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 06:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? If semantics aren't part of the policies and guidelines, then the policies and guidelines themselves have no meaning, that is, they have no semantics. Thus there would exist no policies or guidelines for the encyclopedia that anyone would be able to follow. This implies that none of the words that make up the policies and guidelines have any meaning and so don't matter as to whether they are included or not. Thus the entirety of the policies and guidelines could be rewritten with zero words or any number of whatever words. For example, the policies and guidelines could just read "the the the" in their entirety, and they would mean the same as (i.e. nothing). If semantics weren't part of the encyclopedia, then the encyclopedia too could contain no words or whatever words and mean the same. Thus it wouldn't matter at all what edits people make to the encyclopedia. For example they could make it so the encyclopedia says "dog" every time it said "cat" before and says "cat" every time it said "dog" before, and it wouldn't matter, so there would be no reason to reject any edit requests, and what we are talking about right now of what should or should not be edited would be irrelevant. Corgimaster4 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time. Put your money where your mouth is and go ask at WP:NOR if semantics is relevant to the content of an article. Or WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a waste of time. Do not tell me to "put your money where your mouth is". That is a non sequitur. Your command to ask if semantics is relevant to something doesn't convey anything to me because it appears you do not know what semantics really is. I have mentioned multiple times that semantics is meaning. You know what meaning is, I think. Different words and sentences mean different things, for example. "cat" doesn't mean the same as "dog". "Mary saw John" doesn't mean the same as "John saw Mary." That is, they have different semantics. I don't need to ask anyone else because I just explained to you clearly why semantics is relevant to the content of an article, and you have not responded to my explanation. As you do not seem to understand my explanation, I will try to explain better. The question itself of "if semantics is relevant to the content of an article" is nonsensical because the content of an article is its semantic content, that is, what it means. If semantics were irrelevant to the content of an article, then it would not matter if it had any semantic content or not, that is, whether it meant anything or nothing or what it meant. Thus, it would not matter if an article were edited and added to such that it contained huge amounts of text unrelated to the article title or if all the text in the article were deleted or if various words were swapped with other words such with "cat" with "dog" or "France" with "Japan" in every article. The issue here is still unresolved and I do not understand what you mean when you say what should or shouldn't be done in terms of editing articles. You never explained fully what you mean. Thus I have no clear direction as to what one should or shouldn't do in terms of editing articles. Corgimaster4 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat what I said earlier, go to topic areas that are not "Contentious topics" to get 500 edits while you learn how WP works. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The exchange above indicates that either you are trolling by pretending not to understand simple guidance, or that you are being sincere but that your skill-set is not a good fit for wikipedia. Either way, please find another project to volunteer your time to. Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. I am not pretending about anything. The guidance offered to me has not been simple, for example, because it has become confused, and the discussants offering it have made statements I know to be false or nonsensical, as I explained above.

I never received full replies to my messages, and my last message was not replied to at all. The problems that we began to discuss were never resolved.

I mentioned and explained and demonstrated through examples the importance of semantics multiple times. However, these explanations were ignored. Did any of the above discussants bother to look up semantics to actually understand it in the course of the discussion? Please every discussant above review the following article first before making judgments in such haste with lack of full information (pre-judgments):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Consider how semantics could be simply irrelevant to an encyclopedia when there is an entire encyclopedia entry (in this very encyclopedia) devoted to it as a subject or field of study with a long tradition.

I also mentioned that I had a PhD in linguistics and had researched semantics for years. I still do work in semantics. The discussants above called semantics irrelevant, said it does not matter, dismissed by concerns about how there may be issues with semantics in articles in the encyclopedia, and did not try to understand what semantics is first in order to not make pre-judgments about it. I take this as in part an insult to my field or to me.

There is no evidence that my skill-set is not a good fit for Wikipedia. Please explain. As I explained multiple times, semantics is fundamental to an encyclopedia. Therefore I aim to use my skill-set that includes expertise in semantics to attempt to edit Wikipedia in order to improve it by such actions as considering whether the semantics or meaning of words used does not best reflect fact such that there is a better choice of word that could then replace the previous word through an edit. Corgimaster4 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to add to my above note. You can appeal the block as explained in the block notice and an independent admin will review it. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]