User talk:Corgimaster4: Difference between revisions

Hello, Corgimaster4!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]