Johnadams11
Joined 19 February 2021
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Johnadams11 in topic WP:ECR
If you continue to violate ECR as you did here you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please advise where on this page, this restriction is identified. The only sign of it is coming from other editors. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- ECR applies to the entire topic anywhere on the English Wikipedia. It is explained at WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- You'll also find a notice at Talk:Terrorism that explains it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I see a notice which suggests that "parts" of the page may require extended-confirmed. Please show where the "definitions" section which I edited is designated as such a "part. As it is, it looks as though over-zealous editors waive the ECR flag to discourage edits they may not agree with but have no inclination to debate about. My own experience is that the "edit" link is hidden on pages or sections I may not edit. Happy to learn more. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- You were editing content that starts with
The use of the term in the Israel-Palestine conflict
. It is plainly covered by sanctions on the Arab/Israel conflict. Sections of articles cannot be independently protected, so it's up to you to follow sanctions that you're aware of. You also violated the 1rr sanction, which applies to any content related to the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- Absolutely bizarre. The topic is definitional on the word "terrorism." The example you point to suggests that if I reference that you and I are warring "just like in the Israel-Palestine conflict," etc., that this section is then protected. Does that make sense? Johnadams11 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then it would be covered by the sanction. Even discussion on talk pages about the topic is forbidden for editors who are not extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Great. So when editing articles about ice cream flavors I feel strongly about, I'll be sure to gratuitously reference I/P so as to limit any allowable edits. Just really annoying because on the merits, my edit is not remotely debatable. That section fails every test of academic and encyclopedic soundness. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The solution is to submit an edit request following the WP:EDITXY guideline. The merits of the proposed change will then be evaluated by the community. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- In the time you spent debating this, you could have given your seasoned-editor read of the section, and perhaps contributed to this project. The "you can't edit that" approach is nothing but a low rent power trip IMO. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's enough personal attacks. At this point you've been made well aware of the sanctions, and if you violate any ARBPIA restrictions you will be sanctioned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But I would point out to you that I was not the instigator of the lack of civility here. The party I was debating this with posted some sort of "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on my talk page. As is obvious, I've been here for four years, and have over 100 edits. I appreciate your interest in avoiding rancor and hope you apply that sensibility fairly. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comrade, those notifications are required. They are to make you aware of the rules. Allow me to say that the way you think is error prone. There are false premises and an over-estimation of your own knowledge of systems. This will get you into trouble in contentious topic areas. I have no interest in the content. The merit of the edit is of no interest to me. There are plenty of people to handle content. My objective is described on my user page for all to see. You can pretend that I'm a chatbot implementing the ECR rules with the ability to explain my actions. I am interested in the dynamics of the PIA topic area and the effects of rule enforcement, so this exchange has been valuable from my perspective. Good luck to you. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. What you could have done, really at the outset, was to have explained that while full articles are restricted systematically, that sectional rules must be enforced manually. I did some reasonable investigation of the topic while we were debating, and did not see this point made anywhere. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comrade, those notifications are required. They are to make you aware of the rules. Allow me to say that the way you think is error prone. There are false premises and an over-estimation of your own knowledge of systems. This will get you into trouble in contentious topic areas. I have no interest in the content. The merit of the edit is of no interest to me. There are plenty of people to handle content. My objective is described on my user page for all to see. You can pretend that I'm a chatbot implementing the ECR rules with the ability to explain my actions. I am interested in the dynamics of the PIA topic area and the effects of rule enforcement, so this exchange has been valuable from my perspective. Good luck to you. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But I would point out to you that I was not the instigator of the lack of civility here. The party I was debating this with posted some sort of "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on my talk page. As is obvious, I've been here for four years, and have over 100 edits. I appreciate your interest in avoiding rancor and hope you apply that sensibility fairly. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's enough personal attacks. At this point you've been made well aware of the sanctions, and if you violate any ARBPIA restrictions you will be sanctioned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- In the time you spent debating this, you could have given your seasoned-editor read of the section, and perhaps contributed to this project. The "you can't edit that" approach is nothing but a low rent power trip IMO. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The solution is to submit an edit request following the WP:EDITXY guideline. The merits of the proposed change will then be evaluated by the community. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Great. So when editing articles about ice cream flavors I feel strongly about, I'll be sure to gratuitously reference I/P so as to limit any allowable edits. Just really annoying because on the merits, my edit is not remotely debatable. That section fails every test of academic and encyclopedic soundness. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The test is - "Is the content I am adding, changing or removing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict 'broadly construed'". The test applies to content. Whether the content is in a separate section or not is immaterial. In this case it is very simple to apply this test because your edit is unambiguously related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is not technically possible right now to apply automatic protection levels at the content level. This is why enforcement is carried out by humans. Sean.hoyland (talk)
- Then it would be covered by the sanction. Even discussion on talk pages about the topic is forbidden for editors who are not extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely bizarre. The topic is definitional on the word "terrorism." The example you point to suggests that if I reference that you and I are warring "just like in the Israel-Palestine conflict," etc., that this section is then protected. Does that make sense? Johnadams11 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- You were editing content that starts with
- Thank you. I see a notice which suggests that "parts" of the page may require extended-confirmed. Please show where the "definitions" section which I edited is designated as such a "part. As it is, it looks as though over-zealous editors waive the ECR flag to discourage edits they may not agree with but have no inclination to debate about. My own experience is that the "edit" link is hidden on pages or sections I may not edit. Happy to learn more. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)