User talk:Cornsimpel

Welcome

Hello, Cornsimpel, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Hi User:CornSimpel, I wanted to reach out and thank you for your edits to Agriculture in ancient Rome. Thanks! (Also please ignore the previous message about unconstructive edits to Knives Out (film), that was not meant for you) Keep up the good work!Auberginandjuice (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agriculture in ancient Greece, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Armenian and Syriac. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Agriculture in Russia

added a link pointing to Arable

Garden

added a link pointing to Antiquity

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cishan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ancient Agora of Athens

added a link pointing to Laurel

Greek gardens

added a link pointing to Narcissus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kitchen garden

added links pointing to Mustard, Sage, Whitethorn, Eglantine, Bugloss and Pennyroyal

Ancient Agora of Athens

added a link pointing to Laurel

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles II.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm Macedonian. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Macedonian have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Macedonian (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean they did not appear constructive? Cornsimpel (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Macedonian. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Macedonian (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you leaving multiple warnings on my page without explanation? How are my edits not constructive? Cornsimpel (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Old Summer Palace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Li Wei.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asharaf (Seville) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Asharaf (Seville), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: The citation to E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam should be enough. Cornsimpel (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Asharaf (Seville)

Hello, Cornsimpel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Asharaf (Seville), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted topics

Hi. See WP:GS/AA as several Armenia and Azerbaijan related topics are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you’re not an extended confirmed user. Vanezi (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of any restrictions. I did not begin editing with any interest in Armenia or Azerbaijan related subjects. My central edit was about earthquakes. I only found those other articles working from a list to add the earthquake article links to the Eastern Anatolia article. My interest in this subject began with the large earthquake in February I am sure that you heard about. I appreciate your alerting me to this situation. I am planning to continue editing about earthquakes after this.

In the future, if you see a more complicated series of good faith edits like my earthquake edits maybe you can ask the unaware editors to fix their own edits. I'm sure many unaware and good faith editors don't want to feel they are being dragged into a conflict because they made small good faith edits related to that conflict while editing about something else.

Maybe it would be enough to alert good faith editors about future edits, and only revert the non-complicated ones, instead of removing large amount of content unrelated to any restriction. If you feel editors are being disruptive, or have a dedicated interest, that might require more action. Cornsimpel (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vanezi (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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.

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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Do you consider saying a user is "trolling" to be a personal attack? Cornsimpel (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could provide a list of personal attacks that are blockable as opposed to those that are not blockable? I was working on an article about seismicity of the UK but I will be going on a trip in a few days, so now I don't know if I will be able to finish it. It's so difficult once I lose focus it's going to be hard to get it back. Can I at least edit in my draftbox? I'll probably finish it, tbh, but this is an inconvenient delay. Cornsimpel (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that characterize a user's edits are distinct from comments that are direct insults against another editor's person, with the latter being entirely unacceptable. I would recommend reading through our relevant policy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Ping so you see this. About that TBAN you want, Rosguill, I give you permission to TBAN me indefinitely from a topic area I am not planning to edit in. I know you don't believe that I am not planning edits in that topic area, so as a show of good faith to you, I am not even going to argue with you about how dumb I think this is. How about this? I will not object to you TBAN-ing me from that topic area you are worried about but you will be kind enough to lift this short-term block so I can continue working on the articles in my main area of interest? Cornsimpel (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cornsimpel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made a personal attack against another editor. I think an indefinite topic ban is a more appropriate sanction. Rosguill did not want to impose unilaterally but it makes more sense than this short-term block that is preventing me from editing. No one has said there was a problem with my other edits about volcanoes and I want to continue working on Meterologica. I know sometimes it seems like if something is the most important topic in the world to an individual, it must also be so to others, and nobody believes that this is not an elaborate plan for me to make more edits about that topic. Come on, Meteors?

I get why you guys are skeptical. No one edits about meteors. But - it's not an elaborate plot to make more edits about that subject. Seriously. If a topic ban is the way to rise above this suspicion about my motives then I am open to that. I wish it had been suggested before the interaction got so personal and nasty. I am sorry for the personal attack that I made. I don't make personal attacks often or lightly, and my behavior here did not meet the standards I have for myself. I don't want this to happen again. I would like to continue editing. I don't want drama.

Decline reason:

Hmm. At best this unblock request totally fails to address the reason for the block, which was nothing to do with editing on a particular topic, so the suggestion of a topic ban is irrelevant. At worst, taking into account everything you have posted here since the block, you know full well that this unblock request has nothing to do with the reason for the block, and are trolling. Somewhere long the spectrum between those two cases lies the truth, but it doesn't matter where, because nowhere in that spectrum is there a good reason for unblocking. JBW (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@JBW: The unblock request was responded to by Deepfriedokra at 22:12, 12 February 2024. I have continued to discuss the block with the blocking administrator but as I said below, I am not objecting to the block anymore and will follow Deepfriedokra's advice. I'm not understanding what you mean by "trolling". Please don't respond to this kind of stuff if you don't want to read the discussion carefully. I know that it is long, and I don't expect you to read it, but this was not helpful. Being blocked is an annoying experience for editors and the blocking administrator's responsibility has been satisfactorily responsive to my questions. Thanks, Cornsimpel (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

You have not dealt with the problem of personal attacks. And who is to say that you won't make them when editing in your topic of choice? There are discrepancies between what you wrote and your conduct. We'll let those pass. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the 31 hours to reflect on your behavior, please. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you obviously didn't find what I wrote convincing, but I'm not holding it against you. I probably wouldn't either. I'm kind of putting you guys on the spot here. I am going you do what you said and use the 31 hours to reflect on my behavior. I conveyed a wrong impression by my responses. I will change my behavior after this block to avoid making further personal attacks. Cornsimpel (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Deepfriedokra Can you please post this on the ANI thread because I'm not able to post there:~~

"If you topic ban me, I'm not going to edit about the Armenian genocide. If you don't topic ban me, I'm not going to edit about the Armenian genocide. There is nothing anyone can say or do that is going to change this fact: I am not going to edit about the Armenian genocide or any Armenian ethnic conflicts. I hope that is very clear. I breached the civility requirement when I called the editor a troubled and deluded person and I am not objecting to this short-term block as a unilateral administrative action.

For the topic ban that is additionally proposed, I am also not objecting. I want everyone to believe that I am not going to make edits in the topic area and allow me to disengange. Subjectively, I know that is what is going to happen, even if a topic ban is not imposed. But, for objective proof please impose the topic ban because I prefer this discussion to be closed ASAP. Cornsimpel (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question you pinged me to: no, and in general the relevant policy does not boil down to phrases that are ok vs ones that are not. Context is paramount: much more latitude is given to criticism of concrete edits/comments than to ad hominem assertions.

In the context of the ANI discussion, Vanezi provided examples of specific edits by you that they found problematic and explained their reasoning--your first response (beginning I'm a little take aback by this complaint....) was appropriate, in that it directly addressed an accusation and gave an explanation of why you performed the edits that Vanezi believed to be GAMEing. Your further response to specific accusations of POV-pushing, however, did not really address the edits they identified, instead just making a general appeal to your good intentions rather than explaining what you were hoping to accomplish with the edits in question. You also rhetorically asked Are you accusing me of having a too pro-Armenia POV?, when Vanezi was pretty clearly accusing you of having an anti-Armenia POV and generally minimizing information relating to historical Armenia across the articles in question. Given that context, calling your comment "trolling", while not diplomatic or particularly encouraged, is not going to be seen as a blockworthy offense. If your final response had been focused on the comments made, rather than the character of those making them, (e.g. the accusations are ridiculous), I would not have blocked you either. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that discussions about the article content should be at the article talk page. This is helpful for me and others as a record of past discussions when editing articles. I stopped making changes to the article text because I did not like that the edits and Vanezi's comments were occurring in different forums. Before that I was trying to incorporate important content that he felt was removed, which I also thought was important. I assumed he was a good faith editor and really believed what he was saying. For that reason, I think calling his comments Ridiculous would have been less civil, even if it was not personal. Because of the sensitivity of the topic. I don't think what he was saying was ridiculous. When he pointed it out, I did research and found support to expand the content about Western Armenia, which he then said was irrelevant after he complained that I had removed it. I think it's very valuable and critical content of importance to many young people and I'm sorry to let this article go, but I will. But I wanted to discuss it with Vanezi at the article talk page where there was zero discussion at the article talk page. So you could not have known my defense or justification for my edits because Vanezi never attempted to discuss them with me. I'm not blaming you for that. I only wish you were more sympathetic to how upsetting it is to be falsely accused of having an anti-Armenia POV when the evidence he provided doesn't support that accusation. Cornsimpel (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I promised Deepfriedokra, without keeping track of the hours, I have reflected on my behavior. What Rosguill described as making a general appeal to your good intentions rather than explaining what you were hoping to accomplish with the edits in question was a statement I made at ANI that I was proud of the work I did here. And, as I was reflecting, I realized that I'm not proud of that work anymore. I believe that administrators are absolutely vital to this project. I'm not an administrator and I don't wish to be one. Any content dispute, editor bickering, incivility, boisterousness is part of the collaborative nature of the project. I believe that anyone can edit and anyone is free not to edit. However, I can not work on a project with administrators that I can not respect. Not everyone takes this as seriously as I do. I am inconsolable upon realizing there is nothing that will change this fact. And that I don't feel proud of the work that I have done here anymore. I have thought about the seismology article I was working on and decided it is too difficult for me. If anyone wants to pick it up it's free in my sandbox. Cornsimpel (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]