| Revision as of 21:12, 1 October 2024 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,076 edits →Re: DYK: re← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:32, 14 November 2024 edit undoTenWhile6 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,731 editsm TenWhile6 moved page User talk:Andrevan/ArchivedTalkHistory to User talk:AndreJustAndre/ArchivedTalkHistory: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Andrevan" to "AndreJustAndre" |
| (23 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{User:Andrevan/Buttons}} |
|
|
] |
|
|archiveprefix=User talk:Andrevan/Archives/ |
|
|
|
{{User:Andrevan/bigNotice|image=Card_catalog_from_page_167_of_"Manual_of_library_classification_and_shelf_arrangement"_(1898).jpg|title=This is an archive of the talk page history.|1= If you wish to start or revisit a discussion, please do so .}} |
|
|numberstart=54 |
|
|
⚫ |
{{-}} |
|
|format=%%i |
|
|
|header={{User:Andrevan/Talkt}} |
|
|
|archivebox=no |
|
|
|maxarchsize=35000 |
|
|
|age=72 |
|
|
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:Andrevan/MainTalkPageHeader}} |
|
|
{{Out of town}} |
|
|
<!--- header --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== "That is the wiki way" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Your ] that other editors {{xt|propose and make changes incrementally to the existing article, word by word sentence by sentence (since this article is under the consensus required restriction) so we can see everything that will added, removed, or changed, that is the Wiki way.}} when those other editors have spent weeks/months planning a complete overhaul is unreasonable, and your assertion that this is the only correct way to make changes is incorrect. This is arguably disruptive editing at the talk page of a contentious topic. Please try to work collaboratively instead of insisting your own preferred method of editing is the only one you'll accept. ] (]) 11:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi, Valereee. Thanks for the note. I'll certainly keep your message in mind and try to improve my commentary and arguments. While I've edited for a long time, Misplaced Pages policies, and norms, and consensus are often changing and evolving, so it's helpful for me to keep abreast of the latest developments. It would be helpful if you could link some essays or policies so I can understand better how my talk page commentary ] or is otherwise out of sync of how things should be done nowadays. My logic for arguing for ] and retaining much of the material removed in the proposed rewrite drafts include ], ], and ]. I do recognize and will abide by the consensus that forms. Best regards, ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 13:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The ones that comes to mind most quicklyly are ], ], and ]. You have accused other editors, at least eight times in a single day by my count, of cherrypicking simply for including on the list of BESTSOURCES -- which as has been made clear several times in that discussion is intended to be a list of ''best sources'', not ''the only allowable'' sources -- books that are primarily about Zionism (of which there are likely dozens of recent academic examples) rather than general texts about Judaism (of which there are likely hundreds). You've asserted that general texts are less likely to be biased, over and over again, without presenting any evidence I've been able to find. You've focussed on the idea that most of the books suggested for this list have Zionism in their titles -- which makes total sense when one is looking for books ''about Zionism'' -- as somehow equating to a requirement for that, which doesn't actually seem to be true. |
|
|
::You have insisted that all changes be made incrementally and word by word, sentence by sentence. |
|
|
::And this is just in the two discussions I've been able to wade through so far. |
|
|
::The net result of including general sources is a BESTSOURCES list that could literally be 1000 books, making it likely anyone trying to familiarize themselves with the body of work will throw up their hands in and walk away. The net result of arguing, word by word, over an article this long and contentious is an editing process that would be so frustrating that it's likely other editors will throw up their hands and walk away. Doing things that make other editors get so frustrated they walk away is disruptive. ] (]) 16:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hi, Valereee. I'll take that good faith feedback into account and try to take a closer look at my activities, and take a break to let things cool off. However, I will point out that cherrypicking is not necessarily a bad faith situation, it can be done unintentionally, and refers to an unintentional blind spot in source selection. The issues about sources being titled or about Zionism, that I was attacking, were proposed by at least one other editor, but happily, we seem to have clearly moved past that at this point. ] clearly says that weight is all reliable sources, so leaving out more general work could be cherrypicking. I will also point out that BLUDGEON contains some rules of thumb to determine if one is BLUDGEONing, which do not seem to apply to my activities strictly speaking, but I'll consider how the spirit might be applying. I did provide evidence for my source arguments, in a separate section with references, and I've also added a bunch to ]. and I am not the most prolific text generator on that talk at all, or responsible for 1/3+ of text. I certainly object to SEALION, such an allegation requires detailed diffs or it is uncivil, and itself seems to lack good faith. I will also point out, since you are the primary author of ], you are ] in issues of the conflict and shouldn't be acting as an impartial admin. Thanks, ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah, I'm not involved. I write about food. Every once in a while food intersects with Nationalism, which is what happened at Falafel, which resulted in Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict as an attempt to keep Falafel from becoming The politics of falafel. You can read my comments at falafel, which were basically, "This is a FOOD. There may be political implications, but it's a FOOD and we should be addressing it primarily as a FOOD." ] (]) 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::We can agree to disagree. A recent ANI thread about another admin who thought he wasn't involved found that he was. The article clearly has politics and Arab-Israeli conflict, so you're ]. Since you're not sanctioning me, I don't need to bring that to ], but if you're saying this is a formal admin warning, then I suppose I have to. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I always welcome community input. ] (]) 21:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm sure, but that's a bit of a non-answer. I have no desire for "teh drama." So, is this a formal admin warning or a friendly collegial editor warning? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Kinda hate to have to word it this way, but if you insist: It's a formal warning about behavioral concerns from an admin who considers herself uninvolved. If the community believes I'm involved, it's a friendly collegial editor warning about behavioral concerns, which really you should take just as seriously. ] (]) 21:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:TPS -- @], fwiw, I can empathize as I feel like some articles that are ''consensus required'' have had an editorial freeze put on them. This seems like it's by design though, and would suggest perhaps editors try and seek out lifting that restriction before attempting to do such a large rewrite/refactor. I don't have nearly the experience you or AndreVan have, but I thought I'd share my thoughts on the matter. ] (]) 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, the consensus required restriction makes things feel a bit different than normal, I agree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 13:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:See also ], I believe the "wiki way" actually dates to or earlier. Like this quote from Mark Janssen, {{tq|The wiki way is about radical collaboration while preserving everyone's contribution. The idea is to add and refine, rather that delete another's input. Subtract only when a greater synthesis is made that simplifies the conversation}} ] also has a book called that from 2001 or so. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 13:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:BTW, also, my comment is not a demand but a polite request and an opinion on the best way to proceed;. AFAIK, it would be improper for users to ask me not to respond on ] but to participate in a ] ("But please take these comments to the corresponding talk page") instead. I believe changes to Zionism need consensus on Talk:Zionism. See also ] and ] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has inspired me to add a new section to my userpage: ] Thanks for the inspiration, good quotes, and good links. -- ] (]) (PING me) 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nice! :-) ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question about RSP == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Andrevan. Because you’re active on the RSP Talk page and a very experienced editor, I’m wondering if you have input as to the correct method for asking that ] prior to March 2024 be added based on an RfC and two other discussions on RSN: , , . I started two of these discussions as a paid consultant to ], an organization which was written about by Bloody Elbow, so I declared a conflict of interest . It seems to me that Bloody Elbow now meets the specific criteria of ] but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination. I have looked and don’t see a specific protocol for this situation. I’d appreciate your take here as well as any advice about how to proceed in good faith. ] (]) 15:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oh, thanks, but I'm not sure if I'm the person to help with this. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sinclairian == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to get more bad blood with Sinclairian but his recent edit summaries have been things like "stupid" or "idiot". he has been ignoring attempts to interact positively and he also is refusing to listen to other editors, certain he is correct. it's frustrating. ] 20:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Next time it happens, please let me know. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Trouted == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{trout}} |
|
|
You have been trouted for: OH ALL THE REASONS! ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Belated welcome back == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm obviously very late to have noticed this, but welcome back! --] (]) 22:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oh hi and thank you! Much appreciated. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re: DYK == |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{tq|Leon Trotsky was said to be particularly fond of a restaurant called Triangle Dairy in the Bronx, whose waiters were Russian emigrés, but refused to tip, leading to verbal abuse, intentionally poor service, and an incident that caused him to be burned by hot soup.}} |
|
|
Apologies for placing it here, but I wanted to get a quick response since you're currently online. I have issues reading this sentence. When you say "but refused to tip", it almost sounds like you are referring to the waiters instead of Trotsky. One solution is to split it into two, perhaps something like "According to one story, Leon Trotsky was said to have been particularly fond of a Jewish dairy restaurant called Triangle Dairy in the Bronx, whose waiters were Russian emigrés. Trotsky refused to tip after eating, leading to verbal abuse, intentionally poor service, and one incident where waiters intentionally burned him with hot soup." Assuming of course that is accurate...any objections? ] (]) 21:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
.jpg)