Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 24 September 2024 (→"That is the wiki way": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndreJustAndre/ArchivedTalkHistory.

Andre🚐's Talk ☎️ Page Archive 📇 Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67
☕ Threads archived by ClueBot III after 72h ☕

Contentious topics awareness

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the Balkans or Eastern Europe gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion climate change articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues COVID-19, broadly construed complementary and alternative medicine He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them!

This is my talk page.You can start a new thread by clicking here.

AndreJustAndre is out of town and may not respond to queries.

"That is the wiki way"

Your demand that other editors 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. Valereee (talk) 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 could be considered disruptive or is otherwise out of sync of how things should be done nowadays. My logic for arguing for incremental and iterative change and retaining much of the material removed in the proposed rewrite drafts include WP:PRESERVE, Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Try to fix problems, and collective ownership. I do recognize and will abide by the consensus that forms. Best regards, Andre🚐 13:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The ones that comes to mind most quicklyly are WP:BLUDGEON, WP:SEALION, and WP:AGF. 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. Valereee (talk) 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. WP:DUE 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 Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict . 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 Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict, you are WP:INVOLVED in issues of the conflict and shouldn't be acting as an impartial admin. Thanks, Andre🚐 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." Valereee (talk) 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 WP:INVOLVED. Since you're not sanctioning me, I don't need to bring that to WP:AN/I, but if you're saying this is a formal admin warning, then I suppose I have to. Andre🚐 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TPS -- @Valereee, 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. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus required restriction makes things feel a bit different than normal, I agree. Andre🚐 13:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

See also The wiki way, I believe the "wiki way" actually dates to the original wiki or earlier. Like this quote from Mark Janssen, 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 Ward Cunningham also has a book called that from 2001 or so. Andre🚐 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 Talk:Zionism but to participate in a Misplaced Pages:Userspace draft ("But please take these comments to the corresponding talk page") instead. I believe changes to Zionism need consensus on Talk:Zionism. See also Follow the normal protocol and WP:NEGOTIATE Andre🚐 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedians open to trout slapping