User talk:Andrevan

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

Contentious topics awareness

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

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

"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, Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia: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[1], 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)

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 Wikipedia: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)