Jump to content

User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Former administrator and bureaucrat
This user is American
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a member of the Mediation Committee on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least twenty years.
This is a User page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹



🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #AndreJustAndre/Archives/64🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/64


WikiNYC: 3/14 Hacking Night + 3/16 Queens Name Explorer

March 14: Hacking Night @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for Pi Day Hacking Night at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well, and pies will be served in celebration of Pi Day!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Wikimedia's Technical Code of Conduct.

Meeting info:

March 16: Queens Name Explorer @ QPL Tech Lab

You are also invited to the Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Queens Name Explorer edit-a-thon at the Queens Public Library Tech Lab in Long Island City, which will be hosted in collaboration OpenStreetMap US, Urban Archive and the Queens Memory Project. This is an opportunity for the tech savvy to learn about Queens history and for the history savvy to hone their open data skills – plus, there will be refreshments and prizes for everyone!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.

Meeting info:

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April lichen task force newsletter

The April issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Belated Birthday!

Missed it by a day :( 48JCL 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Andrevan, I was thinking of you recently when puzzling over why the excellent article that you wrote most of, Modern Jewish historiography, still receives so few daily page views. I haven't figured out an answer yet.

Thank you for sharing the article from Daniel B. Schwartz; he writes beautifully. Despite his experience and credentials, he fell into the common trap of conflating the question of peoplehood versus religion. His article about Jewish peoplehood crescendos with the 16th century quote from Solomon ibn Verga: "Lord of the universe! Although you are doing much to make me abandon my religion, know for certain that, despite the heavenly hosts, a Jew I am, and a Jew will I remain, and nothing you have brought or will yet bring upon me will help you!" which is explicitly about the protangonist's religious belief. Application of a nationalist mindset to a pre-modern quotation is a good example of the presentism fallacy.

I hope you are well, and hope we can find another topic to collaborate on soon. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrevan, thanks for your response, and for your interesting and constructive challenge.
I have made some small edits to Sefer ha-Qabbalah and Iggeret of Rabbi Sherira Gaon, as well as fixed the context of the sentence you mentioned in Modern Jewish historiography.
To respond to some of your comments:
  • "An exception to the Hegelian German view of historical national formation perhaps which insists that nationalism is a modern concept." I have seen this view before, and find it to be a jarring form of exceptionalism. Consistent with other forms of exceptionalism, it does not stand up to scrutiny, falling over on (a) the dual translation of the historical term Ioudaios and its semitic cognates, and (b) the evolution of modern thought based on the flawed racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism
  • I just read through the Sefer ha-Qabbalah paragraphs you mentioned. That history is no different to, for example, the Pauline epistles, and is the very basis of how global religious communities were originally created. Early Christian diaspora communities were a mix of immigrants and converts, and the same is true for early Jewish diaspora communities, despite the latter being deemphasized in modern nationalist-influenced histories. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cheesecake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coffee cake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you following your successful appeal but please do read the email I sent you. Welcome back, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant surprise on this Thursday afternoon. I feel a warm rush and a tingling sensation. Though that may be unrelated. Thanks again, best wishes & hope all is well to you and the committee. Andre🚐 19:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Welcome back. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, everyone. It's cool to be welcomed back. Andre🚐 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Man in a Van! Great to see you back! Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Welcome back. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A warm welcome is always appreciated. I'm already off to editing. The Wikipediholic's fix has relief, but also, where'd the day go? Cheers! Enjoy, and thanks! Andre🚐 23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! At Wikipedians by number of edits, I checked yesterday, you were ahead of me by only a few edits, and I assumed since you are blocked, I'll leave you far behind. Today got a shock, but a good one! Jay 💬 15:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah thanks... I might have created 6 or 7 new articles yesterday. That's what happens when all those edits are bottled up in my head for months with no outlet I guess. Andre🚐 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised to see your username not struckthrough looking at an old conversation! Welcome back. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always great to see the old names around :-) Andre🚐 03:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate everyone welcoming me back with such a friendly and happy series of messages. It really does mean a lot! I appreciate y'all, and I hope you are having a great summer! Andre🚐 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Please don't remove sourced content as you did here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source isn't reliable, as it's the Turkish Andalou Agency. WP:RSN archives show that it should be deprecated generally unreliable for politics, see WP:ANADOLU. Andre🚐 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Andre🚐 00:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you resmoved the content again.
WP:ANADOLU reads "The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact." Since it is only being cited here for an uncontroversial statement of fact, the content you removed should be restored. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please look again. In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. It's one box down from the general topics. The statement is prima facie political and controversial. Andre🚐 02:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I restored the content with a better source. Next time instead of removing such content please consider either finding a better source for the content or adding a 'better source needed' tag. Also a talk page entry accompanying such a removal would have been good as well, just for visibility and review so your removal doesn't slip through the cracks and go unseen.
Additionally, regarding "the statement is prima facie political and controversial" - Actually Anadolu is only reporting that "person x made political statement y", so it's just a simple fact being presented. Something very different from Anadolu making political statement y in its own voice. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, restoring with a better source is fine, thanks. Leaving this note here and discussion here are also all good in my book, too. There are certain situations where I do think changing it to a CN tag or starting a talk discussion would be appropriate, and I appreciate your note on that, but it's not required in all cases, and not really a Wikipedia norm. Things are going to slip through the cracks, as no one person or group of people can review all recent changes and WP:BOLDness is part of how things work here, but they're available in the page history. While I'm not exactly doing a full WP:BEFORE on every statement I removed, that's because these articles are already bloated and long and I think the cuts are probably helpful on the whole. WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply to unsourced material or material whose source would be categorically unreliable in that context.
As far as this case goes, while it is moot and I appreciate you finding a better source, I disagree that a report about a political figure making political statements is not political, and I think very many such statements are quite controversial indeed, so I can't agree with your estimation that it matters particularly whether Andalou was amplifying someone's controversial politics or simply having them. GUNREL should neatly give me the cover to remove this content, and your restoration is also fine. Andre🚐 04:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so it's just a simple fact being presented It is moot in this case, but WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant here. Wikipedia is supposed to include not every true thing ("person x made political statement y") but only the relevant ones. Person x could be a wackjob nobody listens to except other wackjobs. Then, a wackjob source would be an entryway into Wikipedia for crazy ideas. Since you found a reliable source, that does not apply here, but so it's just a simple fact being presented was still not valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Nice to see you editing on my watchlist. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) Andre🚐 04:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful edits

I find your recent edits, where you go around removing relevant and likely accurate material from various articles ([1][2]) just because it happens to be sourced to Anadolou Agency to be unhelpful. I see another user has also had an issue with this. WP:PRESERVE says "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself". Even if you don't want to do that, at the very least you could add a [citation needed] tag? Your removals also seem to be done in a rather selective manner.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material is saved in the page history; as I said in the other thread, there are situations where I would leave the material or add a tag, but that is not a requirement of unreliably sourced material, and it's the responsibility of the person adding it to source it reliably. Andre🚐 13:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L4

Could you guys leave L4 alone and stop spreading misinformation about it. Please worry about european haplogroups like H and U.

Thank you. Infowars23 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, Infowars23? It looks like you were changing information and adding West Asia without a source. I was wondering if you have a source that's reliable for your edits. Please see WP:RS. FTDNA sites aren't reliable because much of the info is user-submitted and user-generated. Andre🚐 23:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aniconism in Judaism
added a link pointing to Fiery furnace
Rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire
added a link pointing to Tsarist Russia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Cherrypicked"

Do you have any evidence for your accusation that the list I put together is "cherrypicked"? Levivich (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cherrypicking (essay): If you are familiar with multiple credible sources on a subject and they are significantly different from each other, you may realize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines support reporting from some or all of the sources, and you should edit accordingly. If one editor is not familiar with some sources, another editor who is can edit accordingly. Irrespective of one editor's views, an article as a whole needs to conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines....an article as a whole should reflect the range of sources available on the article's subject. This does not require using every source that exists, just that the sourcing cited be reasonably representative of the range of sources that exist...It is legitimate to ask on a page's talk page once about whether cherrypicking occurred in a specific case. If your question is based on speculation, that is where you may speculate, and even then only if reasonable. The evidence is right there: refusal to accept apparently good sources, with some handwaving and citing of BESTSOURCES. Please explain how BESTSOURCES supports excluding the Cambridge History of Judaism, a reliable secondary history which you falsely claimed was an encyclopedia. See also policy on the misuse of the policy to falsely claim it supports a title test or a rationale under BESTSOURCES to exclude secondary RS which are quite reliable and oft-cited. BESTSOURCES says no such thing. Andre🚐 15:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for a definition of cherrypicked, I asked for your evidence that the bibliography I wrote was cherrypicked. "Refusal to accept apparently good sources" at Talk:Zionism doesn't have any relevance to whether the sources at Bibliography of the Arab-Israeli conflict are cherrypicked. I wrote that bibliography before you started your thread on Talk:Zionism, so the bibliography is in no way a response to anything you wrote on Talk:Zionism. Provide evidence that the bibliography is "cherrypicked" or strike the accusation, please. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking is the action happening on talk citing made-up interpretations of policy. Please cite any policy at all which supports the discusssion on talk. There is no policy requiring me to stick to the bibliography that you chose from in advance. That is cherrypicking if you use spurious interpretations of policy. Do you withdraw the claim that Cambridge is an encyclopedia? Andre🚐 15:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote: Better sources would be secondary sources, academic books focused on Zionism. There is a list at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Zionism.
You replied: A cherrypicked list is probably how we got these non-NPOV articles.
If you didn't mean to accuse me of writing a cherrypicked list at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Zionism, please edit your comment to clarify that. If you did mean to accuse me of writing a cherrypicked list, please provide evidence that the list is, in any way, cherrypicked. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The action of cherrypicking is literally being demonstrated in the talk conversation; do you accept Cambridge as usable? If not, you're cherrypicking. Andre🚐 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more chance to clarify, retract, or substantiate your accusation that I wrote a cherrypicked list at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Zionism which is probably how we got these non-NPOV articles. Or you can explain it to the arbs at ARCA. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already explained myself clearly, I do not think you will be satisfied no matter what I say. Writing the list isn't cherrypicking, but demanding that I can't use Cambridge because it isn't on that list you've prepared is the cherrypicking. Andre🚐 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to edit your comment to clarify that you don't think the list is cherrypicked, and you don't think the list is probably how we got these non-NPOV articles? Levivich (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is clear, the explanation is clear. Do you accept that BESTSOURCES doesn't exclude the 6 Cambridge links I posted? Andre🚐 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated attempts to continue the content dispute here are not going to be effective. This complaint is about you accusing the list I wrote of being cherrypicked, and accusing the list of being probably how we got these non-NPOV articles. This is accusing me of POV-pushing by writing a cherrypicked bibliography. See you at ARCA then. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I already explained, the action of cherrypicking is denying the usability of the Cambridge sources with spurious, non-policy based rationales, while demanding I choose from the list of your pre-vetted sources, that is cherrypicking plain and simple, and you haven't yet explained how it is supported by BESTSOURCES which in no way would exclude Cambridge, which is not an encyclopedia. I did not say anything about how you wrote the list, but saying that the bounds are acceptable sources is your prevetted list which excludes reliable Cambridge, is simply cherrypicking and that is the evidence for it itself, it's happening. A valid way to stop cherrypicking is simply to accept Cambridge as usable and add it to your bibliography. Andre🚐 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I appreciate you editing the comment to make this clarification: WRITING THE LIST ISN't CHERRYPICKING, but demanding that I use it is. However, now you've made another false accusation: when did I or anyone else ever demand that you use the list? Levivich (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, demand is strong, how about "request with invalid policy rationales"? Andre🚐 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about no. Look, Andre, zero tolerance for battleground behavior here. I suggested that we use different sources than the sources you suggested we use. This is not "cherrypicking" on my part. This is not "demanding" on my part. This is not a policy violation of any kind on my part. Usually, I would just ignore when people accuse me of misconduct solely because I dare to disagree with them, but not you, not this time. Clean it up, or explain it to the arbs when I ask them to reinstate your block. I did not cherrypick, I did not demand, I did not violate policy, by suggesting that the WP:BESTSOURCES are listed in that bibliography. I am not doing anything wrong by making that suggestion, and I will not tolerate you accusing me of misconduct because I made that suggestion. Clean it up -- like, really clean up that comment -- or explain it to the arbs. Levivich (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to agree with me, but you can't accuse me of misconduct solely because I don't agree with you. You need to find a way to disagree with people without accusing them of misconduct. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of misconduct, if you accept that Cambridge is a perfectly good source, then you are no longer cherrypicking. BESTSOURCES says to use scholarly RS. It says nothing about using sources with Zionism in the title. Andre🚐 16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just, once again, said that unless I agree with you, I am cherrypicking, meaning POV-pushing. By saying "no longer cherrypicking," you are saying that I am already cherrypicking. If you really don't see the problem with that, then in my view, you should not be allowed participate in this topic area. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking is not the same as POV pushing. You keep trying to put words in my mouth. Quite simply cherrypicking is excluding some sources for invalid reasons. "Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally" Andre🚐 16:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept your latest revision to your comment and drop this there. BTW, adding the book chapters that you've cited in Talk:Zionism to the bibliography was WP:POINTy. The bibliography lists books only, not individual chapters or articles. (If we listed chapters and articles, we'd have thousands and thousands of entries.) Books about Judaism don't belong on that bibliography, which is about the conflict, not about Judaism. One of the books was about Israeli law, so I put that book under the Israel section. The others were about Jewish philosophy or Judaism in general, I removed those as out of scope. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not POINTy, it's literally the subject under discussion. POINT means disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate the point. I'm making good faith edits trying to help the NPOV balance issue on Zionism. I have no problem with your reverts, but I think the exclusion of books about Judaism or Jewish philosophy is quite arbitrary if they also discuss Zionism. Why not simply make another section for Jewish works? NPOV means throwing a bone to the side you don't agree with. Andre🚐 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember if I said this already or not, but just wanted to say thanks for expanding and improving the bibliography. That's a pretty awesome outcome to an argument, thank you for turning my lemons into lemonade. Levivich (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we look for. Thanks for hanging on to that good faith. Andre🚐 21:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the Islamophobia page.

I've tried to improve the NPOV and encyclopaedic nature of this article myself, but it's controlled by a small group, intent on pushing their own perspective as the established/factual narrative. You reverted Tyrone Jahir's edits to this page on the grounds that they didn't improve the NPOV issue, but at least Tyrone was attempting to do something about it - even is they do appear to have created that account especially for doing so :) . You seem to have plenty of barnstars, I'd like to invite you to spend some time working to improve this article. Obscurasky (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey, you think I have time for more contentious disputes? Andre🚐 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to think you have time to do what’s in the best interests of this great institution we all love. Obscurasky (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There he goes, pulling at my heartstrings. Andre🚐 23:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/64&oldid=1257452289"