Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
::::::Well, that might be true, but remember that the remaining edits can be fixed by another editor, at his/her own discretion, such as by [[User:Huldra]]. In fact, if you look at other Wikipedia pages, such as [[Mosaic of Rehob]], the format is used there, but it does not cover 100% all references. They are more selective. I don't see this as a real problem, as the overall improvement outweighs the alternative. IMHO.[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena|talk]]) 21:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
::::::Well, that might be true, but remember that the remaining edits can be fixed by another editor, at his/her own discretion, such as by [[User:Huldra]]. In fact, if you look at other Wikipedia pages, such as [[Mosaic of Rehob]], the format is used there, but it does not cover 100% all references. They are more selective. I don't see this as a real problem, as the overall improvement outweighs the alternative. IMHO.[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena|talk]]) 21:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::David, to be totally frank, this wasnt [[User_talk:Davidbena/Archive_4#mentorship|our agreement]]. What was said then, and what you agreed to, was {{xt|if you think something is anywhere close to the line you ask me and accept the answer. If anybody reports that some edit you made violates the existing AN topic ban and I agree, you agree to self-revert or strike or whatever is appropriate no questions asked. We can discuss after the self-reversion, but you agree to immediately rectify anything I tell you is a violation.}} Im telling you this is over the line. If you want to argue about it then you can edit it and deal with any editor reporting you at AE, but at that point Ill just wash my hands of this entire situation. This works for me if there isnt some argument about what I tell you with respect to your topic ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 22:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)</small> |
:::::::David, to be totally frank, this wasnt [[User_talk:Davidbena/Archive_4#mentorship|our agreement]]. What was said then, and what you agreed to, was {{xt|if you think something is anywhere close to the line you ask me and accept the answer. If anybody reports that some edit you made violates the existing AN topic ban and I agree, you agree to self-revert or strike or whatever is appropriate no questions asked. We can discuss after the self-reversion, but you agree to immediately rectify anything I tell you is a violation.}} Im telling you this is over the line. If you want to argue about it then you can edit it and deal with any editor reporting you at AE, but at that point Ill just wash my hands of this entire situation. This works for me if there isnt some argument about what I tell you with respect to your topic ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 22:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)</small> |
||
::::::::Nableezy, since the recent partial lifting of my topic ban, we both know that I have NOT made any edit to a page marked with the ARBPIA tag, without first receiving your permission to do so. Here, we are simply discussing the parameters of what can or cannot be done. In the final analysis, I will stand by your decision. I am simply asking your permission to by-pass all references that may be construed with the conflict, and only edit those that are pre-Mandate. Again, if you should disagree with the proposal, that's fine, and I will no longer pursue the matter. Talking about an edit is not an infringement of the conditions, ''per se'', right? All the best.[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena|talk]]) 00:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:47, 7 July 2023
Query about performing a GA review
Hi, Nableezy -- I don't remember interacting much with you in the past (I'm just coming off a hiatus), but I'm Vat :) I'm considering reviewing Davidbena's (ping for transparency) article at GAN, Jewish astrology, which has been waiting for an especially long time. I'm comfortable with the 'astrology' part (having been a player in a couple different disputes about related subjects), but I'm aware Davidbena is under a complex restriction around ARBPIA, and that you're his mentor in that topic area. I don't tend to touch that topic, so I'm not sure from my pre-review look over the article if there's anything there that the restriction would complicate, and Tamzin suggested I ask you. If you have the opportunity to look over it, could you see if there's anything there that might be a problem? Thanks so much for any help you could provide -- I'd really like to do a review for this article, because the complexity of both the 'fringe theories' topic area and the ARBPIA one have seen it in the backlog for so long. I won't be in a position to pick the review up instantly, so it's okay if you need some time to look it over first. Vaticidalprophet 09:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Vaticidalprophet, I see nothing there that approaches the topic he's restricted from, and hope the whole reason the convoluted topic ban exists, to allow for him to write excellent articles on these topics, is validated with another good article here :) nableezy - 16:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Improvements to References and Bibliography in article "Bayt Nattif"
Nableezy, I hope that you have been enjoying your holiday ('Eid al-Adha). Once again I turn to you, because I wish to make improvements only in the References and Bibliography sections of the article Bayt Nattif. Following the format for Jewish astrology, with your permission, I will make sure that references are in the short-style with a link directly to the Bibliography section, using this format: {{Harvnb|Guérin|1869|p=61}}. As for places where the references are the long style, I will endeavor to make them shorter (short citation), as per above, while the long and complete style moved to the Bibliography section. This will greatly enhance the Bayt Nattif article. I will not add anything to what already exists and will not divulge in political conversation, but only fix the references (each of them) so that they will have a link directly to the Bibliography section. What do you think?Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Id stay away tbh, this is gnoming edits but in the restricted area. Sorry for the delay, been moving the last few days. nableezy - 01:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- My intent here is only to improve the general format, without engaging in anything else. This is precisely why we were put together. But if you should see this as an infringement, I'll desist.Davidbena (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the point of the mentorship was to get you to abide by the original AN topic ban so that the wider one could be rescinded, but gnoming in a topic area is part of that topic area. You could do those edits in the sections up to British Mandate, but touching anything from the Mandate on, even just gnoming edits, is part of the ban. nableezy - 17:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- So, would you agree that I amend the references and the Bibliography, but skip any and all authors (such as Morris and Khalidi) that have touched on the Arab-Israeli conflict? In this way, I could still improve the article without infringing on my AN topic ban, right? Editing pages with the ARBPIA tag is not really the problem, but only editing on topics or references touching on the Arab-Israeli conflict.Davidbena (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well then youd have an inconsistent citation style on the page, and that should likewise be avoided. I think youd be better off looking for something else to do than this David. nableezy - 21:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might be true, but remember that the remaining edits can be fixed by another editor, at his/her own discretion, such as by User:Huldra. In fact, if you look at other Wikipedia pages, such as Mosaic of Rehob, the format is used there, but it does not cover 100% all references. They are more selective. I don't see this as a real problem, as the overall improvement outweighs the alternative. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- David, to be totally frank, this wasnt our agreement. What was said then, and what you agreed to, was if you think something is anywhere close to the line you ask me and accept the answer. If anybody reports that some edit you made violates the existing AN topic ban and I agree, you agree to self-revert or strike or whatever is appropriate no questions asked. We can discuss after the self-reversion, but you agree to immediately rectify anything I tell you is a violation. Im telling you this is over the line. If you want to argue about it then you can edit it and deal with any editor reporting you at AE, but at that point Ill just wash my hands of this entire situation. This works for me if there isnt some argument about what I tell you with respect to your topic ban. nableezy - 22:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nableezy, since the recent partial lifting of my topic ban, we both know that I have NOT made any edit to a page marked with the ARBPIA tag, without first receiving your permission to do so. Here, we are simply discussing the parameters of what can or cannot be done. In the final analysis, I will stand by your decision. I am simply asking your permission to by-pass all references that may be construed with the conflict, and only edit those that are pre-Mandate. Again, if you should disagree with the proposal, that's fine, and I will no longer pursue the matter. Talking about an edit is not an infringement of the conditions, per se, right? All the best.Davidbena (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- David, to be totally frank, this wasnt our agreement. What was said then, and what you agreed to, was if you think something is anywhere close to the line you ask me and accept the answer. If anybody reports that some edit you made violates the existing AN topic ban and I agree, you agree to self-revert or strike or whatever is appropriate no questions asked. We can discuss after the self-reversion, but you agree to immediately rectify anything I tell you is a violation. Im telling you this is over the line. If you want to argue about it then you can edit it and deal with any editor reporting you at AE, but at that point Ill just wash my hands of this entire situation. This works for me if there isnt some argument about what I tell you with respect to your topic ban. nableezy - 22:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might be true, but remember that the remaining edits can be fixed by another editor, at his/her own discretion, such as by User:Huldra. In fact, if you look at other Wikipedia pages, such as Mosaic of Rehob, the format is used there, but it does not cover 100% all references. They are more selective. I don't see this as a real problem, as the overall improvement outweighs the alternative. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well then youd have an inconsistent citation style on the page, and that should likewise be avoided. I think youd be better off looking for something else to do than this David. nableezy - 21:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- So, would you agree that I amend the references and the Bibliography, but skip any and all authors (such as Morris and Khalidi) that have touched on the Arab-Israeli conflict? In this way, I could still improve the article without infringing on my AN topic ban, right? Editing pages with the ARBPIA tag is not really the problem, but only editing on topics or references touching on the Arab-Israeli conflict.Davidbena (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the point of the mentorship was to get you to abide by the original AN topic ban so that the wider one could be rescinded, but gnoming in a topic area is part of that topic area. You could do those edits in the sections up to British Mandate, but touching anything from the Mandate on, even just gnoming edits, is part of the ban. nableezy - 17:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- My intent here is only to improve the general format, without engaging in anything else. This is precisely why we were put together. But if you should see this as an infringement, I'll desist.Davidbena (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)