User talk:Nadiatalent/Archive 3

Za'atar
I have reverted your edits to the page about this herb/spice, as they strayed too far from the policy of neutral point of view, even though you listed NPOV in the summary. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted a second time. As explained in the summary, the two links labelled as dead links are not dead. Changing "Israeli Jews were largely exposed to za'atar through their visits to Arab bakeries." to say "Ashkenazi jews ..." is offensive since is describes people by their tribal affiliations rather than by the relevant matter in this case, namely the country that they live in. Similarly for your change of "Some Jews who immigrated to Israel from Iraq "Mizrachi Jews who immigrated to Israel from Iraq". Please try to think of people as individuals rather than labelling groups. Thank you. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Nadiatalent, thank you for the message. I don't quite understand your argument.
 * (i) Some of the references are deadlinks.
 * (ii) Other references didn't contain the controversial claims they were being used to support.
 * (iii) Claiming that Israeli Jews discovered za'atar in Arab bakeries is necessarily inaccurate (regardless of the citation), since many Mizrachi Jews, who are present in Israel in large numbers, have used it for at least a couple of hundred years (as cited). Therefore, the statement has to be refined, preferably in line with the articles on the rest of wikipedia. To write "Israeli Jews" is to generalise about a diverse group of people, with several different traditional cuisines. See Cuisine of the Mizrahi Jews and Cuisine of the Ashkenazi Jews.
 * (iv) The sentence claiming that "For Arab Israelis, the law... 'seems almost anti-Arab'" is cited to a ha'aretz article which makes no mention of this topic. It is moreover, NPOV and implausible, insofar as we can't possibly know what all "Arab Israelis" think about this. Therefore I added the qualification "Some Arab Israelis" (although the claim really ought to be removed until properly sourced). Moreover, the phrase "who have picked wild herbs since ancient times" - is implausible since the majority have not been in the area "since ancient times" (this question is at least academically controversial, and would need more sources to support it). I replace the claim, with the phrase "who have traditionally picked the wild herbs". The further phrase "learning from their ancestors how to preserve the yield of future years" was removed for concision.
 * (v) I inserted the words "ecological law of 1977" into the above sentence, to link the dissent to the sentence at the top of the paragraph, which introduces the purported reason for the law.
 * Best 82.26.0.138 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The text on the page is clearly not good, and your addition of "citation needed" is a step in the right direction. I still object to you labelling people by tribe when the reference actually says "For Israeli Jews, zaatar used to be an exotic treat associated with visits to Arab bakeries." If you want to say that Ashenkazi jews do some particular thing, that should have an explicit citation, and similarly for the other tribe that you mention. Tribes are not synonymous with areas inhabited. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think the terms Ashkenazi and Mizrahi refer to tribes but to the separate Jewish communities and cultures that developed in Europe and the Middle East over the centuries.  The source stating "For Israeli Jews, zaatar used to be an exotic treat associated with visits to Arab bakeries" is a bit unclear, because "Arab bakeries" could refer both to Arab-Jewish (i.e. Mizrahi) bakeries and Arab-Israeli (i.e. Palestinian) bakeries. By excluding Arab-Jews from the term Israeli-Jew, the source is inaccurate (but I think it might have something to do with the translation from Hebrew), since we have a source saying that zaatar was traditionally used also by Mizrahi Jews.  Best   82.26.0.138 (talk)

I can live with the version that is there now, it is not greatly changed from the original, and generally improved. Unless you object I would like to copy this discussion to the talk page for the article. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Blackberry disagreement
Hey Nadiatalent, I notice you have twice undone my edits to the blackberry article. I agreed with your reasons for undoing the first edit attempt, but on the second edit I am a bit puzzled as to why you removed it.

If you're only issue with the edit was that I used the term "fruit fly", wouldn't it of been a more compromising approach to have simply edited in a correction, rather than removing the entire edit?

If that was your only concern, I would appreciate it if you would reinstate my edit, with the correction in hand. If you have other concerns, let's discuss them, as I am obviously interested in introducing this information into the article and would like to work with you on whatever objections you may have.

It's not usual behaviour to undo multiple edits by another editor without trying to discuss it with them first. Unless you believe I am making edits in bad faith, it seems much more gentlemanly to talk to me about your objections rather than just overriding me! I am always willing to discuss my edits and try to work on any issues. Jozsefs (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply
My good fellow, I appreciate you offering some explanation as to why you felt it necessary to undo my edit. I still think the decision you made was a bit aggressive though. I believe it is normal practice on wikipedia, that if you are having repeated issues with another editors submissions, that you take it up with that editor on the talk page, rather than simply deleting their edits. I would not have minded even if you had simply revised my edit, to improve it. But if you did feel the edit itself needed to be removed, rather than improved, I would have happily discussed it with you.

I guess the compromise I am hoping to get from you is that we can maybe agree that it isn't a good idea to delete other editor's good faith edits, but rather better to try to work with them on how to make their edits better, or how to resolve any concerns that might exist. I am just trying to put information in articles in good faith and I know I would feel a lot better if you worked with me in the future instead of deleting my work outright.

For my part, I will work harder at trying to submit better quality edits.

Can we agree on that compromise? Jozsefs (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

subspecies
ssp. is a variant contraction of subspecies - the plural of sp. is spp.

But I believe that Wikipedia has an expressed preference for subsp. over ssp. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks. The change would be okay, though, to remove the redirect. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled Crataegus
Hi, I'm puzzled too on "what was I thinking ?" with the Crataegus reference edits. Probably mistakenly just looked at 'differences view' and not entire article, and apologize for the problem.—thanks— Look2See1  t a l k →  16:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, glad to defer to your Crataegus expertise. My primary goal was linking those N.Am. species listed in Crataegus without any location categories, using the USDA native distribution map. Is that helpful, or is it better to wait until after new Flora publication is out?—thank you— Look2See1  t a l k →  19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Gloriosa Gallery
Hi I noticed you removed the gallery on the Gloriosa (genus) page. I hope the pictures can still be used on a species page - I went to a lot of effort to make them.Michaelwild (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hello Nadia,

About this... What codes of nomenclature other than International Code of Zoological Nomenclature do you mean? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles on botanical nomenclature
Hi, I noticed your edit to Botanical name. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants because I thought that there are too many articles around this topic which overlapped, such as Botanical name, Botanical nomenclature, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Correct name (botany) and Author citation (botany). Do you have any views on whether some of these could be merged? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your encouraging reply at User_talk:Peter_coxhead. We seem to agree that the present state of these articles is not very satisfactory. Unfortunately I can't get consensus for changes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants (if you have time & views you could usefully comment there), and I don't have the time & energy to pursue this if there is opposition from other editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Coefficient of relationship visualization
You requested additional clarification on the graph I posted to the coefficient of relationship page. I'm not clear on your question regarding population size? This is based on generic data (in the same manner as the table on the page), and is not intended to represent a particular individual or population. We could certainly do a binary plot of presumed population assuming for no pedigree collapse, but I'm not sure that is what you are after? In terms of a genetic algorithm for crossover, I'm sure you can see the simple presumption of 50%, which can be stated more clearly. Let me know if this is what you are after. I'm happy to work with you to produce a better visual representation of gene distribution. --Musides (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope this brightens your day
 Hello Nadiatalent, SwisterTwister has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Medlar
I think you are a little blinkered about understanding the broader use of botanical terminology in the arts. Please don't allow your specialism to close your mind to literature. By all means comment or rephrase my entry but please don't just remove things because they are outside your sphere of experience. Do ask first. I'll be happy to respond.Apoliheres (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)