User talk:ProfGray

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Religion of the Shang dynasty on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jex Blackmore

The article Jex Blackmore you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jex Blackmore for comments about the article, and Talk:Jex Blackmore/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rahlfs 1219 on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disputes on Wikipedia

I would like to review your DYK, but Howardcorn33 added citation tags,[1] which leads to problems with WP:DYKCITE. You can either add citations (or make them more explicit if they already exist), or remove the material. Otherwise, I'm afraid that someone might fail your nom. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the tags, @Viriditas. I've provided the necessary citations (without using Signpost) and, as you suggested, removed a clause about the 2010 BLP uproar that I can't find in reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have a tag in the "History of disputes on Wikipedia" section, which should be easy to resolve if the parent article has the original source. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I cut it back and added a source there. Someday I can go back and hopefully fill in the history with other sources. One concern -- for organizations or individuals, there's some allowance for self-published sources that fit 5 criteria. Wikipedia:SelfSource. For basic facts, like the existence of an ArbCom case or a dispute resolution mechanism, it'd be helpful to be able to use Wikipedia or Signpost. But maybe inadvisable to this before DYK... or ever? ProfGray (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to head out for the day. I will come back later and see if I can write the DYK review. You may want to get the upper hand by running all the checks before then, such as checking for copyright issues, hook length, text-source integrity, reliability, bias issues, etc. That way, if you find any and can fix them by the time I return, the review will be that much easier for me. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Deletion disputes" still has a citation needed tag in the first paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some grammar issues as well: "As of 2018, roughly 64 percent debates". You're missing a word. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an analysis of 5,414 editor profiles, two types of rival camps were discerned: camps that tended to lose their edit wars and those camps that dominated and kept winning. How did the winning camps succeed? They were more likely to ban opposing editors, revert edits, remove competing wikilinks, cite Wikipedia policies, show disrespect, be active in ArbCom proceedings, and especially exert control over cited references. Researchers expressed surprise that Wikipedia policies, designed to ensure balanced viewpoints, were instead leveraged to favor one point-of-view in contentious articles.

You buried this golden nugget half way down, which means most people will never read it. It's funny to me that this was only reported in 2023 when it's well known among most Wikipedians. It's just another form of lawfare. The policies were weaponized from the get-go. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are earlier studies that talk about rival camps, but I'm not sure any go into the "lawfare" aspect. As you say, it's old news to insiders, but maybe a hook idea for public audience? ProfGray (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors argued in adversial, not collaborative, ways because of commitments that went beyond Wikipedia.

Did you mean adversarial? And what does "commitments that went beyond Wikipedia" mean? Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got grammar issues in the "History of Disputes on Wikipedia" section: "Editing warring gave rise to the rule against three repeated reverts by the same editor." I think you mean edit warring? Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing: "Meanwhile, in its first decade, Wikipedia set up dispute resolution mechanisms, including the Arbitration Committee, and refined policies to designed to govern and reduce disputes." Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with the copy edits and citation tags. This last one, about AfDs, brings up a concern for me. Depending on the editors active on an article, exceptions are made for WP:SELFSOURCE based on 5 criteria, e.g., facts with no reasonable contestation. Oh, I mentioned this above. Anyway, I'd keep the fact about creation restrictions, even though only based on a Signpost. Here's a diff for how I added this to the main deletion article, along with the image here. Ok there? ProfGray (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea what "commitments that went beyond Wikipedia" means. Try to rephrase, maybe? Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sorry. Baker and Detienne mean that the rival editors had personal commitments that were beside the encyclopedic goals (aka pillars) of Wikipedia. Here's an attempt at rewording. Is this better? ProfGray (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Efrat

Hello ProfGray! At some point I randomly discovered the article Efrat (organization) and it was not great. I wanted to improve it but A) I can't and don't write articles and B) I can't read the local sources. Since you do and can, perhaps you are willing to take a look? I am of course happy to help in any way I can. I tried writing something better at some point but I kinda got lost in a forest of not very good sources. Polygnotus (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @WhatamIdoing: is willing to help? They know far more than I do about such things; this stuff is pretty far outside of my wheelhouse. If you need any help with nerdy stuff you know where to find me. Polygnotus (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, why can't you write articles? I'm honored to be asked, but I must admit that I have other writing and Wikipedia priorities. Is there a way I could lightly support your revising and editing of the article? ProfGray (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could, in theory, but it's a bit like having your plumber do your dentistry. Sure, she might figure it out, but it's not an efficient use of her talents. Do you know anyone else who might be willing and able? Polygnotus (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion ProfGray (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw, if I may ask, what prompted you to contact me? ProfGray (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view (as someone who does not know you but has read your userpage) you appear to be the perfect candidate to write about Efrat because you:

1. Are not afraid of difficult topics (e.g. you mention the Westboro Baptist "Church" on your userpage)
2. Are able to read Hebrew
3. Have done research on Jewish bioethics

So to me you appear to be uniquely qualified. There could of course be a billion reasons that I am unaware of that I am wrong.

Polygnotus (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing these things and explaining. For the foreseeable future, I have other "difficult topics," as you say, on my agenda. I'm occasionally in a WP editing group and I will try to remember to ask them about it. ProfGray (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in on the article a while ago. It seems to attract both ethno-religious and abortion dramas, plus the poster-child problem: just like all abortion clinics are "Planned Parenthood" to a certain class of Americans, anyone who discourages a pregnant woman from getting an abortion seems to be "part of Efrat" to a certain class in Israel. Because of these problems, I doubt that editors could even decide what would make the article better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And of course being pro- or anti-abortion is a highly politicized thing in an area where demographic shifts are considered to be far more important than in other places. Polygnotus (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hedonism on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Disputes on Wikipedia

On 11 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Disputes on Wikipedia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that editors often line up in rival camps during contentious disputes on Wikipedia and the winning side typically cites encyclopedic policies to favor their viewpoint? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disputes on Wikipedia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Disputes on Wikipedia), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Hebron Yeshiva. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, sorry about that, and thanks for correcting it. I'll try not to repeat that. ProfGray (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Philosophical pessimism on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2024 Ohio Issue 1

On 17 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2024 Ohio Issue 1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ballot summary for 2024 Ohio Issue 1 was a flashpoint for legal action? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Ohio Issue 1. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2024 Ohio Issue 1), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Menachot. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the source and used quotations, multiple times, but I will check to see if it meets the protocol(s) you've linked to, thanks! ProfGray (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that was missing it to make it clear that you copied from the source. For public domain content, please include the template {{source-attribution}} as part of your citation. Thanks. Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I put in the special JE template under References. However, afaik, all the text has been modified at this point. Is the current version adequte? Thanks for your feedback. ProfGray (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all is well from a copyright point of view. Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I sorta want one of those "I voted" buttons that we get at the precinct :-) ProfGray (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add a Fact survey and thank you

Thank you for testing out the Add A Fact browser extension! This extension was developed as an experiment by the Future Audiences team at the Wikimedia Foundation to learn about new ways of contributing to Wikipedia from outside of our website/apps.

We are planning to wrap up this experiment this December, sunsetting the extension and publishing our findings on-wiki. We’d like to invite you to take part in an exit survey to tell us more about your experience of trying out the extension, and to share any ideas you have about how to support new ways of contributing to Wikipedia. The survey is anonymous (see the survey privacy statement) and should take about 10–15 minutes to complete.

You can take the Goole Forms survey here.

Kind regards, MPinchuk (WMF)

17:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Benjamin Franklin Shumard

On 20 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Franklin Shumard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benjamin Franklin Shumard's assistant named an oak species after him, and then sabotaged his reinstatement after he was fired? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Franklin Shumard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Benjamin Franklin Shumard), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

1=Launchballer 00:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, User:Launchballer -- and thanks for your help with various DYKs, much appreciated, ProfGray (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 12:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The edits you reverted were not copyright violations, they were copy-and-paste from the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia. In addition, I think you deleted my citations of the source and the use of a source attribution template for JE.

For a better approach IMO to an experienced editor using the JE, see the comment above "November 2024" (on my talk page) and how it's information about the template needed. Plus, the comment gives me info about how to correct my edits, it was not a revert. Probably good approach for newbies, too.

See also: Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics

Plus, your revert also deleted a sentence that was not from the JE and that was properly cited.

Please undo the revert asap. @Sphilbrick, thanks. ProfGray (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you appreciate that a substantial portion of editors are not familiar with "JE" as shorthand for Jewish Encyclopedia? Had you used the correct term, I probably would have been motivated to try to track it down.

I have emporarily restored the edits but I need more information. When I look at the citation and go to the bottom of the page I see:

©2002-2021, JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved

Can you confirm why you say it is public domain?

You mentioned that there's something relevant on your talk page. An experienced editor would provide me with a link not some vague directions that didn't work for me. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now located the section you alluded to. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's certainly no reason to assume general familiarity with "JE" even among ppl editing Judaism topics, since anybody can step in and help out. I'm sorry that the edit summary didn't work for you and, for sure, I can be an experienced editor who still does clumsy things.

Nonetheless, WP:JE is one of a bezilliion WP shortcuts and acronyms. Regardless, it be helpful to have guidance on edit summaries when using JE, since I'd rather not type it out every time. Not seeing any tips at Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics and the examplar there does not even use edit summaries. So maybe we can collaborate on adding guidance there?

In terms of public domain: the edit summary of the revert itself had a link to the 1901 edition of the JE, so that's public domain. The version from JewishEncyclopedia.com is said to be from 1901-1906. While their website is recent ("2002-2021"), their website is merely a copy of the 1906 text and may be used. See discussion at: Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics. Also, the edits that were reverted contain suitable copyright info:

• footnote #5 cites the 1906 edition.
• under "References" heading, there is a WP template that adds: "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain..." etc

Hope this is helpful. Thanks for your work on this. ProfGray (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. While my present state of mind is extreme annoyance let me start by emphasizing that some aspects of COPYPATROL Can be very annoying, and much of that annoyance comes from owners or websites that are often sloppy when it comes to use of public domain text. It is obviously acceptable for the owner of virtually any website to incorporate public domain text into their website. (If that website happens to be Wikipedia, there are also requirements such as attribution, but those don't automatically apply to other websites). It is commonplace and annoying when a website incorporates a substantial amount of public domain text, and then slaps a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, leaving the impression that the entire contents are subject to copyright. Sometimes they will have a terms of use sub page which emphasizes that some of the material is public domain but often times not.

The Copypatrol tool identified this site which you noted was in my revert.

You said:

the revert itself had a link to the 1901 edition of the JE

I'm being picky but do you literally mean a link? If so I didn't see it. I see a lot of content which purports to be from the 1901 edition but I haven't yet seen the source. At the bottom of the StudyLight page, they have the following notice:

StudyLight.org © 2001-2022

A not uncommon situation is that the owner slams a full copyright notice on the entire page and then modifies it elsewhere. In this case there is a sub page on rights and permissions:

Rights and Permissions

That section starts:

All materials contained on StudyLight.org are protected by copyright in the U.S. and other countries.

Very sloppy wording as it's not literally true

It does go on to say:

Articles credited to a source other than StudyLight.org are owned by that source.

One can presume that's a reference to the material in the 1901 Jewish encyclopedia, but I haven't yet found a link.

However it's not worth the time to analyze the sloppy handling by StudyLight.org. Even though that's the source identified by Copypatrol, we both now know that isn't where you found the material.

Your citation used [your citation used [https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14213-talmud this site}. Is that correct? Unfortunately, we have a similar problem.

As noted earlier they slap a broad copyright statement at the bottom of the page:

©2002-2021, JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved

They helpfully include a terms of use link, which brings you to this page. I did read every word of every clause but is a couple relevant sentences:

2.1 You will use the Service and any content, material, or information found on the Service solely for lawful, non-commercial purposes.

3.1 All content provided by JE.com on the Service is protected by copyright, trademark, and other applicable intellectual property and proprietary rights laws and is owned, controlled, and/or licensed by JE.com.

If the first sentence is true, then using this material cannot be used in the way public domain material can generally be used. The second sentence doesn't seem to be literally true.

I search for "public domain" to see if they had a carveout for public domain material. I don't see it.

I think the probability is high that the material you referenced will match material in either the 1901 or 1906 Jewish encyclopedia, but I'm not comfortable accepting a high probability event. How do I know that the passage you used is exactly the same as in the public domain text? It is quite common for owners of websites to incorporate old public domain text but make changes to it for a variety of reasons (modern spellings etc.) I don't see anything on the site explaining that the text I see is identical to the public domain text. I don't see anything in the terms of use that referred to any of the material on the site as being public domain.

You made specific reference to Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics. That page includes the following advice:

When you have finished editing your article, add the  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). [... "..."]. The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help) template.

You used a different template. Am I missing something?

I am happy to revert my removal when I'm convinced that the material you added is in the public domain. I'm not there yet, and I would like to know whether the template should be the recommended one or the one you used.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "You used a different template. Am I missing something?"

A: I used a version of Template:Jewish Encyclopedia, which is what I used for the WP Menachot article that @Diannaa had contacted me about (link to discussion above). In that WP article, I used the general JE template and within the WP article there are references (footnotes) that include the authors of two different JE articles. Now noticing that there's also Template:Cite Jewish Encyclopedia to help make our lives more complicated.

You're doing a good service to protect WP from copyvio, so I hope I'm not adding to your annoyance.

To resolve the uncertainty about the use of JewishEncyclopedia.com as public domain source, maybe @Diannaa can respond or refer us to another copyvio editor. ProfGray (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jewish Encyclopedia is designed for use at the bottom of the article. Template:Cite Jewish Encyclopedia is a cite template for use as an inline citation. For the inline citation, it's important to please include the attribution template {{source-attribution}} as part of your citation, like I did here. Diannaa (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick The Jewish Encylopedia is public domain because it was published in 1901 through 1905. "This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia" says the website. They can't claim to own the copyright Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation referred to this page. I searched for but did not find any affirmation that it was an unedited copy of the public domain encyclopedia. However now that I've looked at the main page, I do see the statement "This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia." which satisfies me. I see that Dianna has commented on the use of templates. I think the best course of action is that you revert my revert when you're ready to simultaneously deal with the templates. I will monitor Copypatrol in case the reversion triggers a new report so that I can market as acceptable. If this some reason you prefer that I do the revert I can but I want to do it at a time that you can also address the template issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd prefer and ask that you do the revert.

I will try to redo the attribution as needed, today. In any event, there's a difference between the urgency & vigilance needed for copyright violations and the more iterative patience that WP can have for this situation, which is to implement the correct template and referencing for a public domain text. It'd be appropriate to add a citation needed, or full citation template etc, on that text section, if you think the current attribution is inadequate. Thanks again, ProfGray (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert done. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. Here's a diff of the first change, where I added the {{source-attribution}} template within the reference. @Diannaa@Sphilbrick -- does this look correct?

For the second change, I edited the JE text and removed the quotation marks. Does that seem fine, in terms of copyvio? When using the proper templates and source attribution, do we even need quotations marks for such public domain content that is copied over? Didn't seem that way in the JE wiki guidance. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe quotes are needed. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok to me. Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kiddush levana on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lugus on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of Kiddush Levana

Thank you for your comments on the Kiddush Levana article. I have spent quite a bit of time fixing citation format, adding secondary sources and trying to make it NPOV. I also added a section on non-Orthodox Judaism. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what else should be done? Thanks very much. Dovidroth (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, though best to discuss on the article's Talk page and "ping" me there, thanks! ProfGray (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! Dovidroth (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness

I am trying to get some action on this. I have asked one other user to take a look and I will ask for others on the DYK talk page. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre has said they will take a look later and I've made a note on the general DYK talk page for help. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. Edward Guinan on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Moses sees Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b)

On 2 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moses sees Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that meetings between Biblical and post-Biblical characters, such as when Moses sees Rabbi Aviva teach and be martyred, are rare in Talmudic stories? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moses sees Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moses sees Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chaim Kanievsky on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Update from Women in Green

Hello ProfGray:

2024 has wrapped up, and what a full year it was for WikiProject Women in Green! Over the past year, we hosted two edit-a-thons, one themed around women's history and another on women around the world. We also managed to achieve most of our 2024 annual goals, nominating 75 articles for GA, reviewing 64 GA nominations, nominating 8 articles for FAC, peer reviewing 3 articles and reviewing 10 FAC nominations. Excellent work, and thank you to everyone involved!

For 2025 we have a new set of goals for nominations and reviews. In particular, we would like to see more articles on our Hot 100 list being improved and nominated for GA this year. If you take a look at the list and see an article you are interested in contributing to, feel free to add it and yourself to our Hot 100 project discussion. You might even find someone interested in collaborating with you!

This year, as with every year, we hope you will join us in helping improve our coverage of women and women's works on this encyclopedia. Every contribution helps. We'll see you around!

Grnrchst (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Heart Knows Its Own Bitterness

On 3 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Heart Knows Its Own Bitterness, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Talmudic passage, "The Heart Knows Its Own Bitterness", has been used in Jewish medical ethics to justify patient autonomy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness (Talmud). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Heart Knows Its Own Bitterness), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Israel Ta-Shma

On 5 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Israel Ta-Shma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first publication of the prolific author and Talmudic scholar Israel Ta-Shma was a Jewish songbook for the Israel Defense Forces? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Israel Ta-Shma. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Israel Ta-Shma), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi ProfGray. Thank you for your work on Hedyot (rabbinic term). Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hefker

On 7 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hefker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that hefker, unowned property in Talmudic law, came to express both personal freedom and societal abandonment in 20th-century Yiddish poetry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hefker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hefker), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:November 2024 Ohio Issue 1

Hello, ProfGray. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:November 2024 Ohio Issue 1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this draft can be deleted, thanks! ProfGray (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Forward Majority

Hello, ProfGray. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Forward Majority, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]