Hello, Gershonmk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Mount Carmel have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.
Done! I'll update with a timecode once the livestream has ended.
Twinkle
Hi, you might find WP:TWINKLE (an editing tool) helpful. I just noticed how you used undo for two separate edits by the same IP on Joss Whedon. With Twinkle, you can revert all of their consecutive edits and it will automatically open their Talk page for you to leave a warning. (Twinkle is also a quick way to request page protection, report an editor for vandalism, and lots more.) Schazjmd(talk) 23:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Schazjmd I was literally watching the tutorial right now. I knew there had to be a better way but I undid the edits before I googled it. :) Gershonmk (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieWikiDan Same -- only noting here that I did not "restore" the material. I wrote the two lines for the lede and then made exactly one further edit on them, which was to revert your edit (which used different wording) once and try to move discussion to the talk page where we can resolve them into a consensus lede. These situations can't depend on who got the last word. If you disagree with a reversion, say so on the talk page, especially if you were invited to, and don't re-make the same edit until you have consensus. I think in this situation cutting the whole bit off the lede is a good temporary step and I regret not taking it myself. Gershonmk (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
We have opposing views on the placement of Whedon's departure from the The Nevers but I wanted to say that it's very pleasant having a Talk page discussion that is civil and focuses on sources and content. Thanks for your collegial approach to the disagreement, and also for the work you've done improving the article. Happy editing! Schazjmd(talk)17:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions notice: biographies of living persons and post-1992 American politics
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Not going to delete this but it seems to be purely retaliatory, as I haven't made any relevant edits and we are currently in discussion on talk:Gina Carano. I left a note on this user's page the first time he made a personal attack against me, then a warning the second time, and today had cause to leave a final warning. This user seems to have deleted several previous warnings by other users for other issues, and may be a habitual offender trying to skirt warning guidelines. I'm going to try and work on the relevant page with other editors. I don't think this message, by itself, constitutes harassment. Gershonmk (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the lyrics to this song enjoy copyright protection for 70 years from the date of death of the author. That is, they won't be public domain until 2074. For that reason, we're not allowed to include them. Sorry,— Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gershonmk, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of National Consumer Law Center, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, please self-revert your edit here. You've violated the 24 hour revert rule by restoring content which was reverted within 24 hours. Consensus for such content needs to be found after a revert was made. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that's simply not true. You failed to consult the talk page before editing, so your edit which removed consensus text was reverted. Gershonmk (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the talk page and there isn't a record of any clear consensus for this. Can you clarify? I really don't want to report a breach of the rule. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gershonmk. In this edit of 23:11 on 17 February, marked as a revert by Onethwothreeip in their AN3 report, you claim to be 'extending section per talk'. Can you link to where you believe that extending the section was endorsed on the talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston I was getting a little too heated on here so I took some time away, but you can see the talk discussion here. I'm open to the idea that I posted too quickly but when I did the response had been only positive and Onetwothreeip had clearly not checked the talk page, as all editors are advised to do under penalty of immediate revert. I would definitely have reverted my edit if I was online, but I wasn't. I don't think the block was crazy under the circumstances, but I really wasn't online and I'd like it to be undone please. Gershonmk (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gershonmk. Have you read the description of the '24 hour BRD cycle' restriction at Talk:Donald Trump? It's under the heading 'WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES', which, as the gigantic bold heading suggests, is intended to be read by anyone contributing to the article. Though it's not required, admins usually prefer that a user who has violated this restriction is given a chance to self-revert. You *did* get that chance on 18 February but declined to take it. You replied 'Respectfully, that's simply not true..' (see your response above). You appear to misunderstand. We enforce the rule as written. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston What? Both here and on the ANI, you inform me that I was blocked in part for not responding. Onetwothreeip also originally complained because I did not respond. I did not respond because I had taken a wiki-break, as I explained here -- I had no idea this was happening. I have linked (previous comment) to the talk page section in which the edit was discussed and received consensus. If you think I was wrong on the merits, please explain -- because there has been no ruling on the merits. I read the warning, of course, which also notes "Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight." Gershonmk (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were not blocked for failing to respond, you were blocked for failing to self-revert when asked (on 18th February). You could have been blocked straight out for the original 1RR violation, but I decided to wait to see if you would change your mind. Since you were not on Wikipedia on 21 February, you missed the second of two opportunities to self-revert, but you didn't miss the first. You just wouldn't agree to do so. What you speak of as 'on the merits' is not for admins to decide. This is something where you need to get consensus from other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston You wrote here, "If you make no response a block seems likely." Would you have blocked me if I had responded asking what the correct understanding of the rule is, then obeyed your judgement? That's what I mean by on the merits -- is it a violation of the 1RR to revert an edit which removes consensus text. The warning reads "Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight". I spent a while achieving consensus on the talk page before adding the consensus text. Another editor, without consulting the talk page, removed it. I added it back. I said "please see talk" in both edit summaries, but the editor never did, instead reporting me for 1RR. Is that a violation? My understanding is I and the other editor have a genuine disagreement in the understanding of the rules, which any admin could easily resolve. If one had resolved I violated the rules, I would of course have self-reverted -- as I would now, the edit still standing on the page. Instead, because I couldn't be contacted, a default judgement was entered against me. I would like to know, did I violate the rules, and, if I did, can I have the opportunity to self-revert with dignity that I never did knowing I had violated the rules. Gershonmk (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, What do I do next time???? If I achieve consensus and add the text, and it's removed, can I add it back? If not, what am I supposed to do? And should I self-revert the edit that got me blocked, of that type? Gershonmk (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to propose your change first on the talk page before making it. If somebody reverts you, find out their reasoning before undoing their work. General advice is at WP:Dispute resolution. If you want to work on articles about American politics, be sure you understand all the restrictions. There are certainly some quieter topics if you are willing to branch out. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston I achieved consensus for this exact text on the talk page -- I resolved a dispute between editors with a proposal of compromise text. Then, I added the consensus text, noting "see talk". I was blocked by default for reverting an edit that removed the consensus text (I again noted "see talk", but as of now the other editor has never engaged on the talk section). I didn't undo anybody's work -- I just reverted an edit that removed the consensus text. If I achieve consensus, but an editor who hasn't engaged on the talk page removes the text, what am I supposed to do? Gershonmk (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of the '24-hour BRD cycle' page restriction placed on Donald Trump per WP:ARBAP2
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
IZAK is a long-standing and valued contribuutor. The flip side to this is that he's expected to understand policies such as WP:NPOV. Four items stand out in this discussion:
An intemperate response to the content dispute(s) giving an appearance of failure to assume good faith.
There is minimal realistic dispute that these were inappropriate, and in some cases offensive to other editors. There is significant difference over whether they rise to the level of sanctionable, and if so, what that sanction should be.
Valid concerns were raised over IZAK's weigthing of religious versus historical scholarship, and various classes of Jewish scholarship. Wikipedia is based on empirical fact. If historical fact contradicts religious truth then NPOV demands that we write from the perspective of historical fact even when describing the religious truth. In matters of opinion, such as whether a belief is heretical, Wikipedia is not and cannot be the arbiter of religious truth - in the absence of any universally agreed canonical authority, NPOV demands that competing viewpoints are represented according to their significance. Categories, being binary, are generally poorly suited to this.
Discounting irrelevant opinions (e.g. those which expressed support for or opposition to IZAK rather than addressing the actual issue), the following seems to me to be a summary of the views of the community as expressed:
IZAK is warned not to edit-war.
IZAK is warned that giving preference to religious scholarship over mainstream secular historiography is likely to be interpreted as a violation of NPOV.
IZAK is warned that canvassing is inappropriate, any invitations to content discussions must use neutrally-worded statements and must not selectively target editors.
IZAK is banned from adding religion-related categories that are likely to be seen as contentious, without prior consensus. If in doubt, IZAK should assume the need seek consensus first.
I base the warnings on my reading of the level of community discomfort with IZAK's conduct, including from Jewish editors, while recognising that numerous editors rejected any block or ban because the conduct was not egregious and the content issues contained legitimate ambiguities.
I base the editing restriction on well-argued support for action over the category issue especially, based on both policy and precedent, but a clear lack of consensus for a topic ban or block. This seems to me to be the minimum that reflects the specific views on those edits and addresses a non-trivial issue affecting content. Guy (help!) 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
A user seems to have placed this here under the impression that I was Jewish(?) after we disagreed about an edit. He has since admitted he was wrong about that edit. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nitzevet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El.
You can try, but you might want to hang on for a couple days, to see what happens while other editors descend on the article. We will give you a hand. (see WP:3RR for revert rules). It appears to be an autobiography. See "author" on this page. --- Possibly (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I'll try once -- save everyone from redoing the same work. Thanks for your prompt assistance. I hadn't even noticed the author there! Gershonmk (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you should WP:AGF and not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. or at least read the talk page section you're responding to. I asked on the talk page to make the change and everyone agreed to it. if you disagree you can undo the edit and explain why. falsely accusing people of vandalism is not WP:CIVIL and its casting aspersions Bilto74811 (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Greetings. You state in your profile text that you value Wikipedia's "centralizing of information" and suggest we "err on the side of centralizing" information. Could you perhaps elaborate? I, for one, cannot understand what "centralization" means in the context of Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support erring on the side of including information on Wiki, even if the relevance or notability of the information is controversial, viz. centralizing the store of human knowledge in one place, Wikipedia. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Wales once said we should have hundreds of articles on individual notable dresses to combat systematic male bias on Wikipedia. This appears to have reasonable coverage to constitute an article and is notable in the world of fashion.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.Blofeld Thanks! I'd never heard of this quote. Nonetheless, consider that Wedding dress of Catherine Middleton has dozens of citations to articles specifically about that dress. This dress is mentioned only in a few listicles. I don't think, and I don't Wales would think, that we need an article on every dress that makes a couple of old Top 25 Best and Worst Oscar Dresses lists. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kamila Valieva
You appear to be using yesterday's citations. The ones from today state that this is still under review. The Feb 11 citation is now added stating that a final decision is still pending. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a devotional song. More references are needed to meet notability standards.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello, GordonGlottal - The edits to Center_for_Autism_and_Related_Disorders by @Nthep were determined to be erroneous in nature. I did not commit a copyright violation, rather it was the other way around. An outside website copied the content on Wikipedia. My edits have been made with care and the best of intentions. I'm politely asking you to look deeper at the history of changes, the intent, the references before coming to judgement. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsTrombone (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you know perfectly well, my reversion had nothing whatsoever to do with copyright claims. I left several messages on your talk page with explicit warnings about your repeated vandalism of the page, which included fake paywalled citations and extensive unsourced promotional language. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a different reference to provide for Schachter? (P.S. when linking to MP3s it'd be helpful if you'd note the minute you're referring to.) Contributor613 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributor613 Yeah what's happened here is they edited the file to remove this statement. You can hear the cut if you listen closely. The description still says he'll discuss "Who wrote the Zohar" but that content has been removed. Unfortunately this cite was not archived; I will attempt to recover the original file next week, not sure if I can but I'll ask around if anyone has a copy. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate. Do you know of any other site that also posts Schachter's lectures? If so, maybe you can find an original copy? What a shame what they did. Contributor613 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I know who was managing the recording/uploading in 2017. I can email him. I know from his students that he says this all the time, but he's never otherwise said it publicly to my knowledge. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you ever find other such statements on the Zohar by Schachter, feel free to message me on my talk page so I can archive the page while it still exists. Contributor613 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to use WebArchive, don't worry. They do this all the time and I should have thought ahead. He says a lot of stuff he or the yeshiva or the university (or all three) later have reason to regret. Even worse, this practice has now spread throughout RIETS. Though usually they're removing off-color jokes, not sure I've seen something like this before. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Standard WebArchive won't work for the embedded MP3, for that you'd need to search for the MP3's actual link via the web browser's developer tools (Elements). Contributor613 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward (hopefully). That 91 minute (post-censorship) shiur left me quite disappointed. (I wasn't paying attention to realize they'd snipped out audio like you said.) Contributor613 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributor613 Shavua tov. A person with contemporary notes of the shiur tells me that what happened is that on the previous day he said Yochai wrote it. At the beginning of this shiur, he was asked about academic opposition to that idea, and he said large parts are probably not but that this particular position (that gid hanasheh is assur behana'ah) is found in the mishna ascribed to R. Shimon anyway so it makes sense if this particular bit is old. Then he went on with the shiur, repeating what he'd said the previous day. I contacted his then-assistant to ask for the recording, who told me "I don't remember him ever mentioning it." Not sure whether to believe that. Other students of his tell me that he has mentioned this more than once. So I would say, unclear, and I've removed the sentence. I wish he'd left this in. A friend of mine who is a close student of Schachter says that, while they regularly remove lighthearted material to avoid offense/scandal on their own, they never remove serious material without his explicit permission/instruction. GordonGlottal (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I thought it was their pronunciation of Shem without a definite article. They use Shema even when reciting Samaritan Hebrew texts and their vowel sounds are a long way removed from the Masoretic. I'll take your word for it though.Romomusicfan (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Romomusicfan It is a little confusing. Once it becomes a proper noun it loses all other etymology and meaning (cf. the modern Jewish phrases "shem hashem", which is absurd on a literal level, and "hashem yitbarakh", which combines Hebrew "hashem" with an Aramaic verb) so you'll find it across languages. But anyway the spelling and history are clear. The term is very popular in early Aramaic Christian and Gnostic texts, and (despite some indication that Samaritans pronounced the Tetragrammaton much longer than Christians and Jews) in Samaritan texts as well. There is some contention by moderns, also Ibn Ezra in his introduction to Esther, that it actually comes from Ashima, which is one of the gods worshipped by the Samarians in 2Kings 17:30, but I wouldn't give it much credence. For whatever reason Samaritan characters won't show up in my browser but you can see the wiktionary page here. If they show up for you, you can swap them for my block print שמא on that page. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring opinions at Alice Walker
Hi, I'm hoping it was an accident caused by an edit clash, but in this diff, you just restored a whole bunch of BLP-violating opinions that I had removed (including the Wapo one with opinion in the url). I would request that you restore my version of the second paragraph from "In 2017..." onwards, see the version here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Yes sorry, because of course it didn't give me all your edit summaries. I'm always terrified of this happening. I have no choice but to revert anything I did that was a revert of you because I already reverted Nableezy today, but I have to say that I seriously disagree with your summary of the sourcing. "The poem was criticized as using tropes and arguments frequently used by anti-semites." is many, many grades softer than the language in any of the sources, and entirely inaccurate. The tropes were themselves called anti-semitic by all RS, and the poem itself was explicitly called antisemitic by the Vox and WaPo sources you used. So I'm extremely troubled by this version. GordonGlottal (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought it might be an honest mistake. Happens all the time. That summary was based on the language specifically used by Vox and WaPo in the paragraphs each assigns to the poem, so I would disagree with the suggestion that the tone differs or diverges from that used in the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Standard notification
Its been an over a year since your BLP DS alert, so I am providing you an updated one now per the requirement for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Friend editor, ceaseless edit-warring will wear out your fellows' patience. Tendentious wikilawyering will do the same. You have my apology for anything unnecessarily personal. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isnt any ceaseless edit-warring, and if you believed that nobody should be modifying the section header while the RFC is active then you should have reverted this edit that happened after the RFC was opened, after the BLP violation was claimed, and before that editor had ever once edited the talk page, making that their first ever edit to the topic. If you actually felt that editing it while the RFC was open was unacceptable. Further, there is a majority agreeing that "accusations" should be in the heading on BLP grounds. But yet you continue to remove it. But I accept the apology and hope we dont have any further personal issues. nableezy - 22:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the nonsense about you reverting an edit that made a BLP violation claim? And by the way, if you are claiming this is covered by the 1RR, two of the editors were not allowed to make the reverts by that same rule anyway. Or Zaathras, who never edited that page prior to this and only showed up because apparently I voted against his position in an unrelated RFC, reverted after the RFC was started, and also before they even noticed the RFC existed showing it wasnt the RFC that drew them there. Anywhoo, there is substantial agreement against your position in the RFC. I expect you to follow that consensus. Ill take my leave from this page now, toodles, nableezy - 04:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
November 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Tower of Babel. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
When your recent changes to edits are tweaked, you should be less hasty to press the revert button. It is likely that there simply is no consensus for your changes. In such cases you really should takes things to the talkpage. Please review WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically in your case, I am quite knowledgeable on Judaism subjects, and unfortunately you seem to be less so. That is not something to be ashamed about, just accept the fact that this is a community editing project, and that other editors are likely to add information to your text that will make articles even better. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide sources for your edits if you want them to stay. I think if you pay attention to my edits you will find that I am very knowledgeable indeed, but of course none of us is as good as all of us together. I don't bear any personal animus against you but claims like "Pirke Avot mentions the words gemara", which are plainly false, the term wouldn't mean that for almost a millenium, can't be allowed to remain. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section in question is about the etymology of the word gemara. Avot does not use the word, so it cannot be used to date the word's origin. Your claim may be relevant to another section or page, but not this one. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I've never once reverted a change to my talk page, and I won't start now, but this a very silly attempt at -- I'm not sure what exactly. The user in question needs to start reading edit summaries and following wiki guidelines, soon. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not need to "start reading edit summaries". If you have something to say, use a talkpage. That is what it is for. I do read your edit summaries, by the way. But please understand that when there is opposition to recent changes made by an editor, the burden of proof is on that editor, who should therefore start a discussion and obtain consensus. Instead of that, you repeatedly pressed the revert button, and that is unacceptable. So please continue the discussions that are now underway on the talkpages, and refrain from smart, but incorrect, comments here.Debresser (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding your move of this article, it is expected that editors moving pages fix all the incoming links on templates. There are a large number of templates at the bottom of the article that you should fix the links on. Thanks, Number5719:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you restored revision 1162342265 from before the IP editor added the words 'secular' and 'partial,' were you aware you also removed my edit(s) from mainspace? If so, why did you do that? Casdmo (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
I do not pretend to star an edit war, but the Hebrew transliteration is out of place, as it would be the berber or the gothic. Alkhamiya Arabic would make more sense. It is an interesting info however, and a pity to loose it, but if you find it so relevant and difficult to find, maybe its place is he.wiki and you may find it there; otherwise can't you add it in an Appendix if you have experience? Something like List of Spanish placenames in Classical Hebrew fonts, documented of course. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
January 2024
Hello, I'm Bagumba. Your recent edit to the page Doc Rivers appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardes (exegesis)
I have noticed your repeated reverting of my edits, based on the claim that there are sources to corroborate the present version. I edited the text as I did because there are numerous Early Talmudic-era passages (2nd Century) that employ these methods whereas the earliest documented Christian use of them is in the 3rd Century. In addition, these passages frequently utilize these methods in a Halachic, rather than Kabbalistic, context. The sources quoted in support of the information presently found in this article are the works of scholars who are not known for their expertise in Talmud and related literature and were possibly unaware of the relevant texts or underestimated their importance. Abiyam (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abiyam The Pardes (exegesis) article does not claim that midrash, pshat, etc. are originally Christian. Talmudic texts engage in homiletical, literal, and mystical interpretation. However, the unified conception we call Pardes, according to which the text has four simultaneous meanings, each accessed by an exclusive method, is never described by the Talmud. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Regarding your contention, see Yevamoth 11b and 24a. In addition, the apparent consensus of Jewish authorities (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Gersonides, Nachmanides, Bachrach, Nieto, Yad Malachi, Chajes, Weinberg, Hirsh, Hoffmann, Halevy and Karelitz) that the only true meaning of Scripture is it's simple meaning, with the other three methods being employed to provide an anchor in the text for ideas that were originally conveyed as part of an oral tradition, as well as the original thoughts of the speaker. This would seem to be radically different than the Christian approach described in your response. As far as I can tell, the only authority that explicitly adheres to the Christian version of exegesis is Malbim, and I cannot vouch for any Christian influence on his writings. I would also like to point out that your response does not address my second claim; namely, that the methods in question are not necessarily Kabbalistic in nature. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. Abiyam (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Talmud in three places (b. Yevamot 11a, 24b; b. Shabbat 63a) rejects an explanation with אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. Although in b. Shabbat it seems that the פשט explanation is preferred, the passage in b. Yevamot is generally interpreted as implying the opposite. What "peshat" means specifically in the Talmud has been the subject of extensive debate. The Talmud does not use it exclusively in the sense of later commentators, wherein it refers to interpretation that makes literal sense within the larger context of the Biblical passage. I believe Rashi is the earliest rabbinic authority to explicitly contrast "peshat" and "derash" explanations. Hayy Gaon uses מידי פשוטו in an absolute sense, where "peshat" refers to the only correct explanation. No early Jewish writer ever refers to additional categories.
It's important to distinguish between the individual methods of peshat and derash, and the conceptual framework of "pardes". "Peshat" and "derash" are much older than "pardes". No Jewish writer before Moshe de Leon ever said anything like "Biblical passages have multiple explanations, being simultaneously literal, mystical, and allegorical." Such statements are, however, found explicitly in Jerome, Origen, and Augustine, remaining popular in Christian theology through de Leon's time. The Jewish approach prior to the innovation of Pardes could instead be summarized as "Biblical passages have one true meaning but the Talmudic explanations which appear to differ from it are still in some sense true". Of course there were many different Jewish approaches to discovering the true meaning and integrating the Talmud.
Similarly, while peshat and derash are not Kabbalistic concepts, the idea of placing them into a "pardes" framework is. 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your clarification. Can you perhaps direct me to the source in Moshe de Leon's writings that expresses this idea clearly? Abiyam (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "clearly" is always a bit of a lost cause in Kabbalah. Other than the Zohar, de Leon's writings are not widely available. He does mention parshanut a few times in his responsa. But I think the best answer is, see the Zohar generally and specifically here. Have you looked at the sources cited on the Pardes page? GordonGlottal (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mondoweiss
Removing material as here, note that merely writing WP:MONDOWEISS is an insufficient reason for removal of sourced material, Mondoweiss may not be grel but it is not gunrel. Further reasons are needed eg exceptional claim or something else. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You left some material uncited and the only reason you gave was that it was Mondoweiss, you made no mention of claims being exceptional (nor in the other removal either but I let that go as you replaced the ref and only made a minor change). If you want to say that a claim is exceptional you need to say that, nor did you mention (inline presumably) attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MONDOWEISS requires attribution for Mondoweiss. I would have preferred to replace the source but the claim doesn't appear in any high-quality RS. All the New Arab does is attribute the same claim to Mondoweiss. There are lengthy accounts of the Al-Shifa operation from AP, BBC, Reuters, NYT—if a claim doesn't appear in them, we shouldn't be in the business to source-shopping to include it. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not source shopping, sigh. I did not replace the claim that you only now assert as exceptional, I added The New Arab as a cite for that part of the material that was originally cited to Mondoweiss but which you left in place without any reference.
By the way, giving a citation to Mondoweiss is attribution, I assume you mean inline attribution, as in "According to..." (only required if the material is otherwise contentious). Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I left the Mondoweiss citations to non-contentious material but WP:MONDOWEISS only says Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. In general I think we should prefer GR sources for non-contentious material and that the only use-case for No-Consensus sources like Mondoweiss is contentious material that nonetheless deserves to be included with inline attribution. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi diddly-ho there, neighborino, time to talk Hebrew
Hey Gordon,
I was wondering how to go about getting the additional character sets for Hebrew adjusted. Unlike Arabic, they currently only include the abgad, and not the extended range of characters (ayn, emphatics, long vowel marks) and it is honestly annoying, but I have not yet figured out where this project is located. Got any idea? Ogress14:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made more than 1 revert of the Gaza Strip famine page within a 24Hr period. As mentioned in the page notice, this is not permitted. Please self-revert. Let's discuss on the Talk page how to include this article in the lead. Rainsage (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you add content and are reverted, you don't get to simply add it back and insist that it remain there during a talk discussion. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who seeks inclusion of disputed content. That's why it's called "bold-revert-discuss" not "bold-revert-revert-discuss". GordonGlottal (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear my quick edit summary may have introduced some confusion. When I mentioned BRD, I did not mean the way it is sometimes mentioned as part of the conditions of a DS editing requirement, but in the general sense we usually use it, and that is it always applies whenever there is an editing disagreement. We default to it to avoid edit wars. The point of my revert was to restore the article to its status quo state before the introduction of new content. That's usually what we do until a consensus has formed to accept or reject the new content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The concept of "All Aram" (ʿAram Kulloh) and a collective Aramean identity emerged in the mid-8th century BC. During this period, various Aramean chiefdoms and states, particularly in regions referred to as "Upper and Lower Aram", formed alliances that reinforced their shared identity. This collective identity, known as "All Aram", is mentioned in historical sources such as the Sefire Treaties, suggesting a degree of political and cultural unity among these Aramean polities. This coalition played a role in their opposition to the expanding Assyrian Empire."
"The expressions “All Aram” and “Upper and Lower Aram” in Sefire treaty inscriptions have been variously interpreted, but can suggest a degree of political and cultural unity among some of the polities in the area.“
…User Shamyo, according to his page, an "Assyrian Wikipedian" has completely butchered the entire section on "All Aram" into non-existence. He has repeatedly been noted for aggressively altering Aramaic-related content to fit his own beliefs. I have provided well-researched academic sources, with scholars even mentioned on Wikipedia. As a reader, I wonder what exactly is meant by "variously interpreted" or who is referred to by "polities".PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Cooper until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
looking for an old sefer or manuscript with plant illustrations
Hey Gordon, nice work on Moses da Rieti. By chance, do you know of an old Spanish, Italian, or French poet or botano-medical writer, possibly named Moses as well, with a manuscript or old incunabula illustrated with some leafy green plants, maybe something to do with the heart or love in the title. I just thought of it and I can't find it and it's driving me a little crazy. I could've sworn I saw it on Wikipedia at one time. Andre🚐22:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Hebrew? Unfortunately, that doesn't ring a bell. I don't really know much about poets or especially botano-medical writers. I added him to Rieti while I was researching a historical commentary to the Miqdash Me'at, so I saw it on my watchlist when you added the link there (I may add a section about the commentary later). Anyway let me know if you figure it out! GordonGlottal (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gordon, don't leave the draft off for Miqdash Me'at for too long, I see it in the sandbox and it looks good, swap it in 'cause they're going to review the article for DYK hopefully soon! Andre🚐06:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moses da Rieti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a poem by Moses da Rieti includes an encyclopedia of the sciences, a Jewish paradise fantasy, and a post-biblical history of Jewish literature? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moses da Rieti. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moses da Rieti), 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.
Hey Gordon, I was thinking of asking you if you forgot about our Moses but then I literally just saw you adding him to the Talmud page! I guess I didn't realize he's such a valuable historical source as well as an original poet. Anyway, I'm hopeful that this means you're getting back to your draft of his article soon. The DYK and the Main Page went by and we got 3,000 views. Nothing to write home about. I guess there's no real rush to finish, we're depriving all of on a good day, 13 visits or so a day of your improved version. Don't forget to reconcile the subsequent changes, I can help with that when you get there if you'd like.Andre🚐03:14, 16 December 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.
Your edit to Killing of Brian Thompson has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Bowler the Carmine | talk21:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You recent edits
Good evening. Thanks for your interest in Kiddush Levana. Nevertheless, I am finding some of your edits to be inaccurate. For example, I removed some of your sources from what is now footnote 14 because they do not say what they are cited to say (e.g. the Hagahot Maimoni cited is not even talking about Kiddush Levana!, but rather another blessing as I explained in my edit summary), but you just re-added it. Please review all of the sources you recently re-added. Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dovidroth Hi, happy to discuss. The referenced passage reads ואומר במסכת סופרים שמצוה לברך על הירח במוצאי שבת שהוא מבושם ובכלים נאים וכן נהג מורי רבינו שיחיה כשהוא מקדים לברך בחול כדי שלא יעבור זמן הברכה שהוא י״ו בחדש אז לבש סרבל מכובד אשר לו. There can be no question that this refers to Kiddush levana. I think maybe you've confused the cited reference (letter Samekh, which I had initially incorrectly put in as 60) for letter Tet, which refers to a different blessing. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I see it now and I am fine with it, although please try to fix the link to point to the correct place (it’s going to a different section). Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kiddush levana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hakirah.
Thank you once again very much for your great contributions to the article. I would appreciate it if moving forward you could make sure to use complete references; include a full reference to the website name and access date to online materials. Thanks very much. Dovidroth (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being bold as punk. I've been begging for help from various Projects to source these stubs after 25 years, and sometimes they need a dramatic step. I also discussed the (almost) 70,000 unsourced articles at Wikipedia NYC this past weekend. I appreciate your willingness to take risks. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
