User talk:Jaredscribe

Tribute Wall WP:CANDOR[edit]

No one has left me a barnstar yet. You could be the first!

On second thought, I don't need 'em. What I would really appreciate is ... some WP:CANDOR on the following projects and occasional content disputes. But don't take sides with me, take sides with the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA

Content & Conduct Disputes[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Have I been blocked? Rather than simply logging me out with no explanation, will some wise WP:WikiElf please inform this user that he has been blocked, and for how long, and for what subject matter? Read the history on the article Antony Blinken, if you want to know the facts of this dispute. I left them in the edit summaries. Basically, the Knights who say "ni" are at it again. Y'all should stop empowering them. Banishing my kind will have unintended consequences that are harmful to the other species. (Previous content refactored into a separate essay)

Jaredscribe (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Jaredscribe (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe. You aren't blocked from editing. I'm not sure who the rest of your help request is addressed to. If, after my confirmation, you still need further help, feel free to file another help request with clear and concise questions. Best, Darren-M talk 11:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the login session expiring often, this happened to me yesterday, seemingly randomly and sometimes minutes apart. I didn't check as it didn't persist but WP:VPT may be a good place to inquire about it. —Paleo Neonate – 18:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? —valereee (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PaleoNeonate, it happened to me a dozen times over the course of a few hours, and I accidentally made some IP edits. I think it was on the National Security Council article, but it might have been elsewhere. Now everyone knows who I really am. :) I didn't know about WP:VPT before, thanks for teaching me something useful.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some Elf Lord Darren-M could research the database and tell me, because I forgot. If I've committed any vandalism or trolling, or other artwork, I'd like to credited please. And if in the future I do get blocked, will you at least allow my talk page? And where do I go from the outside to learn the status of the account block?Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a WP:WikiWarlock watching from above and practicing the dark arts on us, please stop. Just tell the world on my tribute wall who I am and what I've done. Wikpedia is all about collaborative research, right? When in doubt, just write an essay. Magic is stupid and unproductive. It takes as payment that which you value most, and the power that it gives in return ends up enslaving the one who wields it.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee Why do you even ask?Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I can't figure out what you're getting at. This whole elf/knight epic fantasy thing you think is somehow important re: your recent edits, the fact you seem to think there's a conspiracy w/re that, the fact you aren't blocked and never have been...I just don't get it. What are you even talking about? —valereee (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PA on Antifa (United States)? Comment on content, not other editors[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Antifa (United States). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bacondrum (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion page, I alleged that a non-WP:NPOV exists in the article. I furthermore observed that, the page being protected to users with 500+ edits, you were allowed to edit it and I, as a newb, was not. Your demand for references of the obvious - the relationship between Antifa, Antifaschistische_Aktion, and the KPD - references which are clearly cited on that very page, strikes me as disingenuous and obscurantist. My pointing out the very real difference in privelege between us is valid, and not personal. These constitute "attacks", if you insist, on editing and administrative behavior, not on any attribute personhood. Your response is a red herring, and fails to address the merits. My claim stands. 15 Dec 2020

Incivility at Talk:Antifa (United States)[edit]

I'd prefer to get along, please try and be more civil. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bacondrum (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer so as well, thanks Bacondrum. I hope you will agree that at no point have I attempted to disparage or even discuss anyone's race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, birth defect, nor ancestral legitimacy. I beg you to dismiss the charge of personal attack. I did respond in condescending tone (though honestly, logically, and with reliable sources), to repeated request from you and another editor for citations previously given (in the article), questions which I perceived as tendentious, but which may not have been. I admit there has been some "incivility" going on here, in which I've participated. I will try not to contribute to it in the future.Jaredscribe (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI - December 2020[edit]

.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Antifa (United States). Hey, Jared! Tone down the rhetoric. I understand that it's frustrating to not be able to edit directly yet, but that doesn't give you the right to be hostile toward other editors at that talk page. Please assume good faith. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee Please send me a link to our ANI dispute section. I can't find it on the noticeboard. Did it get archived? Also see my responsa above on this my talk page. After a few days away from this issue, I intend to respond on ANI.

For reference, here is my opening statement allegedly failing to assume good faith:

This text from Antifa (Germany) belongs in the first paragraphs of the article, which obscures (deliberately?) the origins and dominant ideology of the movement

That the article is unnecessarily obscure - is an accusation which I stand behind. It seems to me that the article expresses a POV:Americanism and POV:presentism, that treats history and the rest of the world like they don't matter.

That the article is deliberately obscure - I've never made that accusation. I asked it as a question. Was it deliberate? This is an insinuation, not an accusation. Maybe it wasn't deliberate.

Moreover, if my insinuation that conscious bias may be at work constitutes a failure to assume good faith, even this hardly constitutes a personal attack. I hope you will reconsider and dismiss this exaggerated charge, so that we can deal with the more accurate charge of "incivility", and eventually get back to making an encyclopedia. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Walo Omana - Help with French translation - is she a nun?[edit]

Hello, I'm reaching out because I saw you listed as a fr-en translator, and I see you're also interested in some religion articles. I'm wondering whether you know exactly what this is saying? It's a profile on a mathematician in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Found on this webpage ^[1]

Dans son Curriculum Vitae, avant de vous laisser l'exploiter in extenso, il y a lieu de repérer quelques principaux éléments:
Religieuse de la Congrégation diocésaine des Soeurs de Saint François d'Assise de Tshumbe, elle émit ses voeux perpétuels le 02/08/1978.

Is this saying that Omana took a nun's vows? Is she still a nun/could a nun also be a grad student in Canada and later professor? That's how it seems to me. I haven't been able to find a copy of her CV.

Thanks for any help! IllQuill (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I asked too soon: I found her listed as a sister on the Diocese website.^[2] It looks like she is a reverend sister. IllQuill (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are a few principal elements from her CV, before showing it in full: (paraphrase)
- A religious (nun) in the congregation of the Sisters of Saint Francis of Assisi of Tshumbe, she made her perpetual vows in 2/8/1978.

And to your question @IllQuill:, yes and no. From consulting the the University's profile of her, as its new Rector, and CV, it seems she took her vows the year she received her B.Sc. from the University of of Quebec. She was later a Mathematics grad student and PHD in Belgium, and professor in Kinshasa. You probably already figured this out, but good luck and happy editing! Jaredscribe (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! IllQuill (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IllQuill, Did you ever make an article? Sorry I didn't help more; I'll have more free time after the holidays, in a few weeks.

le 26 novembre 2010 à Tshumbe, la Révérende Soeur Rebecca Gemma WALO OMANA OTOKOYE a été promue Recteur de l'UNITSHU.
Née le 15 juillet 1951,Soeur Gemma WALO est la première femme du Congo-Kinshasa devenue Docteur en Sciences-Mathématiques près l'Université Catholique de Louvain (U.C.L./ Belgique). Elle est jusqu'ici professeur Ordinaire à l'Université de Kinshasa (UNIKIN), Faculté des Sciences, Département de Mathémathiques et Informatique et Directrice de l’Ecole Doctorale régionale en Mathématiques et Informatiques de l’Université de Kinshasa.

Ok, I just found it at Rebecca Walo Omana. Nice work. There should be one at fr:Rebecca Walo Omana. Maybe I'll get around to that someday. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk)

Yes I did end up making one, I'm sorry I didn't ping you or anything! I've also been very busy recently. Thank you so much for the follow up! If you do end up making the French page that would be cool, but I know there's more things I'd like to do than time to do them :) IllQuill (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://anjaashiwatshumbe.over-blog.org/2018/01/le-profil-du-nouveau-recteur-de-l-universite-notre-dame-de-tshumbe.html
^ http://diocese-tshumbe-ste-marie.over-blog.com/pages/SOEURS_DE_ST_FRANCOIS_DASSISE-6871492.html

WP:USEPRIMARY on SoS Antony Blinken - January 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm AleatoryPonderings. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Antony Blinken, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transition of Power - Presidency of Donald Trump[edit]

(disputed)

Hi Jaredscribe, it looks like you restored an edit of yours that was reverted within 24 hours. This violates the discretionary sanctions on the article. Please self-revert your edit. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being previously unaware of the 1RR discretionary sanctions on this article (it was my first contribution), I self-reverted my restoration of my reverted edit immediately when informed, and took it to talk back in January. I had other things to do and forgot about it and moved on, but a consensus of three editors formed, backing my proposition. Disappointing that this highly relevant historical fact has been missing from the record, right when people were wanting to know about it. So I've restored it as of today. Presidency of Donald Trump#Transition of power and Farewell address Jaredscribe (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jared, it appears you attempted to restore the talk thread about this from Archive 12, but it looks like at least one of the talk threads still would need to be restored on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any text you add should only be added after the discussions are back at an article talk location. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brought discussion back to current article talk, restored the section 22 March 2021. Thanks MelanieN for supplying the missing citation. It seems Onetwothreeip is intent on removing the quotes from Trump We pray for his success.. and Biden very generous on the grounds that they "aren't relevant". But they are the MOST RELEVANT aspect of this whole paragraph. Without the quotes giving the main actors causes and reasons, historians will be unable to a connect factoids into a historic narrative. Is that our goal for an WP:ENC? I think not. (Although it is for some factions and media who profit from misunderstandings and the political drama it creates). These facts been NOTED by the media and by us, therefore they are NOTABLE. The quotes are highly relevant to the subject of "transition of power", and should be restored. Likewise, unless the goal is to obscure the facts for some reason, he shouldn't cut the title "Transition of Power" into the undescriptive mere "Transition". I ask him to restore these cuts himself and pre-empt an edit war.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the point of needing to trim the article: yes, in general long articles can be split up. Although this article isn't longer than Presidency of Barack Obama or Presidency of George Bush (although their tenures were longer), so its debatable whether the article is "too long". A managing editor should read this: Wikipedia:Summary_style. If a managing editor claims that the details "can be included in the child articles", then he should do that work himself, PRIOR to cutting it from the main parent article, and provide a link in talk to the relevant sub-section proving this, IMHO. Otherwise its disruptive, and it erases the work of editors who've worked hard on this for four years to give us at the end the raw material, and who have now moved on to other subject matter. We should respect their work by not taking it lightly and not demanding, that they now return and do the work of defending its "notability" while we cut it up.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, given the above (and ongoing aggressive cutting already called out by SPECIFICO), this editor Onetwothreeip should step down, IMHO, from the position he is trying to assume as "Managing Editor", and cease and desist from the aggressive cuts to the article of content that has previously been curated by editorial consensus. WP:Competence is required for that role more than for that of ordinary editors, and he has not demonstrated this, and has demonstrated too much hubris. Moreover, there HAS been earlier consensus (3-1) about "Transition of Power" section, and he is misrepresenting an earlier discussion in Jan by claiming in talk that The content doesn't have consensus but I can agree to a more narrow version there has been none. Other constructive editors have been driven away, as I was in Jan.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No editor should presume to say about any current events "This has no historical significance" or "this isn't relevant" or "I can 'categorically' say that no one outside America cares about this." as Onetwothreeip has done. This is hubris. A real historian would have more humility. The fact is, we don't know that, and we aren't even qualified to evaluate, and WP:NOR. This is an encyclopedia, not a historical analysis. What right do you have to decide what is significant or relevant to me? What right do I have to decide what is or isn't significant to you? In general WP:PRESERVE, so that historians can research the sources and do the work later. We don't have the perspective to make these judgement calls. And the fact is, it has been "NOTED" by the news media, and by myself and other editors as well. Therefore, "Transition of Power" is NOTABLE, as is almost anything else in the article that meets the WP:Verifiability standard, which is the content policy that we should be applying here instead.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a source for historians. It is often inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to select which quotes should be used in an article. It is completely inappropriate to deliberately construct a historical narrative, as anything of that nature should only come about as a result of neutrally and objectively summarising the article subjects. These quotes in particular are not any more relevant than anything else Donald Trump has said, and we obviously can't include everything he has ever said here. Not to get too much into this, but I am also very keen on avoiding the flowery and grandiose language often used by enthusiasts of American politics, such as with phrases like "transition of power".

As for the lengths of similar articles, Presidency of Donald Trump is much larger than that of its predecessors, at 430,000 bytes. Presidency of Barack Obama is 290,000 bytes and Presidency of George W. Bush is 140,000 bytes, both despite being two terms. I completely reject being or wanting to be a "managing editor" or historian, so you can consider me to have "stepped down" from both of those. I am very much willing to defend those claims you are quoting me as making, though it would be more accurate to say that something has not enough historical significant for the article than to say it isn't historically significant. I am not claiming to know what is relevant for yourself or myself, it is an assessment of objective reality. Overall I think your content is good for Wikipedia, but I would avoid adding such content to articles which are already extremely large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and guideline changes, especially regarding C-SPAN and fair use[edit]

I'd suggest discussing these changes on the applicable Talk pages before making significant edits to policy and guideline pages. Testimony given under oath is not automatically a reliable source, especially for claims about living persons (WP:BLPPRIMARY). As for C-SPAN videos, they would still fall under non-free content because Wikipedia's license allows for commercial use. Our policy is intentionally more restrictive than U.S. fair use because of this. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Competence is required on the The Promised Land (sculpture) in February 2021[edit]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. tedder (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples where you have attacked and/or not shown good faith. You seem to be aware of this, it's important enough that it's one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars. It's non-negotiable.

- "The unwillingness by Another Believer to acknowledge the bias or even the meaning of the statue, is a manifestation of this same bias"

- "[ If an editor is unable to do this, (s)he should refrain from discussing the matter. WP:Competence is required]"

- "Consider staying out of this one, unless you have something constructive to add."

- "we have some problems from this user Another Believer"

- "The disruptive editor in question here, Another Believer..."

I'm not coming here to argue content or personal opinion. Your invitation to edit Wikipedia is contingent on these Five Pillars. tedder (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only content disputes I've had with this editor is on the two articles in question, I haven't followed him around or harassed him on other pages. I assert in talk pages that there is a bias, and that these article violate neutrality. This is not a personal attack nor is it harrassment. The editor's claims in both articles that my additions were "not constructive" and the text from the "monumental inscription" is "unsourced", are inaccurate - the inscription is published (inscribed) on the monument itself. And this is relevant to the article - that is, constructive. I wasn't the first volunteer to add this and get reverted, either. I was a brand new user, and this was very discouraging, so I gave up and left wikipedia for a several months. Is that harrassment also? Are you willing to affirm the principle of WP:Don't bite the newcomers?Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I returned after a few months to finish the work, and I reminded him that WP:Competence is required An editor can be in good faith (I continue to assume it) and still have bias of which he is unaware and can still lack competence in some areas. An editor can be in good faith and still be disruptive. Pointing this out is not harrassment, and nor is it a personal attack, nor is it passive-aggressive - I'm speaking directly to point of the content and to the editor's apparent misunderstanding of WP:Reliable sources.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of other editors on Spanish–American_War_Soldier's_Monument held with my position and I was able to continue constructing the article and restored a more or less WP:NPOV.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the The Promised Land (sculpture), the dispute is ongoing so I added the template for Neutrality challenge. There is an established process for dealing with this, the entire content dispute is handled on the talk pages. The only thing happening here is that I am defending my actions by demonstrating that I am in good faith in taking them - since this is apparently doubted. Also, I sincerely believe (perhaps incorrectly) that they are the right actions to take in this case, although I'm still rather new and still have alot to learn.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, assertions of harrassment and personal attack are a misunderstanding or red herring, and are not helping. If I have inadvertently harrassed this editor by suggesting that he lacks competence and is being unintentionally disruptive, then certainly I was not doing it for the purpose of harrassment, but rather for the purpose of improving the article. I continue to assume that he is in good faith. These accusations are coming from a sysop, who may be able to win the argument by an appeal to force, unless my reply here appeases him. I'm begging him to reflect on this and reconsider. However, I will avoid these articles for a while because improving them is not worth the risk of being blocked, to me. I beg all wikipedians who believe (as I do) in the encyclopedic mission and in the WP:SOP to remember that Wikipedia is WP:Not a bureaucracy. I hope that some arbitrators and admins will adopt the principle that User:Jaredscribe/There is justice, or at least strive for it, although I know it is denied in some quarters. This may be my last post for a while. If I am blocked, I still love you wikipedia!Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaa music scene: Qanbus and Yemenite chant: French translation assistance[edit]

Hi Jaredscribe,

I'm currently working on the Sanaa article and would like to add a section on the city's music. I found the following three French-language sources that may have useful information: [1] [2] [3]

It may be a bit much to ask, but is there any way you would be willing to help me understand what they're talking about? Alternatively, if you wanted to directly add any useful content from them to the article here, then that would be a huge help.

Thanks,

3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3 kids in a trenchcoat this is interesting to me, and I'm honored. (btw, what does yr uname mean?)

Both articles mention the Qanbus, a fretless Yemenite oud, and a musician named Yahya al-Nunu, active '80-'95, who apparently held musical seances from afternoon to the following morning. The Mokrani article also mentions Hasan al-Ajami. In a month or so I'll have more time to research this and listen to their recordings. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also it looks like I gave the wrong link to one of the articles before, try this one instead. (Also my username is a reference to the trope of a group of kids masquerading as an "adult" by standing on each others' shoulders, typically hiding themselves in a trenchcoat: See here) 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its taken me so long to get to this, 3 kids in a trenchcoat. I made a section for Music of Sanaa here: :fr:Sanaa § Musique, and cited all three articles. Now other french wikipedists can read them in depth and write more. I'll wait a month and see what they come up with before translating. Sanaa Chant was put on the UNESCO fr:Liste_représentative_du_patrimoine_culturel_immatériel_de_l'humanité in 2003, and it had a redlink on the wikipedia page, which I pointed to the new section. According to the Mokrani article, this was done due to the advocacy of the ethnomusicologist Jean Lambert of School_for_Advanced_Studies_in_the_Social_Sciences, who wrote the other two articles you gave me.Jaredscribe (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredscribe No worries, thanks for your help! 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New moon of spring Aviv-Nisan, March 14 2021 Mainpage "On this day" or "News"[edit]

Hi — please note that the edit instructions on date articles (such as the March 13 and 14 ones you recently edited) clearly state that "Each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed." Your additions did not cite sources.

Furthermore, per WP:DOY, the 'Holidays and observances' entries "should also be limited to those events that occur on the same date annually and to observances that are currently celebrated". This clearly does not apply to new moons or similar phenomena.

Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you're continuing down this road. That's your call, of course; I won't waste my time any further, since you're clearly convinced your way is the right way. Bye, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our content dispute was in the edit summaries of March 14, which happens to be in 2021, the new moon of Aviv, spring. Among other things. [[4]]

Thank you DoubleGrazing for not wasting any more of our time. And although it is "my way", it is also the way of world and the course of nature, which I hope that someday you will acknowledge, having reverted this twice. The new moon of spring, occurs every year on the same day, the 1st of Nisan. I notice that March 1st tends to move around a bit. I understand that you Gregorians of the graeco-roman tradition see it differently. But your way is not the only way to count time or to memorialize the past. And our tradition is adequately explained, sourced, and cited on the linked articles. It even made its way into some notable controversies about the dating of Easter, and to schisms and orthodoxies that make your culture what it is today. Undoubtedly, this will be discussed in the coming month.Jaredscribe (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying erase mention of Palm Sunday, Good friday, Christmas or New Years, nor of any of the other half dozen saints days and religious propaganda that is spread on the Main Page. I simply ask to include the Lunar new year#middle east on the main page on the day when it occurs, along with all the other trivialities and sectarian interests. I would appreciate it DoubleGrazing, if you would please inform your fellow WP:WikiKnights, to stop removing mention of obvious facts of nature and of Jewish and Asian historical perspectives generally. And please stop the edit war by restoring the mention of the Lunar new year#middle east 2021, that your colleague Firestar464 has reverted. You can remove it again after March 15th, or even better, archive it with "News" for the record. The "news" editors deleted mention, claiming that the new moon was not "news" to them, having not occurred to their religious hierarchs or their mass industry to print articles about it. Jaredscribe (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will reoccur. Next year it may seem to be on a "different day" to you, but it will be on the "same day as today", to me and to us. It is disappointing for me to discover that ignorance and systemic bias are not merely an accident of culture, but seem to be a matter of policy here on wikipedia. But you have the technology and the data, you can do the math. We can figure this out together and fix it. I hope that the WP:Encyclopedia mission will prevail. Jaredscribe (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to WP:RGW. Now please follow the policies. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group Member notice[edit]

Your name is listed as a participant of the WikiProject Countering system bias in religion.
I would like to know if you agree with this edit: DIFF.
24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 Misogyny & Male Chauvinism (IMHO)[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Steak and Blowjob Day, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

RESPONSE. This SysOp has gone to great lengths in blocking my in order to preserve the high quality of Steak and Blow Job Day. But off the "reliable sources" previously given in the article's lede one described it as the the "sad, stupid history of Steak & Bj day." The other asked "What's this for?" A question we ought to ask ourselves.

Unlike the previous version, My edit faithfully represents the cited source. Previously, it had obscured the criticism, and cited the source only in order to establish notability of the internet meme - a move which is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.) Why is the detective work of my contribution reverted? Does every internet meme merit an article? Please restore my contribution, or else someone please block DMacks from future interference with me. Although being a SysOp, his expertise probably makes him immune to prosecution. He is not, however, immune to criticism or mockery, but this clown needs a bodyguard. You can call me Al. By the way, WP:Notability. And Whats This For again?Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Reception" section, I left an intelligent, sensitive, common sense essay describing how many men are receiving this so-called "holiday". The essay didn't delete or remove any other content. I didn't revert or disrupt anyone else's work. You have every right to revert our opinion on how we "receive" this. I didn't even attempt to restore your reversion. I didn't waste my time edit warring over this, I didn't try to restore the reversion, but instead extracted it into an essay. Neither on that article nor on Cake and Cunnilingus Day did I disrupt the very important encyclopedic work that is going on there. Just delete my content if you find it unencyclopedic. I didn't war over it. I let it go. You should too. But instead he needlessly blocked me for 31 hours, and will only succeed in humiliating himself - which I had no desire to do to him except that he forced it on me. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that we've all seen just how seriously Wikipedia will defend its coverage of the trivialities of pop culture. (Why else even visit those articles?) Reductio ad absurdum He should repent and restore, and unblock me so that we can work toward consensus per WP:BRD, or else be blocked himself and his SysOp status reconsidered.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This done, we return to the discussion of the New moon. Meanwhile, I've been hard at work doing real scholarship on serious and relevant subjects of the Babylonian calendar, the first month of Aviv, spring which is called Nisan there and in the Hebrew calendar, and on the Metonic cycle, culminating in a proposal to mention the Lunar new year of the middle east, today, the 1 Nisan, March 14th 2021. This is after all, the basis for our dating of Easter, according to the Computus. Relevant? Obviously. Timely? Today is the day. Notable enough to make the main page "On this day" holidays and observances? Not to managing editors, since the solar "day changes" year to year.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For all my hard work, 5 of them chose to fight me persistently to preserve the status quo of general ignorance and denial of reality. They're not qualified to manage a calendar. Read edit summaries to get the idea. by flippantly preventing mention of the Lunar new year#middle east, inclusion in the calendar of "Holidays and Observances" on the main page for March 14 2021, while refusing to join me in constructive research. If not here, where do we mention this, TODAY? Tommorrow will be too late. Are we going to remove all reference to Easter from the calendar now, because it "occurs on a different day" each year?Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to also ignore Thanksgiving, because its solar day changes to put it always on a Thursday? But they will mention some ephemeral innovations like Pi day and Mothering Sunday (whose day also changes; it always on the 4th Sunday of Lent). The hypocrisy and stupidity of the Antijudaism that is manifested on Wikipedia today is something of which we all should all be ashamed who read, edit, and love Wikipedia.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For all my effort, I have been impulsively "blocked from wikipedia" for 31 hours by DMacks, who valiantly defended the honor of Steak and Blowjob Day. Please read the historical version to observe his excellent work at helping prove my point. This is who you are, Wikipedia.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum est.

The WP:Systemic bias on wikipedia is not merely an accident of culture, nor a problem with a subset of editors. Its encoded into the policy and enforced by admins. Another example of this is the brazen and false claim of the essay WP:TINJ, which I'm currently experiencing, frequently quoted in dispute boards, which is an abdication of duty and a celebration of administrator cabals. It flys in the face of the GNU GPL and other and Free Culture licenses under which this content is freely distributed. Its why so many other qualified contributors like myself give up and go find a different scholarly community.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jaredscribe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

And this, my teachers, colleagues, and students, demonstrates the original assertion. The WP:WikiKnight will go to great lengths to defend the WP:Systemic bias on wikipedia against "disruption". The WP:WikiElf - metapedians, admins, socialites - usually assists, enables, or stands idly by. I suspect them trolling as IPs under the cover of fighting vandalism. The WP:WikiDwarf who does the hard work of mining valuable sources for reliable information, is driven underground. The WP:WikiDragon takes the treasure and goes elsewhere, which is about to happen now unless something changes. I've sadly come to expect the puerile vanity, misogyny, unconscious jew-hate, and the "youthful cab driver perspective" dominating content disputes, the general laziness by the senior editors, and the pervasive graeco-roman perspective in both its christian and post-christian progressive manifestations, and the frequent acts of willful ignorance like this one. But the lengths that they will go to defend and preserve the ignorance is unworthy of the mission of the WP:Encyclopedia. Perhaps it was an impulsive oversight, and not an abuse of power. Perhaps. On the other hand, there are many conscientous editors working here as well, from whom I've learned much. For their sake and for that of the general public, I will continue the resistance. (Although I should be doing scholarship) The WP:Bureaucracy must improve its methods and its manners, and most of all, correct its basic mission: THERE IS JUSTICE. The priveleges are given for that very purpose, and they must be held accountable, just as I have been held to account. Anything less is dishonest, unjust, and downright unencyclopedic. I demand that they WP:Encyclopedia, Lunar new year#middle east, WP:CSB. So that I may advocate for mention of the 1 Nisan, the Lunar new year, on this years "calendar", or on "todays news".Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I request that all conscientious staff and admins help me in the encyclopedic mission of educating the public and WP:Countering Systemic Bias, and as DMacks has done to me, please block the four editors who are disrupting my constructive additions to the main page "On this day" and "In the news", Wham2001, Firestar464, Ehlef, and the first DoubleGrazing who initiated and then abandoned the edit-war, without conceding.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will reoccur next year on the same day, 1 Nisan, which is not always on March 14th. Passover and Easter will also re-occur. The sun rises, and the sun also sets, and returns to the place from whence it came. I am bringing you the moon, but I'm also bringing you the sun - because both are ruled by the same eternal law, of which in this encyclopedia, today, I alone bear witness. When you drive me out, you are left in the darkness of ignorance, to wallow in the vanities which I've been blocked for "disrupting". Without the sun, all is vanity. Good night.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

From what I see you are close to being WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Jaredscribe, I ask you not to tag me; I've no interest in the matters discussed on this talk page. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTTHEM. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me, here are my two cents. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written as a consensus-based collaboration by editors from a wide variety of backgrounds, who build articles by summarizing what has been written in reliable sources. It is not evident, as 331dot points out above, that your editing currently fits into that paradigm. If you're interested in working on the encyclopedia I suggest finding some sources of unimpeachable quality and using them to quietly improve an article; if you're only interested in promoting a lunar calendar or religion please do that elsewhere. Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate_a_point. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. I have made a Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day § Sincere apology for disruptive soapboxing, there, and on Talk:Cake and Cunnilingus Day § Sincere apology for disruptive soapboxing. And in advocating for inclusion of a Lunisolar calendar and the holidays of Asian Civilizations, I pledge to not exclude the white european and american perspective. If I have offended anyone, I'm terribly sorry.Jaredscribe (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DMacks for blocking me for only 31 hours. In retrospect, I think that was fair. I should have taken my WP:SOAPBOX diatribe over to the deletion or notability noticeboards instead of on the article itself. Thank you for apparently recognizing that I was new and in a frustrated mood, and for making a proportional response rather than coming down like a ton of bricks. As you can see, I made a public apology on the talk page, which is a more appropriate place to debate the political and social aspects of a "lame joke gone viral", such as S&BJ day. Also, I'm committed to becoming a productive editor and learning and respecting the content policies. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing "oral tradition" on Rabbi[edit]

I learned this from R.Eliayahu Weisman, an independent scholar at the Portland Kollel, a Jewish study hall that is open to the community. My personal experience leads me to consider him a more WP:RS than most of the Secondary and Tertiary sources cited in the article, and he makes better use of WP:PRIMARY. However, oral tradition is not "published" in the ordinary sense. This is an interesting case study in how an living oral tradition can sometimes be superior to the non-practiced, written tradition Christian and secular scholars writing about Judaism while reflecting their own Anti-Jewish prejudices. In the Etymology (2nd paragraph), he cites the RaDaK, who was a scholar from the medieval period, interpretation of Genesis 1: "peru u REBu", "Be fruitful and MULTIPLY" Perhaps someone can improve his contribution, by searching for this teaching (which is probably published) and citing it here.

Nonsense. Shaye J. D. Cohen is just an Yeshiva boy + higher academic learning. There are more like him. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Girth Summit. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sunday, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Girth Summit, that was most gentle reversion I've ever suffered. I wish more revert warriors would follow your example when dealing with newcomers, and leave a talk page note like this. As for the references, they exist on the linked pages; when I return to work on the article, I'll add them to the article body with citations, per MOS:LEAD as you suggested.

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jewish Christian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pascha.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources at Exodus[edit]

Thank you for your edits, but you need to provide reliable sources. See WP:RS. Unsourced material is likely to be removed. Additionally, you’re adding things to sources that do not say what you’re adding.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passover[edit]

Please do not point out problems in the article itself. That's what the talk page is for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vchimpanzee for showing concern over my major changes to the lede: in general I shouldn't have done that late on friday when all or most of the knowledgeable and personally concerned editors would be offline for the the holidays. I'll try reformulating my proposal and adding it again or on talk, now that the week has begun. That said, I'm not sure what exactly I did to "point out problems in the article itself". If you would please inform me I'll try not to do it again. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I changed. The words in red that I removed would go on the talk page of the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vchimpanzee for correcting that and reminding me. Not sure what I was thinking; I must have accidentally saved it as a draft along with another section I was simultaneously editing. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easter[edit]

FYI, if that orange tag for expansion isn't resolved by next year, Easter will not be included on the Main Page. Also, just because the titles have "Easter" or "Paques" in them doesn't guarantee that they actually exist, which is why you still need some sort of reference, just to prove someone didn't make up those titles. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 07:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and synthesis at God in Judaism?[edit]

Hi Jaredscribe! I don't have time to look at the article in more detail or edit it right now, so I figured I would leave you a quick note - I want to make sure you're aware of Wikipedia policy on primary sources and that you're being careful to avoid original research in your edits to God in Judaism. Direct citations to the Torah, for example, aren't generally a good idea; likewise, citing Maimonides to demonstrate "a clear consensus in orthodox Judaism" doesn't adhere to either of the policies I linked. I would be happy to discuss this further if it would be helpful, and I might join you in working on that article at some point when I've got more time and focus to devote to it! ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 23:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will stipulate that when WP:USEPRIMARY there shouldn't be analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Thats why I quoted directly, without interpretation. In the meantime though I've added the interpretations to those verses given by sages generally considered reliable secondary sources within the field.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the "law and the prophets" are true and righteous, is a necessary assumption for the purpose of "Jewish theological discussion", which is what the hatnote states that this article is about. This is permitted on wikipedia per WP:MNA. If editors insist on rejecting this assumption, or on making me "prove it" by reference to modern academia, then we could give up and change the title of the article to "God according to Academic Consensus" and write about that instead.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To this claim, I cited the Jewish principles of faith § Maimonides' 13 principles of faith These 13 principles are printed in most Jewish prayerbooks. Within the context of Judaism, this is considered a reliable tertiary source. I understand that Torah Judaism is not a mainstream POV, but I'm not pushing that POV in those content areas. The Jewish POV is already excluded from most articles in the content area of Hebrew Bible and Judaism, which are dominated by christian and secular scholars who've always considered Judaism a discredited fringe theory. This strikes me as Non-WP:NPOV and basically ignorant (although, regrettably, it has been "mainstream" for much of European history); a legacy of of graeco-roman and christian theological jew-hate that wants to appropriate Jewish texts while denigrating the transmitters of those texts. I think the Jewish POV should be recorded as a significant minority POV, within the content area of Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. I also don't think it helps the encyclopedic study of comparative religion to defer to an anti-jewish "academic consensus" whose unanimity is overstated (and is itself a synthetic claim), while disallowing the Jewish POV on the article "God according to Judaism".Jaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish POV is that there is one God. The God of Adam and Eve, is the God of Noah and his sons, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the God of Moses, and the prophets. Since this was implicitly denied in the article God in Judaism, it has to be affirmed as a necessary assumption for the "Jewish theological discussion" that the article purports to be about. Editors are free to deny the existence or the oneness of God or to challenge the historicity of Genesis, but they are not free to do so in the name of orthodox Judaism. I feel like I have to prove that the WP:SKYISBLUE, and am then charged with making a "synthetic claim" for doing so. It is a "synthetic claim" of Judaism that God is one, not of my own opinion or research, I shouldn't have to prove that this is what Judaism holds, but since its being denied I'll have to. If you have a better way of stating this, or can make better use of the sources than I did, please do. I hope we can work together to make the article better. :) Also, we should be having this conversation on Talk:God_in_Judaism Jaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance-Messiah in Judaism[edit]

Dear Jaredscribe,

Can you please take a look at talk page of Messiah in Judaism and offer your honest opinion in section Effects of Messiah. Thanks so much!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yaakov Wa. I'll study this article and respond soon. In the meantime, if you are knowledgeable in sources for Torah Judaism, the article God in Judaism could use some help. Also Mosaic authorship, and the Book of Exodus. WP:USEPRIMARY but no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. I think Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch would be considered "tertiary sources" per wikipedia content policy. Primary sources such as the Torah and the Nevi'im should be interpreted by reference to reliable secondary sources.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of the subject comes through thorough study of the primary sources. I don't know the secondary sources for this subject, other than Maimonides, and I don't trust any of them. Therefore I've declined to edit the article, per Wikipedia content policy WP:NOR. I've responded to Yaakov Wa. at length in Talk:Messiah in Judaism § Gentile nations in the Messianic era If my "original research" into the hermeneutics is correct, it will be confirmed elsewhere by other bible scholars.Jaredscribe (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If^[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09 April 2021 03:25:27 (UTC)

References

^ I'm not saying that you do, but if...

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09 April 2021 03:25:27 (UTC)

I added a citation by Umberto Cassuto, not my own OR. Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Hebrew, Torat HaTeudot, 1941; English translation, 1961) was one of the first mainstream works to offer a detailed critique of Wellhausen. Cassuto argued first of all that the supposed terminological, grammatical and stylistic traits indicative of separate documents actually were common in Hebrew language and literature and were shared with other biblical and post-biblical Jewish literature whose essential unity was not seriously questioned, including liturgical, midrashic, medieval and even modern Jewish religious writing.Jaredscribe (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't put all my money on the Documentary Hypothesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary hypothesis as set out by Wellhausen doesn't have many followers these days. On the other hand, the idea that Moses wrote the Torah has none.Achar Sva (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath of vision moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Sabbath of vision, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John B123. Yes, I know its not ready yet. I'm sure there are plenty of independent sources to speak to this, and I'll have time to work on it in a few months. I meant to leave it as a stub so that other editors could begin. Is there a difference between a stub and a draft? Will redlinks from other pages still point to the draft? Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe. A stub is a minimal article, but complies with the various guidelines for articles. Drafts are articles away from mainspace that have the potential to be useful articles but don't yet meet the minimum requirements, in this case referencing. Links from other articles won't point to drafts. I can have another look at it after you have worked on it if that helps. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CHOPSY[edit]

You seem to take offense at WP:CHOPSY. Learn that the person who imposed CHOPSY-supremacism unto Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales and he did that years before I began editing. I have only rendered explicit what was already the unwritten norm. I am not that powerful to sway most admins to whatever I pontificate.

Also, the Documentary hypothesis was left behind because scholars have improved upon its principles and methods, beating it at its own game. But for the fundamentalist Jews and the fundamentalist Christians the situation in the mainstream academia did not improve, if anything, the mainstream academia got more radical or theologically liberal than Wellhausen ever was. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know the history of these policies. I agree there is a need for quality standards, and I don't intend to WP:GEVAL for junk science and flat earthers. I'm not convinced that WP:CHOPSY is the right test, though. I'll take up that issue with you on the essay itself, which I'm not afraid to edit. I value logic and evidence more than I do "mainstream opinion," although I submit to that when it's verifiably true. I've found "scholarship" to be more reliable than "academia" (although most people don't know the difference) and like everyone else, I must rely on the testimony of witnesses and authorities to some degree, especially for history. Before we debate each other, which I think is inevitable, lets try to find points on which we can stipulate. I commit to acknowledging the truth, even when its spoken by my adversaries, or in a way that disadvantages me. I hope you will do so as well.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take up the other issue with you on Talk:Mosaic authorship, where it started. The limited issue in our content dispute there is "multiple authorship vs. single authorship", and in the exclusion of notable scholars holding the latter. So please don't project religious caricatures on me, its a distraction from the real question that we have to deal with. Kind regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not based upon logic and evidence, which are banned according to WP:OR, but it is based upon WP:VERECUNDIAM.

And, yes, theologically orthodox Christians who WP:SOAP for their own theology are troublemakers. So are theologically orthodox Jews, theologically orthodox Muslims, and theologically orthodox Hindus who WP:SOAP for their own theology. Wikipedia isn't made for WP:SOAPing. Here we only promote mainstream scholarship and mainstream science. Those who have a problem with that are unfit to be Wikipedia editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you also promote video games, porn, and fan fiction, the the various trivialities of pop culture. Is that less "absurd" to you? WP:SOAPing for vanity is acceptable and encouraged on wikipedia. Most of these articles are not supported by scholarship. In fact, academic journals are considered generally unreliable when it comes to Brittney Spears, Jeep Wrangler, and French cheeses.Jaredscribe (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this editor to please stop projecting religious caricatures on me and to deal with the limited question of "single authorship vs multiple authors". The continued use of ad hominem insinuations, while avoiding the actual issue of textual criticism is both poor argumentation and scholarship, and it is also a violation of WP:CIVILITY, imho. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I believe in Spinoza's God, which is the faith of a tiny minority. But since I do not WP:SOAP for it, the point that it is a non-mainstream belief is moot. People who WP:SOAP for a religion or a political ideology are unfit to be Wikipedians. Instead, presenting what the mainstream academia thinks about that religion or ideology is allowed.

The gist is: evangelism (seeking to convert people) and ideological propaganda are not allowed.

You're fighting for privileges, I'm fighting against privileges. There is no neat way of privileging Chabad without at the same time privileging Salafi.

Also, your pretense to speak for all Jews is completely bogus: it is patently false that all Jews knee-jerk reject modern Bible scholarship (of the WP:CHOPSY sort). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation by Umberto Cassuto, a mainstream bible scholar who was a departmental chair at the Hebrew University. Here is the contribution that tgeorgescu has rejected, and has now badly mischaracterized.

Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Hebrew, Torat HaTeudot, 1941; English translation, 1961) was one of the first mainstream works to offer a detailed critique of Wellhausen. Cassuto argued first of all that the supposed terminological, grammatical and stylistic traits indicative of separate documents actually were common in Hebrew language and literature and were shared with other biblical and post-biblical Jewish literature whose essential unity was not seriously questioned, including liturgical, midrashic, medieval and even modern Jewish religious writing.

I'm seeking to restore a WP:Neutral POV to the article Mosaic Authorship, by including at least one Jewish scholar's opinion. I am not SOAPing, I'm not "fighting for priveleges", I didn't cite chabad or Salafi. This editor is making straw man in order to change the subject and avoid the issue - which is "single authorship vs. multiple authorship", as I've repeatedly stated. It has nothing to do with my belief, his, or anyone else's except the scholars who are cited. It is not "evangelism", nor is it "ideological propaganda". And Umberto Cassuto was a Jewish scholar who clearly does not reject modern Bible scholarship. He advances his arguments on the basis of comparative literatures and textual criticism.

I've been accused here of claiming to speak for "all Jews", but no diffs have been given. I think this editor is now WP:AOBF. If he wants to continue this prosecution, he should provide a diff rather than mischaracterizing my contribution to support his baseless accusations. Now, certain objective observations can be made (and verified) about the truth claims of "orthodox Judaism" - such as that they hold Moses to be a prophet. It may or may not be true, but they really do claim this. Refusing admit this POV of a notable minority, among the many others is basically non-neutral, on an article dealing with Moses. However, I have never claimed to speak for "all Jews". The editor, on the other hand, does claim to speak for "all modern scholars" and for the "academic bias." And he seeks to exclude Umberto Cassuto and others who argue for a single author, from that community. Now he accuses me (falsely) of the totalitarian presumption that he is himself actually practicing. And his claim is bogus: he does not speak for all scholars. As I said before, this editor should stop projecting religious caricatures on me, its a distraction from the real question that we have to deal with.Jaredscribe (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who wrote This article should be deprecated and merged with the articles on baal, ashtoreth, biblical minimalism, the documentary hypothesis, and anti-jewish propaganda. It doesn't even bother to quote a Jewish source post Moses as a minority opinion on the Jewish God. It is not encyclopedic - it is IGNORANCE. Jews will recognize this immediately and avoid the article, but the typical gentile reader will be confused, and our readers deserve better. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE weight should be given to all notable minority opinions, and that ought to include the opinion of the religion or faith tradition under study. And this goes for any religion, Jewish, christian, athiest or otherwise, and in fact it goes for any subject of study.

It probably shouldn't be stated in WikiVoice, but a Jewish source held as reliable within their stream of transmission and tradition, can be quoted and the quote can be attributed, and this is WP:NPOV. And for us to consider their opinion on their own Bible and their own God, alongside "our" own "authoritative mainstream" opinion, does not make us "religious fundamentalists" as you seem to think. It makes us scholarly and slightly less ignorant and dogmatic than previous generations of European and Anglo-American scholars have been. Although it appears that neither of us is "christian", nevertheless we can both probably agree that "Christians believe that Jesus is divine", as you explained above. User talk:Jaredscribe § A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

I'd like you to follow that principle on articles about the Hebrew Bible and Jewish God and theology.

It is hardly controversial for us to say, for example, that "Orthodox Jews believe that 'Elijah was a prophet, but not divine'", and that 'YHVH IS Elohim, and is one', and is Eternal, and that 'Idolatry is forbidden and has been since the time of Moses or before', despite is persistence in popular religious syncretism. This is WP:MNA

Then there can be Jewish secondary and tertiary sources, with attribution if necessary, explain how this is generally interpreted today within their communities and schools of thought.

But if you disallow even an Jewish minority opinion from appearing alongside your "academic mainstream" on articles about Jewish God or the Hebrew bible, then yes, that is Anti-Jewish, and you stand accused along with my own enlightened secular undergraduate college and many others, and with most christian seminaries. (please don't take it personally, this is systemic, and it has been for quite a few centuries before us - or before the Antisemitic movement appeared on the scene to try and make this deliberate ignorance into something that was respectable on the basis of biology and racial "science".) I'm not accusing Academia or Wikipedia of being 'antisemitic' in the racist sense, when I assert the presence of an anti-Jewish systemic bias. Read David Nirenberg's book, if you wish to understand this phenomenon, and I will be happy to entertain scholarly responsa to the assertion. Or even academic responsa, provided they actually respond, instead of merely scoffing.

I agree with somewhere between 90-97% of your presentation User talk:Jaredscribe § A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

, but other than the 5P I haven't actually read your recommendations yet. I'll read it and respond. I understand the need to exclude certain fringe theories that have been decisively asked and answered. I hope we will someday find common ground. Please stop caricaturing me as "religious fundamentalist", though, that is unnecessary. In the context, it is pejorative. In point of fact, it is untrue as my user page demonstrates - Like Ecclesiastes, I prefer to start with natural philosophy. Your tendency to impute motives and to caricature opponents is a straw man fallacy, and now I tend to distrust your judgement. Maybe you're just overworked, and should do a little less.

But I will speak in defense of all religious fundamentalists everywhere - they have a right to edit articles about their own fundamentalist religions, and about their religions' fundamental beliefs and practices and texts, provided that they attribute and don't pretend neutrality by using WikiVoice, and provided they give WP:DUE weight to other points of view, including those in opposition.

This is what I have been doing, and I think it is in substantial agreement with WP:RNPOV

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to avoid extremes.
The minimalists would make out of the Bible a pious fraud and I think that's going much, much too far.
On the other hand, if we try as moderns to read the Bible literally in the way fundamentalists do, we make nonsense of it.
I would try to avoid both of those extremes.
— William G. Dever [5]

Morals: taking the Bible at face value is WP:FRINGE. And you are unable to change that. You accuse Wikipedia of being anti-Jewish, instead of recognizing that your strategy of taking the Bible at face value is unfit for Wikipedia.

Cassuto stands for a POV which existed long ago in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and did not get traction in the mainstream academia. Shaye J. D. Cohen would find that PhD candidates who follow in Cassuto's footsteps are ill-advised. Joel S. Baden, idem ditto.

The question isn't "Was Cassuto a great scholar?" but "Did he convince the scholars?". Thinking that he has "proven" that the Pentateuch had only one author is clutching at straws. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that he "proved" it, or that he did or didn't convince anyone.

I ask that Cassutto's thesis (whose books have recently been reprinted and translated) be considered with attribution, and his argument presented alongside all the other 19th and 20th century views presented at Mosaic authorship

Jaredscribe (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither taking the bible at face value or asking you and wikipedia to.

On this article article section Jesus#Religious_perspectives, wikipedia presents the christian view of Jesus, alongside the Jewish, manichaian, and Islamic views. Religious and sectarian sources are given for the assertions therein about their theologies - and its not inappropriate to have these on a topic of broad social and cultural interest.

The same thing could and should be done for the article on Yahweh, which has not a single Jewish post-exilic source, nor a single christian, or Islamic perspective given. That is absurd. Thats why I proposed the article be deprecated and redirected to Tetragrammaton, and its content merged into

Ancient Caananite religion and ancient Israelite religion, or some such, since an article on God in Judaism already exists.

There are also some major WP:SYNTHetic claims in that article, showing images from Phoenicia, that are hypothesized by some teriary source as maybe being related to a storm god or a sky god who might possibly have been related to the Israelite God. That is not sound; thats not scientific. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and if there is not clear and convincing evidence that those images were used to represent the ancient Israelite God, and they shouldn't be in the lede representing the article. It is a violation of our policy on WP:Reliable sources and its use in the lede is a form of WP:OR that vastly overstates the case.

Probably the most notable thing about the Israelite God is that he is ANICONIC - not represented and not representable - and this is not controversial. The fact that syncretism took place in popular religion doesn't disprove that, any more than the existence of a three-legged dog disproves that dogs have four legs. Other people in the talk page have pointed that out.

And if you don't accept a pre-exilic origin of the law and prophets establishing the aniconic nature of the Israelite religion, then any 20th century attempt at reconstructing Bronze and Iron age Israelite religion is at least as dubious as the Pentateuch, if far not more so.

Jaredscribe (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a clear POV-fork. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, If you want to know what CHOPSY say about Antijudaism and its role in the development of the social sciences, read David Nirenberg from Princeton (formerly U of Chicago) and hear what he and his colleagues say about the phenomenon. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karaite Judaism and Saducees[edit]

Is this anything you know about (or know someone who does)? In the article Month, it is stated that Karaite Judaism rely on first crescent sighting. In their own article, it is written that they trace their origins to the Saducees, who had this practice – but it doesn't say that the modern Karaites still follow this practice. So I'm reluctant to add anything to New moon without a better source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Karaite practice, except hearsay and intuition. From what I understand of it, there is no such thing as "following this practice" in the Karaite school: rather, each person is obliged to reason for themselves from self-evident first principles and from written Torah. However I've heard hearsay from rabbis that the nature of communal life led them to make decisions and set precedents, and from this they reinvented the rabbinic wheel, so to speak, forming their own traditions and version of oral law, contrary to their stated goals of not having one. In other words, an 'authoritative' tradition shouldn't exist, but because of human political necessity it does. And so by virtue of the fact that it exists (when it shouldn't) its not authoritative. But since this is my own "original research" (based both on common sense and on anti-Karaite rabbinic propaganda), you shouldn't trust it unless you can verify it somehow. The point is, John Maynard Friedman your reluctance is reasonable, and its doubtful that a better source even exists. When in doubt, stand still. Jaredscribe (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for adding the Dershowitz, Rheingold citation to New moon. Thats exactly the book I've been looking for, and it already has a wikipedia page Calendrical Calculations, whose title-link I added to the citation after putting the google books external link on its article. The algorithm code is Common Lisp in the public domain, and Rheingold distributes it on his website. It would be nice to include Asian and other non-solarian holidays and records of history in the "on this day" section of the mainpage, per WP:GLOBAL. Do you know if anyone has attempted to implement this algorithm on wikipedia's calendar?Jaredscribe (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Steak and Blowjob Day. DMacks (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the well sourced material I added within the /* Cultural Analysis */ section. I didn't add the Daily Dot citation, it was already there as the very first citation given on the article. I was simply the first editor to accurately reflect what the source in its own lede paragraph about the topic at issue. I ought to be thanked, rather than threatened.

The Daily Dot considers it a "lame joke gone viral"^[1]

References

^ Klee, Miles (March 1, 2020). "The short, stupid history of 'Steak and a BJ Day'". The Daily Dot. Retrieved September 11, 2020.

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jonathan Barnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Constitution Day (Spain)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Constitution Day (Spain), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Iron Front (United States)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Iron Front (United States), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translation petition[edit]

Hi Jaredscribe, could you translate an ES article to EN? It's this one. You can summarize it if you think is better. Thank you so much. --Cristina CF22 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)--Cristina CF22[reply]

Badkhin moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Badkhin, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Gpkp [u • t • c] 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it Gpkp, I meant to put there but couldn't figure out how to do so.Jaredscribe (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredscribe, plz feel free to recreate it, but with references. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 05:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is already article at Badchen, so I merged my contributions there. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Iron Front (United States)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Iron Front".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yoga as exercise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashtanga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish to English Question[edit]

Hi! are you still doing Spanish to English translations? Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello Jaredscribe! Your additions to 2021 Western North America heat wave have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chlod (say hi!) 22:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nyāya Sūtras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ronot society[edit]

Hey, Draft:Ronot society seems to be written in Franglish. (Per Wikipedia:Translators available), if you think the subject is worthy of article status, could you have a look at improving it. I couldn't find a template notice for "improve translation". Bogger (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved talk archives[edit]

Hi Jaredscribe! When doing a search through the Talk namespace, I saw that you moved your user talk archives there instead of User talk, where they belong. I've taken care of the ones that were there currently; in the future, please double check the namespace before moving. Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alexander Kaye[edit]

The article Alexander Kaye has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti semitism at wikipedia[edit]

Hey Jaredscribe,

A lot of your edits are much appreciated! However, there is a major issue at RSN with several users believing that it is perfectly fine to say "According to Haaretz Haredi Judaism is a radical and dangerous new cult". This is dangerous and if not stopped now, all of Judaism will be under attack! For example they can say "according to (fill in the blank) Judaism is the opposite of good". The discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Another_unreliable_Haaretz_article

Contacting journalists and reporters can very helpful because sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to wikicrats who like to hide behind what they claim to be policy.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't troll[edit]

This edit summary is ridiculous, and I can only take it as trolling. Lunacy is a perfectly cromulent word since many centuries in the English language. See lunacy in Wiktionary. Bishonen | tålk 17:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sabbath of vision[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sabbath of vision, 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) 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Basic Errors in Modern Thought[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Basic Errors in Modern Thought, 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) 03:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Etiquette[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User:Jaredscribe/Diatribes. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kirchhoff (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sabbath of vision[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sabbath of vision".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Badkhin[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Badkhin, 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) 09:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found the article. Redirected Badkhin to Badchen. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Badkhin (November 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Badchen instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Badkhin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Badkhin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 - Attributions[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of this policy and practice Firefangledfeathers. I was not aware of that. I will return to those pages and attribute as you suggested, and continue to do so in the future. Jaredscribe (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armistice of 11 November 1918, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sykes (filmmaker) moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Christopher Sykes (filmmaker), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

request for translation help[edit]

Hello,

I would be grateful if you could help in translation of Ancient Baptismal Movements [fr] into English. Many thanks. Mcvti (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the request. Mcvti (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

Your edit to Draft:Ricardo Nirenberg 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Ricardo Nirenberg[edit]

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Ricardo Nirenberg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/author/N/R/au41210002.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the policy also applied to content in draftspace, but I'll be sure to avoid this in my future research projects, now that you informed me of it. Thanks Diannaa. (I was working on compiling facts from various sources, and was using a subsection as a "pastebin", with a statements of fact copied from the biograph on his author page, that I was intending to rework into prose later) I recreated the page without the "research pastebin". It needs more research before publishing, so its still in draftspace. Regards Jaredscribe (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it out tomorrow.— Diannaa (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Judaism edits[edit]

Not even the David Nirenberg source, which you rely heavily upon, states that anti-Judaism is Jew-hate. A Googlescholar search of the text for the word "hate" can not even find one instance of the term "Jew-hate" as you use it. It finds the term in "Jewish hatred of Christianity" or several instances of "science of hating Judaism" but nothing like the terms you installed into the article. This gives me doubt as to whether you accurately read Nirenberg's material; especially when you conflate "anti-Judaism" with "Jew-hate" and made it the new definition in the lede. Even if Nirenberg equates anti-Judaism with hate for Jews (which I can not find Googlescholar searching his text); there are disagreeing sources and his publication does not get to become the definitive opening of the lede paragraph. It violates WP:NPOV. Nirenberg's "science of hating Judaism" should be explained further, as it's mentioned a few times, and it is an odd usage for the word 'science'. You broke a hotly contested consensus on the lede and violated WP:lede about summarizing important points of the article (in particular the discrimination between anti-Judaism and antisemitism). Alatari (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alatari for searching/reading the book, and yes I agree with your assessment. Will respond later on the article talk page after I think about this some more. According to Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism is a "way of looking at the world" independently of the presence of actual Jews, as you describe, and it is a superset of actual Jew-hate and often takes non-Jews as its targets. For example "all casinos are bad because casinos are jewish", as some anonymous IP has recently postulated on the article talk page, giving you a nice example of the phenomenon. What do you think of that? Not so much jew-hate or antisemitism as it is anti-judaism, a projective system of categorizing the bad things about the world in Jewish terms. I included "Jew-hate" in the lede not because of Nirenberg's analysis, but because its a translation of "Judenhass", which when linked elsewhere on the wikipedia, sometimes points to this article and I don't want to make yet another article on such a fine distinction. Maybe it could be a subsection that relates these concepts without conflating them, which I stipulate should be avoided. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where I will disagree is in current definition: it is also inadequate IMHO, dates from a 70's analysis that ignores early christianity, begins in the middle ages, and seems to refer to merely to criticism of Judaism. Its possible to regard Judaism as an inferior worldview, without also employing the bizarre anti-Jewish reasoning that, for example, "all casinos are Jewish, and therefore bad and must be avoided," or that, as Marx proposed, "capitalism is Jewish". Also, Nirenberg (borrowing from Saul Ascher) may mean either pseudo-science or scientism when he refers to a "science of hating Judaism" promoted with the language of critical reason, and yes should be explained further, and will do soon. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here: Talk:Religious antisemitism § Split this article into "Jew-hate in christianity", "Jew-hate in Islam", and "Anti-Judaism"

Solarian religion[edit]

I know what you mean by "solarian religion", but you are the first to use these words in this sense, as far as I can Google it. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a coinage of my own, within the English language, but I doubt that I'm the first to conceive of the phenomenon in this way. Sun worship, although now mainstream opinion due to the malign influence of Egypt and Rome, is an error that is very well known and highly refuted since ancient times. And moderate lunacy, although a minority WP:fringe opinion, is in accord with natural philosophy and health science. Did I use the term in an article, or merely in talk? Its been a while and I don't remember the details. And I'm glad that we can stipulate to a definition of terms, prior to debating over the metaphysics. And if I can be credited with WP:Original Research, when someone writes a book about this, I probably shouldn't be credited with original thought. The sources are out there, but probably suppressed or ignored here on wikipedia as they are in the universities. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jean Lavergne[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jean Lavergne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to create the article on the french wikipedia, and this was a mistake. thanks Itcouldbepossible, Please delete the article for now and we'll translate later. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter King (philosopher) moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Peter King (philosopher), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 06:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Multnomah County District Attorney[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Multnomah County District Attorney requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately and contrary to habit, I read my talk page, and thus was able to successfully contest the speedy deletion of this notable and adequate stub outline, before going through the lengthy and unnecessary process of undeletion. Hi, RoanokeVirginia, please read the talk page discussion immediately below and take what you can and learn. Also, you have not yet researched or improved this new article, that I saved from your speedy deletion attempt. Why not? If you're willing to be a new page patroller, then you ought to be willing to research and contribute. And if you not willing to research and contribute, then I think you should also not enforce policy. Thanks for considering my opinion on this, the opinion of an "editor" who is first and foremost a READER and a CONTRIBUTOR, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

I removed that story, I think you linked it in or added it originally, about a Russian officer surrendering. I don't think it can be trusted because it was sourced to the NY Post. I thought I should let you know since you undid my edit earlier, in case you disagree or have a different source. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Fram (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject i consider WP:NOTABLE, with redlinks in the ledes of other notable articles on US Gov, and if you think otherwise it can be handled through the normal process for that. I think you should have listened to the advice of the

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

template on the page, which advised you "if you can improve this article, please do". If you weren't willing to do the RESEARCH, like a good CONTRIBUTOR, then imho you should have done nothing at all, instead of presuming to administrate. That way, I or someone else could have improved the encyclopedia. Failing that, I think you should have moved it to DRAFT status, instead of speed deleting it within an hour of its creation (of course its incomplete - what do you expect?). It seems that Ritchie333 speed deleted it, and left this summary: "A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content)". To which I reply "A3: ... However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox .. Do not tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created." I hope the two of you can advise each other on who to improve your adminstration in the future. If you would DO THE RESEARCH, or at least MAKE A DRAFT, then wouldn't need to waste our time on this. Like Fram did on my other contribution, Draft:Federal_Council_on_the_Arts_and_the_Humanities, which was a marginally better and more humble response. If you give me a day or three, or at least a few hours, then I and other editors will be able to improve the article. In the edit summary, Fram asks "what is it?" To which I answer, DO THE RESEARCH. I provided external links. And I know alot of people don't like google these days, but have you ever tried [ddg.gg Duck Duck Go]? Please undelete and restore the page as a draft. Thanks Fram for not forcing me to humiliate you any further, and for not wasting any more of our time. I hope this will be a teachable moment, and that other "editors" and admins who revert and delete but don't research (and there are too many of these) will learn from your and Ritchie333's example of repentance. Next time, try WP:BRDR, WP:PARTR, WP:PRESERVE. Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, write something which has a basic resemblance to an article, instead of the... thing you produced. And don't expect to get any cooperation from people with the attitude you display here. If I encounter other similar "articles" from you while doing New Page Patrol in the future, I'll tag them again for speedy for the same reason, and it is nearly certain that other admins will again delete it for the same reason. If you can't even write a few sentences describing the subject you pretend to write an article about, then don't complain about the actions of others. You can always try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you want to, but be aware that it may backfire. Fram (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you apparently thought Draft:Agoric was an acceptable mainspace article. And Draft:Adam Wolfson is tagged for copyright violations. I don't think I am the one having to worry about humiliation here. Fram (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Revolution[edit]

You added that theory in about the revolution really beginning with Alexander I getting assassinated, but I don't think it should be in the beginning. It's an interesting idea, but it's not the usual understanding of the revolution. I think it would be better if you added a subsection mentioning that some historians say it was a long process starting with Alexander I. If there are enough historians who say that, of course. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for telling me why you removed it, YellowDiamond feel free to move this discussion, and next time to start it on the article talk page, so other editors can get involved. At least the lede should have mention of the 1905 Russian Revolution, where Lenin, Trotsky got their start and the various factions emerged who later fought the 1918-22 civil war. Meanwhile there are much more serious problems that I mentioned in talk, and this "cutting" of history supports the Lenist-Bolshevik POV for which I tagged the article as being non-neutral. Talk:Russian Revolution § Major Ommissions and Leninist-Bolshevik POV. I'm pleasantly surprised that editor FictiousLibrarian took half my suggestions and added the relevant material so quickly. I've added the other half, and if it stays that way, I'll consider the article baseline neutral and worth investing in, and then we can work on the historical context. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just restoring it to its default. You can start a discussion about it if you'd like. But I agree the lede should mention the historical context. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleinias of Crete moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Cleinias of Crete, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eleatic Stranger moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Eleatic Stranger, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Magnesia (hypothetical city) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magnesia (hypothetical city) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnesia (hypothetical city) 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.

Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Here: Draft:Magnesia (Plato). Jaredscribe (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the articles you've been making[edit]

You have made a lot of articles that are not finished, and published them in the main space. This causes problems because people could find them and read them even though they contain blank sections or unsourced information. You should use draft space instead until they're ready. Here's the page with information on making drafts: Wikipedia:Drafts.

I also nominated your Magnesia article for deletion (a notification should appear on here); I just don't think it is well-known by itself? If you have information on it I think you should just make a section in Laws (dialogue) instead of a separate article. But if you do, don't leave any sections empty or unsourced in the mainspace please.

Thanks, --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree they don't belong yet, and expect them to be moved to "draft" soon. I put them in mainspace because I can't figure out how to click on a red link and make a draft? The interface only gives me the option to make it in mainspace. Sometimes I move it manually, myself to draft space, sometimes not. But I appreciate when the new page patrollers come around very quickly, they will categorize and move it to draft space for me, and sometimes will attract an interested contributor. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made many articles, and not in a long time, so my knowledge might be incomplete. But on my interface, there's a link above the input area when creating a new article which if you click it creates the article as "special:mypage/(article name)". That should have the same results as a draft. The Wikipedia:Drafts also has a search bar where you can type in an article name and then it becomes a draft. I haven't tested it myself but I assume it works well.

If you have any questions about it feel free to send me a message. Thanks, Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should mention, if you use the special:mypage link it makes a userspace draft attached to your username. The Wikipedia:drafts search bar should make a draft namespace page. It's probably better to use the second option if you want to get it noticed by other people, so that it's not explicitly tied to you. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laws (dialogue), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ganymede.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About making WP:BOLD changes[edit]

It's fine in theory, but you need to add sources when you make big changes to articles. Like on Antisemitism in Christianity, if you want it to say that it's specifically based on supercession and is part of the council of Nicaea, you've got to back it up with sources. And it can't just be the opinion of a few scholars, it has to be consensus among the academic community, if it is going to go in the lede and define the entire article. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ernest A. Rappaport[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ernest A. Rappaport requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now here: Draft:Ernest A. Rappaport

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Natural philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scholastic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm WikiLinuz. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hindu philosophy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblower Aid[edit]

Thank you for your work on Whistleblower Aid. I just put the article into main space. Best, Thriley (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating it and promoting it! I'd forgotten all about this, thanks for reminding me. I'll return to this important subject matter someday. In the meantime, I wish you all the best and I recommend that you adopt and adapt these User:Jaredscribe/Encyclopedic Ethics so that you might prevail in your content disputes, and help to actually improve and expand the WP:Encyclopedia in the face of so much obscurantism and ignorance here. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rod Underhill (district attorney)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rod Underhill (district attorney) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Emir Shane (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rod Underhill (district attorney)[edit]

The article Rod Underhill (district attorney) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've declined an WP:A7 on this—Multnomah County is better known as Portland, and being the district attorney during the anti-police protests is clearly a CCS. However, in its current form this isn't at all appropriate as a BLP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 05:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did it only in anticipation of the piquant irony of this disambiguation notice. I deserve a barnstar for this. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"homonymous" is the greek equivalent of the latin "equivocal". Jaredscribe (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with homonyms within an argument, is that they are equivocal but NOT equivalent. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This frequently causes an informal fallacy known as Equivocation Jaredscribe (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say, semantic ambiguity leading to false equivalence. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I added a more complete definition to the disambiguation page for equivocal. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Arabic and islamic philosophy" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Arabic and islamic philosophy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Arabic and islamic philosophy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Jaredscribe! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to backdate a signature?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Octavius Freire Owen for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Octavius Freire Owen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octavius Freire Owen 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.

Tacyarg (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian observance of Passover, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pascha and Council of Nicaea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irony[edit]

I find it funny that you cite a page which says Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy (and is itself an essay) and then go on to cite not one but two different essays as if they were policy to justify a revert of my edit (which was based on WP:NOT and WP:NOR...). Other than that, and to get to the meat of the issue, there's rarely a good reason to cite a primary source unless it explicitly adds something that a secondary source does not have - given that we have actual full articles on stuff like the First Epistle of Peter or the First Epistle to the Corinthians (and those are linked directly from the Easter article), and that most of the secondary sources do quote or at least mention directly the passages they are referring to, there's little point in adding explicit Bible links. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I can't help but notice this is not the first time (see here) you've been warned about this, and yet the issue seems to be exactly the same (and on exactly the same kind of topic as well). Accusations that I (or anybody else) would be trying to "waste everybody's time" or that I am engaging in "a dishonest form of WP:Wikilawyering", are clearly against both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. As for the last part, defer to editors from wikiproject christianity, who are known to have subject matter competence consistent with wikipedia content policies,, beyond being yet another insinuation that I don't have a clue, is also fragrantly in breach of the fact that A) Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, which anybody can edit and of B) that nobody owns or has authority over an article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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.

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.

Doug Weller talk 08:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Doug Weller talk 08:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests[edit]

Thanks for interest and recent contributions to the George Floyd protest article. If you would like to make a major change to it, such as reframing it as the "George Floyd - Breonna Taylor protests", please seek consensus on the article's talk page as many editors have contributed to the page and likely have varying opinions. Thanks again for your interest in the article! Minnemeeples (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Badkhin[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Badkhin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of the Allia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sack of Rome.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation at De-Leninization[edit]

Your edit to De-Leninization 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. DanCherek (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Figura (essay)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Figura (essay), 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) 03:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Mensae Living Mind (sculpture) moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Vita Mensae Living Mind (sculpture), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks moving it to draftspace, instead of merely nominating for deletion, like so many of the other new page patrollers do. Please teach them.

Also, I often create stub articles by clicking on redlinks, and these are put in mainspace by default. Perhaps they should be put in draftspace by default, since that is what I and probably many other contributors intend to do, but neglect to do because its difficult. This is a feature request that will reduce workload for y'all and make less frustration for us. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe

Thank you for creating Ellen E. McCarthy.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promised Land (disambiguation)[edit]

Please note that disambiguation pages like Promised Land (disambiguation) are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

If you are interested in adding information about the promised land, please edit that article instead. Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank for informing me. You could have reworked the links into an acceptable format, instead of merely removing them.

I remade the new section that you removed:

Promised_Land_(disambiguation)#Lands_and_Territorial_Jurisdictions

If these aren't included, then the page isn't doing its job of disambiguation. They should also be prominent on the Promised Land page, and they aren't. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference that the Oxford Group is derived from the Higher Life movement[edit]

While it is possible that the Oxford Group (which Alcoholics Anonymous comes from) is in turn derived from the Higher Life movement, please provide a reference backing up this assertion. I have reverted the edit making this claim, since it was made without a reference from a reliable source. Thank you. SkylabField (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 - Giuliani's crossing dressing comedy theater[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Rudy Giuliani. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"S/he"? Please stop being disruptive. His crossdressing on SNL is not significant enough to add to his article, especially referring to it as "transvestitism". Do it again and I'll block you from editing Giuliani's page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which pronouns should I use to refer to Mr. Giuliani in drag? is there a wikipedia gender styleguide?

I will use cross-dressing, as you suggest, which by the way is a literal translation of the latin transvestism.

But if you are proposing that discussion of these topics be WP:CENSORED from wikipedia, then you should take it to the village pump. Will you block me for making use of terms that are acceptable enough for us to have articles on them?

The significance of this episode, or its lack thereof, may be discussed on the article talk page. You should not block people for WP:DISCUSSion, since our wikipedia guideline for content disputes such as this is discussion on the article talk page. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this language acceptable?

Donald Trump appeared in comedy sketch with Rudy Giuliani. Cross dressing and groping occurred.

"Video of Rudy Giuliani Dressed in Drag and Being Seduced by Donald Trump Resurfaces". www.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2022-06-14.

"Bizarre video of Rudy Giuliani in drag and Trump kissing his fake breasts resurfaces". The Independent. 2018-05-10. Retrieved 2022-06-14.

Jaredscribe (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing certain pages (Rudy Giuliani) for WP:BLP violations and edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to WP:RGW, as you indicated in your edit summary. If Giuliani goes to prison, it will be for trying to subvert an election, not crossdressing on SNL. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you took your BLP policy violating foolishness to Donald Trump, you are indefinitely blocked from editing that article as well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, they just posted the content on Rudy's talk page. Do you think that we should elevate the block? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, that is a disappointing development, but I need to take care of some important family business off Wikipedia for an hour or two. I will support whatever escalated sanctions that you feel are are appropriate, up to and including an indefinite block. This conduct is "way" out of line, even though I am not a member of the Rudy and Donald fan club. Far from it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, understood. Best of luck IRL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to subject the relationship between Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani to public scrutiny, since it is NEWSWORTHY and of significant public interest due to current events, and therefore ENCYCLOPEDIC. We are here to report what reliable sources have to say about twenty plus years of their relationship, at least I am. I said nothing about prison, you fabricated that apparently in order to caricature my remarks about them apparently conspiring to overturn the 2020 US Presidential Election. a judge or jury will decide whether he's found guilty or not guilty, and in any case it has nothing to do with the point at hand. i brought that up in order to establish that the subject of their relationship is itself highly notable, has been noted in recent years by the media.

in response to your edit summary 'you can't be serious', i reply 'yes, i am serious about proposing this for inclusion, and this is one of many reasons why its notable'.

Where great wrongs have been done, they will be righted by persons other than us, and this is now starting to occur independently of what we do or say about it. I intend to simply report on the historical account, and i do that on every article that reports on real-life controversies, without partisan or national prejudice. Please WP:AGF and judge my demonstrated words and editorial actions, and not what you imagine about my private obsessions. Jaredscribe (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my decision to obvert my contributions that you, Muboshgu, had reverted, was not an edit war.

I remained within the 3 revert rule, while conducting a content dispute in good-faith. I followed the WP:Bold-refine process, improving incrementally with each obvert. You on the other hand did not attempt to improve or refine my contribution.Responsive to your edit summaries, I added reliable sources. I removed the phrasing of the latin transvestite and replaced it's english equivalent cross-dressing, which Giuliani indisputably did in fact do in sketch comedy. I moved from a 2nd level heading under "personal life" into a 3rd level subsection under "relationship with Donald Trump". What more do you want? After my third 'obvert', i took it to talk, but you refused to talk, and simply make a revdel. You and @Cullen328, between the two of you made 4 reverts, and then refused to discuss or allow a discussion to happen on the article talk page about whether or not to include, and if so, where and how to phrase. that you hold the opinion that its trivial, doesn't justify refusal to talk about. moreover, you have been unable or unwilling to bring clear charges against be by stating what exactly the violation is of our policy on biographies of living persons. are you accusing me of libel, or of privacy violation, or merely of making bad comedy in violation of some policy somewhere on seriousness. Who here is edit warring? Jaredscribe (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Talk:Rudy Giuliani. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please explain to me how I violated the policy on WP:BLP? I recorded facts in a straightforward manner, that were reported by the "Mainstream Media", generally considered reliable in wikipeda. In this case Yahoo News, and the Independent, commenting on an SNL sketch in which Giuliani cross-dressed and was groped by Donald Trump. I didn't make this stuff up, its not slander, its not libel, its widely published. You are free to dispute over inclusion and to seek consensus for your opinion that it should be excluded, but my conduct of a good faith content dispute is not disruptive, simply because you or another editors disagrees on whether to include it. That's why I took it to the talk page, to ask what other editors have to say about it, besides just you and I - is that not the Wikpedia policy for content dispute? I see that y'all have removed the proposition from the talk page, so no discussion will be had. Moreover, have used your adminstrative powers to remove from the database my cogent four point argument for inclusion. No one will be able to read what I wrote, or audit your actions in removing it. In addition to blocking me for a week, and threatening me with indefinite block. Do you WP:OWN wikipedia?

What exactly is the violation of BLP? Also, I thought that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, is that not the case? For example, we have an article on Cross-dressing. If republicans and new yorkers find this to be distasteful, then they can stop reading wikipedia, or else than may direct their complaints toward SNL, Rudy, and Donald. Its not my fault for having offended by bringing this up. What here is"way out of line"? Please declare the policy that I've violated, or else reinstate my editing priveleges. I will leave these two pages alone until other editors can weigh in on the talk pages, and I will abide by consensus opinion, as should we all. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add that anyone is free to edit or modify my phrasing to make it more appropriate for the encyclopedia. If I've offended anyone, I'm very sorry. I honestly don't know which pronouns to use when referring to Giuliani in drag. Please advise. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you didn't see my response before I WP:REVDEL'd it. So it's below:

Some things seem so common sense as to not need a deep explanation, but anyway I did give several and can give more. This is a WP:BLP and you are violating it with "s/he" and what follows in that sentence. You are wording what they did in a skit as though it was real. You seem to have a WP:RGW obsession too with your point on aspersions it might cast. There is no political significance; Rudy crossdressing has nothing to do with the 2020 election. Wikipedia is not censored, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially something as WP:TRIVIAL as this. An entire section dedicated to it, with such poor language (continues to generate commentary is quite meaningless) is WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you've been given ample warning by me and by Cullen328, and yet you persisted. You are free to request an unblock review and a fresh admin will review it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredscribe, I think that you got off quite easy in this situation, in that Muboshgu was willing to give you an easy second chance. I was prepared to possibly block you indefinitely for your obvious, clear-cut policy violations. Perhaps you should consider refraining from editing biographies of living people if you are tempted to engage in tendentious axe-grinding on biographies of living people that you dislike. Do not ever engage in this type of misconduct again. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. There seem to be four separate accusations against me and my contribution and subsequent discussion of it on the talk page

1. A content dispute about whether the material is trivial or undue, as you assert, or whether it is encyclopedic as assert. Perhaps this should no longer argued between you and me, but left to the input of other disinterested editors, in a good faith content dispute on talk pages of the associated articles, after we agree on acceptable terms of discussion.

2. The allegation of editorial misconduct against me for using the wrong pronouns for the female character played by Mr. Giuliani in his sketch comedy with Mr. Trump. Again, I'm very sorry if I offended anyone. I await your advice and guidance on which pronouns to use in the future, either on these articles and their talk pages, or more likely on articles for List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–30), which is perhaps where it belongs. but lets leave that question for later. the issue here is how do we discuss the matter without giving unnecessary offense.

3. It seems you dropped the charges against me on the point of the word used to describe the behavior, since I had removed the offensive word and replaced it with "Theatrical cross-dressing" before you reverted my refined contribution for the third time. If so please confirm. Prior to your educating me, I was not aware that this was the preferred term. In the future and for the purposes of discussion, I will use "Theatrical cross-dressing", instead of the other word. Please accept my humble apology, and continue to correct phrasing when necessary. Is there a wikipedia styleguide that describes our guidelines on this, and other sensitive language?

4. The accusation that my description of the event as "Theatrical cross-dressing" and "sketch comedy" somehow mis-represented it as having occurred in the real world outside.

5. You've stated that there seems to be a bad faith obsession on my part to right great comic wrongs, above and beyond my mere attempt to report the verifiable facts by reference to reliable sources.

6. The insinuation that, apart from the way I phrased the contribution, that I've somehow libeled, slandered, otherwise "cast aspersions" on Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Trump in a way that violates the policy on WP:BLP, by merely bringing the subject up for discussion among encyclopedia editors on the article talk page.

Please confirm or deny that I've understood you correctly, and clarify where necessary, so that we can resolve this with a minimum of mis-applied effort, and get back to making an encyclopedia, which is my goal. I hope its yours as well.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jaredscribe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. Blocking admins have failed to state which BLP policy is being violated. They Have failed to instruct on which pronouns I should use to refer to Rudy Giuliani in drag, despite repeated requests for clarification. Did Donald Trump grope 'his' breasts, or hers? Or shall we rather report that Donald groped his 'transfeminine chest area'? I really don't know or care. On this, I will defer to expert opinion or consensus, and that's why I left it ambiguous - it is an open question. Also, 'foolishness' is not against wikipedia content policy: much pop culture is foolish but nevertheless included in this encyclopedia, and the foolishness being reported here, in any case, is not mine.

2. No edit warring has occurred on my part: I stayed within 3RR, used WP:Bold-refine process on my WP:Obverts, making suggested improvements and adding reference to reliable sources. after the third revert, I took it to WP:DISCUSSION as per our policy on content dispute. Why is he blocking me for following policy?! These admins made no improvements to my contributions, and if anyone is edit warring, it is them.

3. The two admins are using elevated blocking powers in order to conduct an editorial content dispute that ought to be had on the article talk page between editors, about this contribution's significance, or lack thereof. The use of blocking rather than discussion may be an abuse of process. The article talk page, and not on a user talk page or in an administrative forum, is the correct place for editors to ask and answer the question of phrasing, notability, significance, due and undue weight. We should WP:Assume Good Faith and trust editors to conduct the discussion in a WP:CIVIL manner, despite its inherent foolishness. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm having trouble deciding if this dispute and request is a joke or if you are serious- either way, the block is valid. Either you are joking and being disruptive, or you are serious and violating WP:BLP requirements for sourcing(which you have indeed been told). 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts, you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts(this is stated in the policy) and given your comments you clearly were. As stated at Cross-dressing, it is not synonymous with being transgender. John Travolta certainly is not transgender for appearing as a woman in Hairspray (2007 film). I don't see any reason to remove the block early at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The contribution was serious, and on my first WP:Obvert, I added two reliable sources. "Video of Rudy Giuliani Dressed in Drag and Being Seduced by Donald Trump Resurfaces". www.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2022-06-14. "Bizarre video of Rudy Giuliani in drag and Trump kissing his fake breasts resurfaces". The Independent. 2018-05-10. Retrieved 2022-06-14. After being warned not to use the word transvestite ('vestiture' is latin for 'clothing' or 'dress'), I modified the text to use the word cross-dressing instead, as suggested. This is consistent with WP:Bold-refine, which is the ideal collaborative edit cycle; it is not edit warring. The word 'transgender' was never used or suggested by me, and I would describe John Travolta's appearance in Hairspray as 'transvestiture' or 'cross-dressing'; I agree with 331dot on that, but this adminstrator has not closely examined the facts of this case, or else is deliberately caricaturing my serious contribution. In any case, 331dot has fundamentally mis-judged. As you see at Talk:Rudy_Giuliani&action=history, I made a talk page section /* Theatrical Cross-dressing */, and the final reason for my block was for the talk page discussion. Sources had already been given. The term 'cross-dressing' had already been put into use. Muboshgu blocked me not for BLP violations, but simply because he has seen fit to WP:CENSOR wikipedia in this case. 331dot says that comments of mine 'were clearly edit warring', but which ones?

This - [6]?  The comment I made was:

Ok, I moved the section under →‎Relationship with Donald Trump: and renamed it "Theatrical Cross-Dressing". Ok, or should we modify and put it somewhere else? Pronouns? But surely you cannot be serious about suppressing the story. These two conspired to overturn the 2020 US Presidential Election; their relationship must be open to public scrutiny WP:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

These are valid, good faith questions that the blocking admin never answered. I stand by the assertions: their relationship must be open to public scrutiny, and WP:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. These admins disagree. They apparently believe that they WP:OWN wikpedia, and that they can get away with abusing their powers to violate wikipedia's own blocking and content policy, squash dissent, prevent WP:Discussion, abdicate the encyclopedic mission, and disrupt constructive editors like myself who are trying to fulfill it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 11:13, June 21, 2022 (UTC)

I think I've been clear and you don't want to hear it. There are ways one can discuss adding Giuliani's crossdressing to an "in popular culture" section, and then there's what you've done / are doing. Your accusations of OWN are unfortunate. I've nothing left to say on this matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List — Sandbox for while I'm blocked[edit]

Weather of 2022#June Record flooding in Yellowstone National Park washes away roads and house. 10,000 evacuated, unprecedented in 150 years. Park Superintendent Cam Sholly calls it 'once in a thousand year' event

Bill Gates says NFTs and Cryptocurrency are based on Greater fool theory. NFTs greater fool

New Yorker describes Exodus Cry working with sex-trafficking victims to hold Pornhub accountable for accepting uploads of illegal and underage porn and making it almost impossible to remove. Govt enforcers and prosecutors criticized for incompetence or lack of interest. [7]

Resigned Atty General Bill Barr says that Trump showed little to "no interest in the actual facts"

Biden announces upcoming visit in July, sends mideast advisor Brett McGurk to meet Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, who denies involvement in murdering Jamal Khashoggi and says "it never should have happened". 13 human rights groups send letter of protest. MBS demands US make no unilateral moves on Iran, and instead consult regional partners. Biden, at briefing earlier this month when asked about a possible trip to Saudi Arabia: “I’m not going to change my view on human rights, But as president of the United States, my job is to bring peace if I can. And that’s what I’m going to try to do.” Biden agrees to thaw relationship, more or less on MBS's terms

Record number of black republicans running for office in 2022 United States elections. National GOP counts 81 African American candidates running in 72 congressional districts, more than a 50 percent increase over the 2020 election cycle.

Platinum_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II Critics have noted that the British monarchy has derived much of its power from empire, just as imperial nationalism has drawn legitimacy from monarchy.^[1]

By Friday Nov 5th, it was clear from the data guru that the numbers were not there for the 2020 Trump campaign to succeed. Top campaign aides and Jason Miller (communications strategist) and William Stepien, who self-described as "team normal", were sent by Jared Kushner to inform the president that ongoing challenges had extremely low chances of success.^[2]

Concern regarding Draft:Christopher Sykes (filmmaker)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Christopher Sykes (filmmaker), 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) 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe

Thank you for creating Accord Network.

User:Slywriter, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Not finding reliable sources. Org can't inherit notability from its founders and members.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Slywriter}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slywriter (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Accord Network[edit]

The article Accord Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not inherited, unable to find coverage that meets GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Slywriter (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Accord Network for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Accord Network is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accord Network 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.

Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Christopher Sykes (filmmaker)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Christopher Sykes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fountain[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe,

Just a reminder, when you move an article from main space to Draft space, please tag the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2. It helps admins keep track of these cross-namespace redirects and delete them. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter K.J. Park moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Peter K.J. Park, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rachael Wiseman[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rachael Wiseman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. A loose necktie (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Rachael_Wiseman, and please voluntarily withdraw the proposed speedy deletion. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rachael Wiseman[edit]

Please work on this article in draft and submit for review. It does not currently meet the criteria for inclusion. Deb (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should get submitted to the message board of the WP:WikiProject Philosophy, will do, Jaredscribe (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ras (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Draft:Letter from Mathilde Lefebvre[edit]

Hello Jaredscribe,

I am Jeanne Angerie and I would like to translate a French article in English. The article is (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettre_de_Mathilde_Lefebvre). I have already tried to make a translation here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Letter_from_Mathilde_Lefebvre) but it was rejected.

Could you help me to improve the article, please ?

Thanks, Jeanne Angerie Jeanne Angerie (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i don't know anything about this, and am somewhat busy. Someday/maybe, but other translators may be of more help. All the best, Jaredscribe (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accord Network moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Accord Network, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accord Network. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Twomey moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Christopher Twomey, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~Styyx^Talk? 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Hello Jaredscribe! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HurricaneEdgar 10:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources HurricaneEdgar 10:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Talk:2022_Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan#Restore_statement_by_US_Secretary_of_State_Antony_Blinken. thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2022_Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan Jaredscribe (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. HurricaneEdgar 02:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A query[edit]

RE: [8]. How is a nomination of this remotely disruptive? Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding a dozen+ unedited drafts[edit]

Draft:Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, 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) 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing my user talk page, I'm condensing all the bot-delivered messages into a smaller list.

Draft:Sylva sylvarum Bacon's forest of trees. 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Agoric a novel coinage for the dictionary. Obviously, this is WP:OR and doesn't deserve an article; I just needed to go on public record. 07:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Adam Wolfson a forgotten federal official, even I have at this forgotten who or what he is, many months after starting his article 18:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Cleinias of Crete Are all cretans liars? 04:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Kallipolis (Plato) The utopia of Plato's republic, modeled in part on Sparta. 17:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Orestes complex 17:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Magnesia (Plato) The Utopia of Plato's Laws, in which he partially renounces the Republican (fascist Spartan) ideal. 01:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Athenian stranger Socrates interlocutor in "the Laws", 02:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:W.T. Jones (philosopher) wrote a history of the subject that is probably as bad as all the others. His writing partner admits that modern philsophy has accomplished nothing more than pyhrronic skepticism.

Draft:Ricardo Nirenberg philosopher of mathematics who wisely rejects the cult of number. Read his book "Uncountable" and please report. To retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. * 01:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities you can request its undeletion. 20:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
draft article, Draft:Sylva sylvarum to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 20:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Adam Wolfson you can request its undeletion. 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Ernest A. Rappaport psychoanalyst of the Chicago school, 07:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Cleinias of Crete you can request its undeletion. 03:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Kallipolis (Plato) you can request its undeletion. 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Orestes complex, you can request its undeletion. 16:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:40 years of wandering, 02:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Magnesia (Plato), 00:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Ernest A. Rappaport, you can request its undeletion. 01:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eventual programming[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eventual programming requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eventual programming moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Eventual programming, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and Concern notices summarized[edit]

your draft article, Draft:Athenian stranger to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 01:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:W.T. Jones (philosopher) to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion.
Barnes Carr moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Barnes Carr, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. The one book about Lenin definitely appears to be notable. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with French revolution period biography[edit]

Please, can you help me to create a page for Count Gabriel-Michel de Vassan (1747-1834), the royal officer against the General Estates on June 23, 1789? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.198.238 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First discover if there is a french article fr:Count Gabriel-Michel de Vassan (1747-1834) Someday/Maybe, Jaredscribe (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and Concern notices summarized[edit]

Concern regarding Draft:Eleatic Stranger, 22:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Vita Mensae Living Mind (sculpture), 20:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Basic Errors in Modern Thought to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 18:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Eleatic Stranger to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 21:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, would you please undelete the article and move it to my userspace, where it can be incubated?

User:Jaredscribe/Drafts/Eleatic Stranger

I've made dozens of these such drafts; they are not abandoned, as it may seem, they are non-urgent projects that I hope to work in on in two or three years, after I fill the gaps in higher importance articles. As you can see from my user talk, adminstrators have now deleted dozens of my stub drafts, per policy. The stubs are not ready to be put back in draftspace, but if you could please undelete and move them to my userspace, I would appreciate it. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz ping, see above Jaredscribe (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Lamia Yared, Lebanese oud musician and singer 05:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Geramany (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As contested on the article talk page itself, this case had a notable and frequently cited dissent by Justice Thomas, and is part of a highly newsworthy debate over section 230 that is now (as a consequence) being litigated in Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh and Google v. Gonzalez. The speedy deletion has been retracted by @Mooonswimmer, to whom thanks be. Since I created a stub only hours ago, it could use much improvement. Feel free to do the research yourself. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for creating Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 1961 SCOTUS decision, the full text is on wikisource and I linked to it. The case itself is cited by numerous others that have their own articles. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liber Vagatorum[edit]

Thanks for your thanks. 😊 I'd welcome any constructive criticism too! --BorgQueen (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BorgQueen, I recently added a wikilink under see also to the article section Martin_Luther#Anti-Jewish_polemics_and_antisemitism, where a link to our new article is found. If the topic of these intersecting hatreds (jew and vagabond) is of interest to you, I suggest David Nirenberg's book on Antijudaism on the former at least. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic facts about Portland[edit]

Hey, you need to do more research about basic facts before added content especially if it's not cited. You recently added sections about education and libraries to Government of Portland, Oregon, but a bunch of what you added has nothing to do with city government. Portland Public Library (Oregon) is defunct and libraries in the city, including Central Library (Portland, Oregon), are funded and run by Multnomah County. Additionally, you added Portland State University and Portland Community College to an education section, but neither of those are managed by the city government and a lot of their funding comes from the state, not the city. Steven Walling • talk 20:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved on to other content area. Yes, you're right that these belong to state not city, but since they are in the city, a brief section for intersection jurisdictions may be appropriate to the article. For example, #County, State, and Federal buildings in Portland with links to the full sections found in other articles Jaredscribe (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries of Draftify/Delete/Concern[edit]

An article you recently created, Groff v. DeJoy, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft article, Draft:Figura (essay) to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lamia Yared[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lamia Yared".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Guadeloupean and Haitian deportees in Corsica[edit]

Hello Jaredscribe,

I need help for restauration (the bibliography is ok, well confirmed by my practice of historical sudies) Thank's in advance. Mike Coppolano (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Coppolano and thank you for improving our WP:Encyclopedia! I knew nothing about this topic until reading the article, so thank you for informing me about it! I can see that the French article is quite robust with alot of sources, and the topic of Napoleonic era relations with post-colonial French d'outre-mer, surely deserves study. If you need immediate help, I hope you might find others to help, as quite busy right now, but I will try to return to it in July, which is the time of of year I tend to contemplate the subject.

The article on Atlantic revolutions may also be of general interest to you on this topic.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few links in the #See also section, which may be of interest in your research.

I started to fix the lede sentence, and will try to fix some of your grammar another time.

As you learn English in the meantime, I suggest the method of reading English translations of French texts with which you're already familiar - maybe a famous poem, song, or story. I master languages in this way, with the books of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs since they are widely translated (many available on WikiSource), and the teaching of wisdom is universal, and is profitable to all, before and apart from the uses of scripture in Judaism, Christianity and their derivatives. Good luck with your learning. @Mike Coppolano Jaredscribe (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries of Draftify/Delete/Concern[edit]

Concern regarding Draft:Transformational Development, 05:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Daniel Fountain, 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Peter K.J. Park, 06:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

You are edit-warring at Late December 2022 North American winter storm, kindly stop. nableezy - 02:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Tarde—Durkheim debate and other deletion, draftify, concern notices[edit]

Concern regarding Draft:Accord Network 17:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Tarde—Durkheim debate 17:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Christopher Twomey, 01:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Transformational Development, to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 04:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Daniel Fountain, 19:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Peter K.J. Park, to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 06:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Accord Network, to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Tarde—Durkheim debate, to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. 16:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Christopher Twomey, to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 00:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Aubrey Clayton moved to draftspace, 14:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Operation Finale (capture of Eichmann), 01:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Never Give An Inch (Pompeo)[edit]

Hello Jaredscribe,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Never Give An Inch (Pompeo) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Never Give An Inch (Pompeo) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I moved it to draft and forgot to delete the redirect, lets find out Draft:Never Give An Inch (Pompeo) bingo! I will probably forget about this and it will be deleted in 6 months, like the dozens of others.

Jaredscribe (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian nuclear archive heist of 2018 moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Iranian nuclear archive heist of 2018, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Eventual programming[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eventual programming, 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) 04:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Thanks! Pbritti (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison has been accepted[edit]

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Pbritti (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jaredscribe/Tesla master plan[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jaredscribe/Tesla master plan for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MPGuy2824 for deleting that, it was a mistake on moving the draft from my userspace to main. The article is now accepted at Tesla master plan, should you care to contribute. Jaredscribe (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You cannot inflate such articles with this kind of information (namedropping and factoids) and primary sourcing. I can't help but wonder if you have a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true. I like women. I also like peace and security.

I am not averse to the possibility of democracy in Iran. It turns out the "namedropping and factoids" you derisvely mention were a highly notable meeting of leaders in Iran's opposition, who now have their own manifesto and wikipedia page: The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement

There were plenty of secondary sources at time you angrily deleted this "factoid", @Drmies I just didn't have time to add them before you angrily deleted it. (And is not an WP:encyclopedia full of small facts? Are not factoids superior to the WP:Fancruft with which our encyclopedia is unfortunately replete? Are not the names and linked articles of major cultural and political leaders relevant? Is politics not allowed to be discussed on wikipedia? Or is it merely when women and Asian Americans are involved, that your subjective opinions start to bias your judgement?

Please restore. And declare you own CoI, if you have one, since you have been so impudent to WP:Cast aspersions on me.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iranian Democracy Movement for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iranian Democracy Movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Democracy Movement 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.

Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vanamonde93 as you mentioned, the decision to delete does not preclude an article in the future, and that scholarly overviews are likely to emerge in a couple years.

I also submit that some may already exist, and as the article expanded from 3-4 citations to over 60 due to my efforts merely in the course of the AfD process, I'm likely to double that in the next few months, especially as I began to hear back from some Farsi-speaking Wikipedians about how this term is used and subject matter is covered on that wiki. And as one of them said, plenty of sources exist to support this.

Since the only WP:Synthetic claim was the title itself (the rest of the article was supported), we could also have renamed the article, as I proposed, or back to its orginal title Iranian dissidents before that one was merged in. I expect outcome of a second AfD would be different.

Nevertheless, I will accept the decision for now and I think you gave a mostly fair decision for this stage in the process.

Now, how do I do what we agreed, to copy the now-deleted article's content into the linked articles, including the one to which its now redirected?

I must find an old version of the article, but its history is no longer available. Will you resurrect it and put it into Draftspace so others can collaborate? Or if not, into my Userspace? Ideally we could have the article with its whole history, and not just the cut-n-paste.

Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe, I can give you a userspace copy, if you can undertake not to recreate it without substantive new sourcing specifically addressing the topic, that is, sources discussing the Iranian movement for democracy in the present day. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vanamonde93 a Userspace copy will be ok, I think. Will other invited editors be able to contribute to it, once I inform them of its new location?

I promise not to recreate it without substantive new sourcing on the present day movement, and input on possibly renaming the article. Let's continue this and any further discussion on the topic in a more public forum:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Iran#RfC_on_recently_deleted_Article_-_Iranian_democracy_movement._Farsi_editors_needed.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, here you go: User:Jaredscribe/Iranian Democracy Movement (2) (as you already have one draftspace copy). Other editors may certainly work on it, but should be similarly careful about moving to mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job.[edit]

I like your edits to the page on the Nicomachean Ethics! They are constructive.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @SpicyMemes123.

I assume you're referring to my salvaging from deletion the paragraph on the connection between moral virtue and dance renaissance/classical ballet, and putting here instead:

Nicomachean Ethics § Influence and Derivative Works

In general, I believe that "editors" should use WP:Bold-refine and find creative ways of improving and WP:Preserveing content rather than deleting, especially when there is a connection to another notable subject, and when there is a WP:Reliable citatation given.

I'm glad I looked through the history, because that was fascinating and, IMHO, WP:Encyclopedia-like "digression", and relevant to the topic at hand. As I mentioned in the edit summary, I hope this is a teachable moment and that other editors will start doing likewise, both here and in other articles. There is alot that remains to be done before it is complete, and we shouldn't be driving away new editors, through a combination of ignorance, laziness, and senior editor/bureaucratic privelege.

Instead of impulsively deleting stuff that seems irrelevant in their limited world-views, senior editors should do the research and try to learn something new.

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, non-neutral pattern of editing[edit]

PREQUEL: This WP:Content dispute began 10 March after I made one correction edit to remove unsupported claim+constructive addition to infobox caption [9], one correction-edit removing a word and wikilink from the lede sentence which had made an unsupported claim [10], and one {{POV section}} tagging, [11]. Will respond later when I have time. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ENDPREQUEL[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edits on the article Noahidism because they didn't appear to be constructive or neutral regarding the subject of that article. You were reverted for the same reason by user Zero0000 on the article Supremacism. Here's why:

The several online and academic reliable references cited throughout the article clearly state that Noahidism is a Jewish new religious movement that was founded in the 1990s by Orthodox Jewish rabbis closely tied to Chabad-Lubavitch and Religious Zionist organizations in Israel;^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]
Similar sociological phenomena of Gentile sympathizers to Judaism in Classical antiquity are already mentioned and linked throughout the article as well;^[10]^[11]^[12]
Me and other editors have struggled to find neutral, reliable references from non-partisan sources in the past that could provide a different outlook about the modern Noahide movement but they were all non-neutral, partisan websites managed by Jewish Orthodox and Religious Zionist rabbis involved in the movement itself (such as Chabad.org, among others), whose claims were rather dubious and quite evidently propagandistic, so we couldn't use them in accordance with WP policies and guidelines;
As long as informations are well-sourced and the sources are reliable, those informations are supposed to stay here and should be freely accessible to everyone because Wikipedia is not censored. According to the aforementioned WP policy: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of this encyclopedia;
I would also point out to the very first pages of Feldman's academic research on the Noahide community in the Philippines (2018);^[4] she reports that the modern Noahide movement was founded by Orthodox Jewish and Religious Zionist rabbis from Israel in the 1990s, who have decidedly instructed the Filipino Noahides to believe that they are racially inferior to Jews and are forbidden from reading Jewish scriptures and performing Jewish rites and customs, as well as to support their messianic, supremacist movement in order to rebuild the third Jewish temple in Jerusalem:^[4]

"Today, nearly 2,000 Filipinos consider themselves members of the ‘‘Children of Noah,’’ a new Judaic faith that is growing into the tens of thousands worldwide as ex-Christians encounter forms of Jewish learning online. Under the tutelage of Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Filipino ‘‘Noahides,’’ as they call themselves, study Torah, observe the Sabbath, and passionately support a form of messianic Zionism. Filipino Noahides believe that Jews are a racially superior people, with an innate ability to access divinity. According to their rabbi mentors, they are forbidden from performing Jewish rituals and even reading certain Jewish texts. These restrictions have necessitated the creation of new, distinctly Noahide ritual practices and prayers modeled after Jewish ones. Filipino Noahides are practicing a new faith that also affirms the superiority of Judaism and Jewish biblical right to the Land of Israel, in line with the aims of the growing messianic Third Temple Movement in Jerusalem."^[4]

References

^ Elkins, Caroline (2022-06-04). "Opinion | The Imperial Fictions Behind the Queen's Platinum Jubilee". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-06-14.
^ Print edition of NY Times ~13 June
^ Feldman, Rachel Z. (8 October 2017). "The Bnei Noah (Children of Noah)". World Religions and Spirituality Project. Archived from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 3 November 2020.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Feldman, Rachel Z. (August 2018). "The Children of Noah: Has Messianic Zionism Created a New World Religion?" (PDF). Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 22 (1). Berkeley: University of California Press: 115–128. doi:10.1525/nr.2018.22.1.115. eISSN 1541-8480. ISSN 1092-6690. LCCN 98656716. OCLC 36349271. S2CID 149940089. Retrieved 31 May 2020 – via Project MUSE.
^ Kress, Michael (2018). "The Modern Noahide Movement". My Jewish Learning. Retrieved 31 May 2020.
^ Strauss, Ilana E. (26 January 2016). "The Gentiles Who Act Like Jews: Who are these non-Jews practicing Orthodox Judaism?". Tablet Magazine. Retrieved 31 October 2020.
^ Ilany, Ofri (12 September 2018). "The Messianic Zionist Religion Whose Believers Worship Judaism (But Can't Practice It)". Haaretz. Tel Aviv. Archived from the original on 9 February 2020. Retrieved 31 May 2020.
^ Tabachnick, Toby (22 July 2010). "Noahides establish website for interested followers". The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Retrieved 31 October 2020.
^ Harris, Ben (26 June 2009). "Torah-embracing non-Jews fuel their movement online". JWeekly. San Francisco. Retrieved 31 October 2020.
^ Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1986). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 3 (Fully Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. p. 1010. ISBN 0-8028-3783-2.
^ Bleich, J. David (1995). Contemporary Halakhic Problems. Vol. 4. New York City: KTAV Publishing House (Yeshiva University Press). p. 161. ISBN 0-88125-474-6.
^ Singer, Isidore; Greenstone, Julius H. (1906). "Noachian Laws". Jewish Encyclopedia. Kopelman Foundation. Archived from the original on 5 February 2012. Retrieved 10 November 2020.

GenoV84 (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tesla master plan[edit]

The article Tesla master plan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can't see how a corporate business plan fits into an encyclopedia (WP:SOAP or WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Sure, lots of RS but such business news continuously reports on business plans of all major corporations, just nothing but routine reporting (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied here: challenging the proposed deletion and challenging several reverts of contested content Talk:Tesla master plan § Plan for a Sustainable Energy Economy Jaredscribe (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article because it is of Talk:Tesla master plan § Broad social, cultural, scientific, and technological interest Jaredscribe (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I declared my CoI [12] as your junior colleague demanded so rudely that I do, as you well know. I linked it, and his vulgur demand is immediately below on my talk page. but you reverted it, saying it was against WP:Talk page guidelines.

So where should I post it? And what is it going to be now? Jaredscribe (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @P199 see comment above; since you deleted my declaration of CoI, how and where should I post it in response to y'all's demand?

Since your POV-comrade @AndyTheGrump has forbade me from posting relevant WP:Primary sourced material, and has threatened to report me [13], if I do it again. Therefore I am obliged to declare. By now preventing me from declaring, without any further explanation other than "F--- you" and "Against TPG", the two of you have now put me in a double-bind, which is unfair.

The two of you are WP:Illustrious Looshpahs and I'm not even a Grand Tutnum. You are misusing your privelege and bullying someone smaller and less experienced, and that is naughty. Also, please rebuke your comrade for his persistent use of vulgur WP:Personal attacks. In addition to violating our conduct policy, it is an ad hominem argument that makes you both look stupid, and by extension, the rest of us who edit this encyclopedia. Please instruct. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe. If you have no connection to Tesla, there is no COI. Just being interested in (and benefitting from) sustainability is not a COI with this topic. The only thing you need to do is showing how this business plan by itself (i.e. not the company) is notable as a stand-alone article. Seeing that multiple users have endorsed my WP:PROD, there is likely no hope for this article, but the proper procedure if you dispute this PROD is to remove the templates from the article, see WP:CONTESTED. However, it will be nominated for regular deletion, which allows a full discussion where you can make your case.

As for AndyTheGrump's behavior, that is an admin's job to review. Regards, -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @P199 for your informative and civil response. That is what I will do, in addition to addressing the WP:Neutrality issues and inadequacies of the main article. C.f. Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Business_Strategy_=>_Sustainable_energy_economy

I have never yet reported another widepedian for condust issues and WP:Disruptive editing. I distrust admins, but if I have to protect myself from retaliation, I would. Also, I don't know how many other novices and yeoman he has bullied into quitting. What do I do this on ANI or somewhere else?

Alternatively, we could handle it ourselves. Will you please slap him with a wet trout? I will be satisfied if he publicly apologizes on the article talk, and commits to not do it again, as I asked him to in the comment thread of Talk:Tesla master plan § Plan for a Sustainable Energy Economy

But I've already asked him several times, and he has only doubled down. I think he needs a nudge from an editor more Illustrious than I. :)

Thank you, oh merciful and benevolent Looshpah.

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoI[edit]

What is your connection with Tesla and/or Musk? Given the promotional bullshit you have been pushing in the Talk:Tesla master plan article, it is difficult to believe you don't have one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have now responded to your false allegations of PROMO, and to your impudent demand: Talk:Tesla master plan § Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Please reply on that page. I'm sure we will all appreciate knowing where you stand on this issue.

Jaredscribe (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AndyTheGrump You've already been served on the article talk page, twice

But here you go again:

User talk:Jaredscribe § Proposed deletion of Tesla master plan

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you@7&6=thirteen! Unfortunately, I wasn't able to eat it, but it provided an entertaining tour through Habsburg empire and the origins of the packaged food distribution industry.

As I'm not a consumer of packaged pastries, I never would have visited this article on my own, and in my limited world view would have consider not WP:Notable enough for an WP:Encyclopedia. If I had been a new-page reviewer, or category editor, I might have even proposed it for deletion. However, you have opened up my mind. I can see now that it is a topic of broad social and cultural interest, and moreover, a superior alternative to the Twinkie and probably many others of its ilk that have benefitted from Dobos's innovations.

I've never seen your handle in the history or talk of on any articles that I've edited, so I cannot similarly vouch for you at this time. But if I do encounter your work, I will be sure to give thanks for the good, and will consider sending you a treat in return.

As for my part, I'm not sure what I did to deserve these "seven layers of fun", but If I have any encyclopedic or intellectual virtue to boast of, let it be accounted to the merit of my teachers and pre-ceptors, and to the God and King of Heaven and Earth, of whose works the starry heavens speak. Blessed be the one who gives knowledge to mankind.

Jaredscribe (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After now returning from a brief hiatus, to the article on Tesla master plan, I see that you've made some constructive contributions. Wikipedia needs more WP:WikiGnomes like you. Thank you, may you be good and do well.

Jaredscribe (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian democracy movememt[edit]

Hi Jaredscribe. I think this is an interesting topic. I participated in that AFD, but voted in favor to delete because I did not think the article met Wikipedia standards. I would nevertheless like to help you bring this topic to Wikipedia so that it meets the required standards. Let me know if I can help you with this. Best. JoseJan89 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoseJan89 I appreciate your attempts to improve the earlier article, Unfortunately it was not ready for publication at the time, at the time I published it, and I did so mainly to gain awareness and attract possible contributors. It needed an "additive process" before the otherwise important necessary subtractive process that you offered, and thats why I reverted your first set of deletions and asked you to tag it instead.

I appreciate your competent copy-editing and apparently very close reading of chinese theology, We need more WP:WikiGnomes like you to do that important constructive work. I often don't trust deletionists until they first demonstrate some competence at this.

I'd scanned "Chinese theology" a year ago, providing some wikilinks. That is my modus operandi - I add wikilinks. I also summarize reliable sources, and give citations, but often neglect to correct my own typos and bad grammar.

The article's here now:

User:Jaredscribe/Iranian_democracy_movements

If I revert your contributions don't be shy WP:Boldly WP:Obvert with a second draft. That is how I like to work. C.f. WP:Bold-refine

Jaredscribe (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tesla master plan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tesla master plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla master plan 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.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tesla master plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 12-volt outlet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaredscribe/Tesla Master Plan[edit]

I've created this for you per your request at the AfD. I would take the comments at AfD to heart, though. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valeree, I responded on your close page, before I was aware that no responsa were allowed there.

I had clicked a "reply" link and wrote this to signal my good-faith acceptance of the decision, and willingness to substantially comply:

Thank you. I will contribute more to related articles and seek more opinions from related wikiprojects, before I publish this again, if I ever do.

I'm sorry that I published it too early, and without contributing to the Tesla Inc. article first. I was trying to keep up with current events (since the 3rd plan was released in March 2023, and since wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED I though this would be OK) I should have labeled it {{stub}} and "needs more references": that would have eliminated alot of misunderstandings and possibly garned some help with the research into secondary sources.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Valereee Thank you for your time, and any further advice will be appreciated as well. Is it possible for you to actually move the article with its history and talk page, instead of copy-pasting it?

This "full move" was done recently in another article that I'm incubating, following an AfD decision to delete: User:Jaredscribe/Iranian_democracy_movements

Thank you also @Jo7hs2 for actually reading and responding to some of the secondary sources, and to you and @Oaktree b for assuming good faith and actually giving some consideration to the underlying content proposition. I hope could consult or ask your advice, before revisiting this in a few years. I concur that more in-depth studies in business journals are likely to become available, and that the article as it stood lacked this.

Also would appreciate your consultations before I submit elements of it to existing articles - Although it seems that other editors are very hostile to both possibilities, so I will avoid this for a few months at least, if I'm still here.

I have been brought to ANI over my creation and defense of this article, on accusations of "Tendentious" and "Incompetence", in addition to the charges of CoI that was brought earlier, and of "marketing bullsh--" that seems to have been the opinion of the majority in consensus with is most vocal member, many of whom are now bringing charges against me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User Jaredscribe, and I am threatened with an imminent and indefinite block from the project as whole.

I hope you will vouch for my "good-faith" in creating this - as I am genuinely interested in the math, engineering, and environmental issues involved here. And I am willing to comply with our WP:Content policy, and to abide by a consensus of those writer-editors who are actually involved in constructive efforts.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons Learned through a hostile AfD[edit]

Although it is OK to appropriately use WP:USEPRIMARY on wikipedia, expect that its will be excessively challenged on "Contentious topics", and be prepared to justify its use on the talk page, so as to avoid unnecessary distractions and debates.
1. If you didn't already know, be sure to avoid analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis when using WP:PRIMARY, and definitely notify other users of this on the talk page, because they might not know, and using primary sources invites others to do the same. (I failed to explain this in talk)
2. Articles in general should be structured on the reportage by WP:Secondary and WP:Tertiary sources, if you didn't already know that. (I did, but was too hasty)
3. To get help with research into these, post a link of your draft to related WikiProjects, before publication. For contentious topics, consider submit AfC rather than simply publishing to mainspace, in order to get editorial feedback, attract other writers and researchers, and in order to prevent mis-understandings at AfD.
4. If you skip AfC but haven't yet done the diligence and research (knowing that somewhere these are available) mark the article as {{stub}} and {{unreferenced}} when you publish to mainspace, so that others will be encouraged to do the work. Also, skeptics will be less inclined to assume that you are WP:SOAPboxing, doing WP:PROMO, or are simply incompetent.
5. Even then, don't assume that editors will do their jobs; many people on new-page review and AfD are not there to learn stuff, research, and write: most don't make constructive contributions other than categorizing and tagging. Although this is found on our Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Considerations, the nominating deleter will probably not give a good-faith effort of due-diligence. Neither will those who vote, except those who vote to keep, and even then only a minority of them:

"First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. See WP:Before."

1. Since any article does in fact "promote" the topic, one based mainly on Primary sources promotes it on the terms of the article's subject and main contributor. Even you are unbiased, subject-matter and editorially competent, and in good-faith, that is not verifiable to another reader or editor. We probably shouldn't assume this level of virtue from the average editor, therefore it would be unsound to make this a precedent on an WP:Encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. Therefore the existing content policy's strong discouragement of this, is a good policy, even if there are no logical or factual inaccuracies, or unverified statements in your use of primary sources.
The subject matter of Tesla, Inc. is a contentious topic, and may be due to the contentiousness of the business and socio-political interests of Mr. Elon Musk. In this content area, beware.
Your contributions to an article for any company or commercial interest, will likely have commercial implications, even if you don't care about them, and even if that is not your purpose in editing.
1. Therefore do not assume naively that all or most other editors are totally neutral, or unconflicted, and do not expect they will assume it of you, even if you legitimately are.
2. Therefore be transparent about your interests up front, even if there is no conflict. This will prevent misunderstandings from occurring later that will disrupt your efforts.
It may be beneficial to first DEMONSTRATE both competence and good-faith by making non-controversial contributions to a contentious content area that is new for you, so that others don't have to "assume" it of you.

Jaredscribe (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the AfD itself:

Vote DRAFTIFY or KEEP PUBLISHED. The word "Keep" by itself is equivocal. It helps analysis of the discussion, if you separate answers to the two questions. Also, you will be less "defensive" because the stakes will be lowered. Others won't interpret your Keep as a stubborn insistence on keeping an WP:NOTFINISHED article in mainspace, when you intend to merely keep it from being deleted.
Don't argue with people who use vulgar insults and make ignorant and exaggerated attacks against the subject of the article or against yourself. If they are dominating the discussion, and if you lack friends and colleagues on the wiki, give up rather than risk expulsion over a fight that both of you are destined to lose.
If your article is nominated for PROD, improve it rapidly and don't expect any help. If you don't have time for this, Draftify and try later.

Jaredscribe (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After AfD comments[edit]

I've reverted your response to the closer, which is not allowed. Please respect the consensus on the nomination and find something else to do; there is nothing else that can be added on the nomination page. More importantly, lay off the personal attacks, or you'll be blocked. Nate • (chatter) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do that again, as I wasn't aware that no responsa were allowed. I had clicked a "reply" link and wrote this to signal my good-faith acceptance of the decision, and willingness to substantially comply, and to go find something else to do as you suggest.

Also the allegations I've made here are about "content" and "conduct", in response to an ongoing ANI case in which worse allegations are made against me, not about any "personal" attributes of my accuser.

I wish you will retract the allegations here of personal attack, which are not true in this case.

However, I affirm our policy on WP:CIVILITY and its prohibition on this, and hope that we all will comply, and I certainly intend to.

Thanks for your time.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user has just cleverly used a compound statement to put me into a double bind: if I deny his assertion, I could be construed as endorsing personal attacks. If I agree, then I admit having so. This appears to be a subtle but dishonest dialectical trick.

Yes, @MrSchimpf I am in agreement that you and I and every other wikipedia editor should "lay off the personal attacks". This is an indisputable moral truth on which I'm sure we all agree, who accept wikipedia's policy WP:CIVILITY

No @MrSchimpf, you are "assuming facts not in evidence" - that I made such an attack, and I did not. And you know that I did not. You ought to admit as much.

Jaredscribe (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, your honor. A Compound question or assertion, is an informal fallacy of reasoning.

It turns out that @MrSchimpf is very hostile, not only to the now deleted article, also to me personally. This was his statement in the AfD:

Delete and salt, no redirect As the nom has made clear they'll override any consensus and throw this back into draftspace or create a never-ending deletion review, I don't want them to have the opportunity to. This is unfiltered 'PR' junk (since there's no PR department there), and as with all of these source-spammed articles, just because there are multiple articles about something doesn't make it notable. The article creator also has major CIR concerns. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations of "unfiltered PR junk" and "source spam" are not personal attacks, they are just exaggerations and as such, false. His assertion that the article creator (me), has "major WP:CIR concerns" is a personal attack, in the context of a misguided but oft-cited explanatory essay on "Competence", that actually has not been vetted, and is not one of our policies, and ought to be deprecated and no longer cited. Specifically, it is a threat of indefinite block, and @MrSchimpf is now participating in efforts at ANI to have me indefinite blocked on these grounds. The only incompetence I've shown was in linking to that essay before I had fully evaluated it. Anyone who cites that essay is, ipso facto, of dubious competence at best.

But WP:Competence is acquired, as everyone knows, and I have demonstrably acquired it, as any unbiased observer will admit. About @MrSchimpf though, we ought to have some doubts. I suggest that he go acquire it. And the way to acquire it, is to desire it. Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired. Or if he doesn't desire to cultivate his own competence, then at the very least, he should stop contriving false accusations, verbal tricks, and schemes to have me blocked. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and cease attacking others in any way, now. Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've acquired a fair measure of competence, I could alway acquire more.

For those who may wish to join me in this, here are some

User talk:Jaredscribe § Lessons Learned through a hostile AfD

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm always going to be hostile to unfiltered WP:PROMO content being hosted as an article, and examining the situation it felt like you had no designs on following consensus, adjusting the article as needed, or agreeing it needed work, I felt my vote! was justified and appropriate. You also tend to talk in large blocks of text, and need to learn how to edit yourself better. And that you responded to a request to cease personal attacks and follow our guidelines with an attack on my competence is beyond the pale. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1978 Iranian politics, 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.

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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me aware of this. I've never been to Arbitration or Dispute resolution, or any of the noticeboards for that matter, on my own initiative, but I probably should have figured out how to do that earlier. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Peter King (philosopher)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Peter King (philosopher), 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) 18:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[14] Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello administrator @Ymblanter. I understand why I have been blocked, and that I should have chosen better words when attempting to disabuse that editor of his obsessive, deliberate and shameless use of the animal feces analogy[15]

I'm sorry for telling him to "stop" in the vulgur way that I did, and to "start thinking with his brain" instead. I won't write that again.

Although he is a celebrated and apparently very influential editor, I should probably not follow his example.

How do you suggest that I respond, next time that I or some other good-faith editor is confronted with this style of disruptive and hostile vulgarity? I am clearly in need of better advice, and since we should both ASAP get back to making an WP:Encyclopedia, I hope that you or some other responsible adult can give it. Jaredscribe (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind so much if someone alleges that I'm a "moon-obsessed pseudo-scholar", @Ymblanter, The allegation is false and disprovable, but at least valid and coherent, and therefore answerable. The attack is not "personal", it against my encyclopedic work - and my own resume of contributions in this content area will easily disprove the assertion. Thats not what I was responding to when I made the reply for which I'm now blocked.

The problem is ad nauseum hostile vulgarity in lieu of civil discussion, in half a dozen forums already, my way of the animal feces analogy - the most recent example here: [16], implying that I am an animal and that my typing fingers are its anus. I'd like this WP:HARRASSMENT and dyslogic to please stop.

But I should probably not learn from his example, and I'm sorry I did. How do you suggest that I respond next time? Jaredscribe (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jaredscribe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I've blocked, for choosing the wrong words when telling another editor to stop disrupting the discussion with dyslogical and insulting comparisons between me and a bull, a horse, an aardvark, and many other brute animals besides. Just because this editor calls my discourses "sh--t", and this has been tolerated by you and other administrators, that does not give me the right to tell him to "stop thinking with his a--, and to start thinking with his brain instead". I should not have made that inference: two wrongs don't make a right.

Although I never compared him to a brute animal, I'm sorry I imitated his vulgur potty-humor, and I won't do it again. I hope we can all get back to making an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which is what I'm here for. Thanks for your consideration. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is just a non-apology where you complain about someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello word, from the outside now looking in. Can I at least edit my talk page and userspace? Soon we'll know. Jaredscribe (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only your talk page, and I would not recommend editing it for anything other than an unblock request. Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the several discussions this morning in which I was principally involved occurred in approximately this order:

User:Jaredscribe/Diatribes#Subject_Matter_Competence_and_CHOPSY

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Competence_is_Desired_and_Acquired

User:Jaredscribe/Diatribes#Systemic_bias_of_Graeco-Roman_imperialism_and_anti-Judaism

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Religion_task_force#DEMANDS_of_ACADEMIC-bias_POV-pushers_at_WP:CHOPSY

Wikipedia_talk:Academic_bias#You_have_now_been_Served

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_admin_action_needed

Jaredscribe (talk) Jaredscribe (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Hi. I have just noticed that your account has been blocked. I am sorry. I wish you the best. Thanks for working on the article that I have created too but that is under attack right now. You asked me why I requested speedy deletion of the article, I believe you now can see why. Gharouni^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gharouni, I actually agree with @Rosguill that Maybe notability could be established for Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, but the currently cited sources do not come close to meeting WP:ORGCRITE

Which is why I proposed that we draftify and move it. Since the organization was only launched in March 2023, its too early for them to have significant coverage ... but it is likely to get in the year ahead. I suggest you ask the closing admin @RL0919 to resurrect the article and move it to your subpage at User:Gharouni/Alliance_for_Democracy_and_Freedom_in_Iran

and incubate it there until more WP:SIGCOV becomes available in the coming year.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Your user talk page is getting a bit big. Would you like me to set up automatic bot archiving for you? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a cool thing to do, good job, but unfortunately you are about a month too late. Dronebogus (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1149352367#User_Jaredscribe EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this sucks. That was an ugly affair that did not need to end like that, and I regret that it did. I sent EvergreenFir an email asking them to reconsider but have not heard back, not that I expected anything to come of it. Here is my advice: keep contributing over at WikiSource and let things rest here for at least six months. After that, if you think you would like to contribute here again, get in contact with me. I'll be happy to talk you through all the policy issues (both content and behavior) that led here and help you with an appeal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Why did he got indeffed? Because he thought that everyone willing to teach him the WP:RULES was incompetent and acting in bad faith. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand why he was blocked and have no desire to relitigate the merits of that decision here. I came here because it was obvious to me after reading the ANI multiple times that he was trying to figure out what he needed to say and do, not understanding the instructions he was receiving, and very frustrated by that fact as well as the rude way multiple editors were treating him. Most of you probably assumed this was an intelligence issue, but I am confident that it is actually something else, and I therefore believe that Jaredscribe could become a much less problematic editor if he received very clear, simple explanations of how Wikipedia works alongside instructions on how to behave and edit that are more… I guess the best word would be "firm"—than we normally give editors, and which are tailored more to him individually. I have offered to provide that. You probably think that is a waste of time, and I doubt I could convince you otherwise. If he takes me up on my offer, we will find out which of us is correct. In the meantime, we should let the horse lie. Nothing is going to come of this anytime soon. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never assumed this is an 'intelligence issue'. It is a behavioural one unlikely to be resolved through well-intentioned interventions from unqualified persons. Wikipedia policy forbids me saying more than that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 12 § Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf until a consensus is reached. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Peter King (philosopher)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Peter King".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Barnes Carr[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Barnes Carr, 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) 10:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Drafts/Vita Mensae Living Mind (sculpture)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Drafts/Vita Mensae Living Mind (sculpture), 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) 12:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Groff v. DeJoy[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Groff v. DeJoy, 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) 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Barnes Carr[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Barnes Carr".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Drafts/Vita Mensae Living Mind (sculpture)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vita Mensae Living Mind (sculpture)".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Groff v. DeJoy[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Groff v. DeJoy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Drafts/Iron Front (United States)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Drafts/Iron Front (United States), 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) 19:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ricardo Nirenberg[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ricardo Nirenberg, 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) 00:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Drafts/Iron Front (United States)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Iron Front (United States)".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Aubrey Clayton[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aubrey Clayton, 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) 15:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Never Give An Inch (Pompeo)[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Never Give An Inch (Pompeo), 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) 06:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vice industry[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vice industry, 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) 02:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Glide Phase Interceptor[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Glide Phase Interceptor, 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) 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Foreign policy of the Thomas Jefferson administration[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Foreign policy of the Thomas Jefferson administration, 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) 04:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 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) 00:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village, 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) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Aubrey Clayton[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aubrey Clayton".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Christopher J. Preston[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Christopher J. Preston, 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) 04:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired, 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) 00:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Eventual programming[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eventual programming".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Christopher J. Preston[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Christopher J. Preston".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wikipedia:Competence is desired".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Heist of Iranian nuclear secrets[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Heist of Iranian nuclear secrets, 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) 18:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Heist of Iranian nuclear secrets[edit]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Heist of Iranian nuclear secrets".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://anjaashiwatshumbe.over-blog.org/2018/01/le-profil-du-nouveau-recteur-de-l-universite-notre-dame-de-tshumbe.html

[2] ttp://diocese-tshumbe-ste-marie.over-blog.com/pages/SOEURS_DE_ST_FRANCOIS_DASSISE-6871492.html

[3] I'm not saying that you do, but if...

[4] Klee, Miles (March 1, 2020). "The short, stupid history of 'Steak and a BJ Day'". The Daily Dot. Retrieved September 11, 2020.

[5] Elkins, Caroline (2022-06-04). "Opinion | The Imperial Fictions Behind the Queen's Platinum Jubilee". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-06-14.

[6] Print edition of NY Times ~13 June

[Feldman2017-7] Feldman, Rachel Z. (8 October 2017). "The Bnei Noah (Children of Noah)". World Religions and Spirituality Project. Archived from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 3 November 2020.

[Feldman2018-8] Feldman, Rachel Z. (August 2018). "The Children of Noah: Has Messianic Zionism Created a New World Religion?" (PDF). Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 22 (1). Berkeley: University of California Press: 115–128. doi:10.1525/nr.2018.22.1.115. eISSN 1541-8480. ISSN 1092-6690. LCCN 98656716. OCLC 36349271. S2CID 149940089. Retrieved 31 May 2020 – via Project MUSE.

[Kress-9] Kress, Michael (2018). "The Modern Noahide Movement". My Jewish Learning. Retrieved 31 May 2020.

[Tabletmag-10] Strauss, Ilana E. (26 January 2016). "The Gentiles Who Act Like Jews: Who are these non-Jews practicing Orthodox Judaism?". Tablet Magazine. Retrieved 31 October 2020.

[Ilany-11] Ilany, Ofri (12 September 2018). "The Messianic Zionist Religion Whose Believers Worship Judaism (But Can't Practice It)". Haaretz. Tel Aviv. Archived from the original on 9 February 2020. Retrieved 31 May 2020.

[JewishChronicle-12] Tabachnick, Toby (22 July 2010). "Noahides establish website for interested followers". The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Retrieved 31 October 2020.

[JWeekly-13] Harris, Ben (26 June 2009). "Torah-embracing non-Jews fuel their movement online". JWeekly. San Francisco. Retrieved 31 October 2020.

[Bromiley_1986-14] Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1986). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 3 (Fully Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. p. 1010. ISBN 0-8028-3783-2.

[Bleich_1995-15] Bleich, J. David (1995). Contemporary Halakhic Problems. Vol. 4. New York City: KTAV Publishing House (Yeshiva University Press). p. 161. ISBN 0-88125-474-6.

[JE2-16] Singer, Isidore; Greenstone, Julius H. (1906). "Noachian Laws". Jewish Encyclopedia. Kopelman Foundation. Archived from the original on 5 February 2012. Retrieved 10 November 2020.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]