User talk:JerseyRabbi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, JerseyRabbi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greetings
Would you mind reviewing the recent edits regarding the rôle of the Prushim as ancestral or not to both Rabbinic and Qara'i Judaism on List of Religions? Specifically, I've found myself in conflict with User:Aaron Solomon Adelman who insists that Karaite Judaism rejects all of Pharisaic philosophy, rather than simply the legitimacy of the rabbis' redaction of Torah she-b'alPe as Talmudh. I doubt either of us, he or I, would regard you as a halakhic authority on any day of the week, but I assume as a rabbi you have access to citable impartial texts that cover the topic, which might be useful in shedding much-needed light on this topic. Regards, Tomertalk 07:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion continued on Tomer's talk page .JerseyRabbi 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit Summary Mark-Up
- Thanks for the welcome. I have a question that I hope you can direct me. I've read every help page that seemed relevant without finding it. I understand what to put in the edit summary box in general. But I've noticed on some page (for ex. I was on a particular Article for Deletion page and when I checked the history to see how others noted their entries, I found a large number were written with an Arrow that links to the article for deletion entry followed by a link to the main article. I how to do this manually with links (like this: →Orthodox_Messianic_Jews) but since it seemed so common, I wondered I am just missing some shortcut (like the 4 tildes for a signature) to do this as well. Thanks so much! JerseyRabbi 06:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting question. The difference in the edit summary description is generated automatically by the system; there's no shortcut that you need to use. The key to when it generates the arrow that you noticed is whether you are editing the whole article or just a section. If you edit the whole article, then the system will just insert the edit summary you provide. If you edit a section (i.e. by clicking the "[edit]" box on the right side of the section, it will automatically add the section title at the start of the edit summary. The idea is to let people know that you are editing a particular section rather than the whole article.
- The system works for regular articles. It's less meaningfull when you edit things such as individual articles for deletion (AfD). You can edit these pages by clicking "edit this page" or using the edit box on the side of the page. However, the AfD page only has the one "section", so the edit summary subheading doesn't really give any useful information.
- Hope this makes sense, and please feel free to ask any other questions (though I can't promise I know the answer).--Kubigula (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. It makes complete sense and I am using the system the way you described right now. Much obliged. JerseyRabbi 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HUC Links on the Rabbi Page
I noticed your removal of the links I added regarding the Hebrew Union College on the Rabbi page. Your note said you thought they were "self-advertising." While I am an alumnus of HUC, I want to clarify that the links were put up for one purpose: To give an actual citation to a claim on that page. Nearly the entire rabbi page has no citations whatsover. In fact the notes I added to outside sources are the only ones in the article. For someone to claim that Reform and Reconstructionist rabbinical students study sociology and pastoral care should be verifiable. Where is a better source for verification than the school's own course listing for the students? Immediately above in the Conservative Rabbis section (just to pick the first example I see), there is no citation backng up the claims of wha the students study, that women are being ordained, etc. It is listed only based on the author's word. I wanted to make the first small step in putting in citations. If i go tackle that section, JTS wll surely be the first web site I look to verify any claims. So I completely understand your initial concern, but I think these links are the 1st of hopefully many dozen that will verify the various statements made in this article. All the best. JerseyRabbi 13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi JerseyRabbi: Welcome to Wikipedia. There is a correct way of citing sources and articles. It is not done the way you did it. See WP:CITE about this subject. Thanks, IZAK 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I will certianly adjust the citations to include the references at the end of the text and make sure the format is consistent with Wikipedia style. If I might be so bold as to share a personal reaction from a relative newbie to a veteran, extremely active editor: My citations may have been misformatted, but they certainly were placed with the best of intentions to improve the article. The Rabbi article is completely lacking in substantiated claims. I made a first attempt - and that was what drove me to actually create a professional log-in name to do so. As I was reading articles other articles from the link you sent, I came across one that said we should always assume good faith that someone is trying to help the article, not hurt it. Simply deleting my citations was a bit offputting to me and if another user hadn't restored them so quickly, it might have made me very reluctant to continue editing. I know you were simply trying to keep articles free of perceived biased clutter and (I assume) that was not your specific intention. Since I don't imagine there are a ton of Reform Rabbis editing Wikipedia, I'd think my contributions, however tiny, might be valuable. The advice you give immediately above in directing me to a helpful style sheet so I can adjust/modify the work I contributed is exactly the pro-active positive approach that will encourage me to edit and post and seek advice from veteran editors. Maybe others will join me in substantiating the Rabbi article so it isn't simply a collection of individuals unsourced claims. Again, I appreciate the link and will work in the next week to adjust all my citations properly. Have a great day! (and an early Shabbat Shalom). JerseyRabbi 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
