User talk:Felisse

Welcome!

Hello, Felisse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bauming[edit]

Hi. Thanks for that. I'm honestly not sure whether he's notable enough to have an article or not, but it shouldn't be his decision to make whether he's written about or not. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Broyde[edit]

Hi. Responded to your concerns on the talk page Talk:Michael_Broyde, please reply. Thanks! HG | Talk 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I guess I'd been on a wikibreak and have finally replied to your last note. Thanks for your patience. Hope you are well. HG | Talk 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your note on the article's talk page but thought I would reply here. Feel free to delete this if you wish. I appreciate your being patient and open about your view. I'm glad you mentioned your interest in going beyond a stub. It seems to me that you are working from a rather stringent view of WP:NOR and I'm not sure if it's philosophical or maybe even unintentional. The policy begins: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" As I understand this, you are welcome to gather and report information on Broyde (and others) -- it doesn't need to come from published biographical-genre sources -- as long as you do not "advance a position" or forward some non-obvious argument or theory. If you don't mind, let me give you some examples. You could look at his publications and summarize some his interests, theories, arguments, etc. You could describe the breadth of his activities as a rabbi. You could mention his writings that have prompted strong published reactions, and describe the ensuing controversies (in a neutral manner) -- especially over women whose husbands refuse to divorce them officially under Jewish law (versus Prof. Aviad HaCohen). Also, lesser controversy over his writings on war and torture. You could describe his rulings as a judge on the Beth Din of America (provided you find published data). All such descriptive info is common in Wikipedia and not NOR. Anyway, I say all this to encourage you to work on these kind of stubs. And if you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Meanwhile, take care. HG | Talk 22:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea sounds good. I'd recommend starting with his work on agunah which deals with an interesting controversy that you can link within Wikipedia. Google "aviad agunah broyde" or "Edah agunah broyde" for a start. You'll probably find helpful synopses or commentaries on the Edah site, JOFA.org or hirhurim.org, etc. Maybe you'll be able to add to the agunah itself and draw in some folks from there. Good luck and good shabbes. HG | Talk 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Polytopes[edit]

Hi!

I'm editing Abstract polytopes... you made an edit earlier, and Oh Joy! Your user page says you don't abhor adding citations...! Would you be willing to add wikipediafied citations as you see fit to Abstract polytopes? I'm happy to give you all the citations you need, if you are happy to wikipediafy them... :-)

mike40033 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion: Michelle Ferguson-Cohen[edit]

You made an earlier contribution regarding the notability of this author and I was hoping you wouldn't mind adding citiations? Thank You for any help you can offer! --72.229.10.154 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting[edit]

I saw on your user page: "I am trying to learn citation format correctly but it's complex." It's actually quite easy - what's hard is learning how easy it is. Take a look here and let me know if you have any questions. Sbowers3 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing for Pokemon[edit]

I've never said that only unlicensed sources should be used, only that articles that use primarily licensed sources are unacceptable. As you say, criticism and commentary do not require licensing, and that is what encyclopedia articles should be based on.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation goes counter to WP:N. It is not the role of any Wikipedia editor to determine notability ... we simply look to independent sourcing. If we can find independent sourcing, we can write articles. If there is no independent sourcing, we can't have an article. Otherwise, we would be including articles on things based on how heavily advertised they are, which would be unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have an uphill battle trying to get consensus that licensed sources are independent.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bagby[edit]

Thanks for the help. Since I am a place where I have only minimal Western resource materials in our library (I started the article just using some of the novels and the internet. So, please, get to the library and add what You think is appropriate it. - Kim Dammers

Wang Yani[edit]

Thanks for directing me to the article. I am for the moment not contributing much to WP. Great to see her recent work at the link you inserted. I will keep an eye on this and see if I can help to de-orphanise. You have made the day of at least one interested person ! I much appreciate this. Lunarian (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do know about the tildes, I just forgot :P btw I edited and added it in before I saw this

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Felisse. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]