User talk:Java7837/Archive Nov 2007

October 2007 newsletter for WikiProject Abandoned Articles

Welcome

The WikiProject welcomes two new members in the past three months:

Progress

The WikiProject is now halfway done, numerically, with the 1000 articles identified in December 2006. The first (oldest) 500 articles have been claimed, reviewed, and (when needed, which was almost all cases) improved. Moreover, given the passage of time, many of articles 501 through 1000 have been worked on by other editors (it's ten months since that list was generated). So reviewing the second half of the 1000 articles should be easier.

A slightly different approach

Section 6 (articles 501 through 600 on the list) has been organized differently than the previous five sections. First, blocks are (roughly) five articles each, rather than 10, making it easier for you to claim and finish a block. Second, perhaps more importantly, each block consists of similar pages; if you're interested in fixing disambiguation pages, there are blocks of those; if you're interested in articles (which is what the project originally started out being), there are blocks of those; and there is one block of lists and one of redirects (mostly redirects to articles). So, fewer surprises this time when you claim a block.

In addition, since the project now has 25 active members (though some are likely inactive), having more blocks will make it easier to spread the editing around.

Inactivating your membership

If you received this newsletter on your user talk page and don't want to receive such postings in the future, please move your name, in the participants section of the WikiProject, to the "Inactive" subsection.

About this newsletter

This newsletter is being delivered by Anibot; it was written by John Broughton. Please post any comments about it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles, in a section separate from the newsletter itself.
Delivered by Anibot 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Scuba

Hi I'm a participant of WikiProject Scuba. I'd like to ask you if you mind if we shall use some of your userboxes? And if you'r interested you'r welcome to join to our project.--Yegor Chernyshev 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC

A tag has been placed on Nahida Ruth Lazarus, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Whitmorewolveyr 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Salvaging material from JE

I note that you're making articles on people who were in the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia - notable converts to Judaism, I think it is? This is fine.

I also note that you're basically re-using their material verbatim (or almost so). This is less fine. Copyright on the JE has expired by now, so that's okay... and you're crediting the JE as the source of the material, which is what you're supposed to do... but JE format isn't our format. For instance, their article on Nahida Ruth Lazarus spoke of her in the present tense, because in 1906 she was still alive. And the word "authoress" isn't really used any more.

Before you actually submit an article scooped out of the JE, could you read through them a bit more and try to get them more... more currently-formatted? Thanks. DS 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo the above comments and note that there is an admonishment to please not data dump. Regards. -- Whpq 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, as the guideline says, "put it in anyway because somebody else will come by and tweak it". Jheald 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefer Oklah we-Oklah

Saw you added Sefer Oklah we-Oklah to cat Category:Jewish texts. Interesting call, though I'm not disagreeing with you. The book is more like a concordance or a grammar corpus than a devotional work (though people putting together commentaries subsequently found it hugely useful in that role). Probably the right call, though. Certainly, it's a text written and used by Jews. Even if not one to live by. Jheald 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of Biblical figures

Java, what's up with this article? List of minor Biblical figures is a page for people about whom there is not much to write; List of Major Biblical figures, which used to be at List of Biblical figures is a brief list of those notable people who do have their own articles. Then there is List of Biblical names, which contains all names mentioned in the Bible and their meanings (or theories on them). Do we really need another page? If so, what for? --Eliyak T·C 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious discussions about using the names Reform vs. Progressive Judaism

Hi Java: Please see the present discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. Your input would be greatly appreciated. (They are the result of discussions that unfolded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels.) Thanks so much, IZAK 09:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Uzayr

I think a separate article for Ezra in Islam is a good idea, but shouldn't it be called "Uzair" or "Uzayr" or whatever? Til Eulenspiegel 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]