User talk:Ronny Cohen

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ronny Cohen. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psalms

I have reverted your reversion of my editing to the section in the Psalms article on Editorial Agenda. Wikipedia works by other editors adapting, correcting, and changing one another's work - it is not enough for you to say that the changes were "unwarranted" and revert them. I had added wikilinks and fixed grammar, as well as removing text that I thought gave undue weight to certain positions. Please attempt to understand the work other editors do rather than simply reverting, and if necessary, engage in a discussion with reasons why you disagree with their editing. Also, this edit summary [1] indicates that you have a conflict of interest regarding the information you are adding to the article (Mitchell's views) in that it is from your own publication. This means you should be particularly careful about inserting it and discuss proposed changes on the article's talk page before including them. Melcous (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Melcous

Thank you for your clarification. I feel that your editing of my comments showed bias. Could you please explain why you think Wilson's view is more important than Mitchell's? Yes, I shall keep the links you set up. (I am unaware of any grammatical errors: perhaps you could explain.) But I shall restore the comments on Mitchell's work, so that Wilson and Mitchell each have six lines. I trust you will agree that the two dominant views on the redaction of the Psalms ought to be treated with equal respect.

Ronny Cohen (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronny, sorry I had just not had a chance to get back to you. I'm not sure what you mean about a paragraph disappearing but I have not removed anything here - if you click on "View history" at the top of any page including this one you will be able to see exactly what has been added or removed and by whom.

In terms of the Psalms article, personally I would not see Wilson and Mitchell as "the two dominant views" as you do. I think Wilson's view is seminal, but since then any number of scholars as well as Mitchell have written on the topic (e.g. McCann, deClaissé-Walford, Grant, Gillingham, Nasuti just to name a few) and so it feels to me like undue weight to present Mitchell's view as if it is the main response to/alternative to/development of Wilson's thesis. It may be that some of those other views should be included as well, or that Wilson's proposal should be the focus of the section, or it may be that the consensus is with you that Mitchell's view is equally significant as Wilson's. I think this is a better discussion to have on the article's talk page, so we can see what other editors think and try to find a consensus around what should be included. I will start a discussion there. Thanks Melcous (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronny, obviously still waiting to see if any other editors want to contribute to the discussion at the article talk page. In the meantime, I am wondering if you would be willing to clarify whether you do or do not have a conflict of interest regarding your comment about Mitchell's work as "our publication." This may or may not be an issue, but understanding this could at the very least help you see why other editors (such as myself) might be reluctant to simply accept your additions to an article when they appear to be designed to promote the views of one particular scholar with whom you may have an external relationship of some kind, which can also make you look like you might be a single purpose editor with an agenda. I hope that makes sense, please have a look at those articles and know that I am not trying to "accuse" you of anything, but rather clarify and make you aware of some of guidelines at wikipedia - which works by consensus and is not, for example, an academic journal. Regards, Melcous (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronny, thanks for your message. I will reply here but probably also make some comments on the article talk page. Have you had a look at the links I posted above?

By the way, you can reply to me here if it is easier - because of this conversation, I am "watching" this page so will be notified when you respond here.

Yes at this stage there doesn't seem to be other editors interested, although it has not actually been very long and there is no rush. I have however been doing some thinking and re-reading of wikipedia policies and I think there are two that might be particularly helpful in resolving this issue: No Original Research and more specifically, Primary and Secondary Sources. While you and I both might be interested in, and even have expertise in, this topic, I think we are in heading towards (and probably have already, particularly the last paragraph in the section) including original research in the Psalms article under Editorial Agenda. Any time an editor includes their opinion, analysis, or even synthesis of published sources, that is what WP calls "original research" and it is not allowed. This is what makes WP an encyclopaedia (a Tertiary source) rather than an academic journal or such. The distinction may seem subtle, and it may seem counter-intuitive, but it is important. A good example, I think, was on the Psalms of Ascents page. I had included a statement that "Many scholars" think something and referenced it to Hossfeld and Zenger. You disputed this saying "Hossfeld is only one person." The point, however, is that Hossfeld and Zenger is a reliable, secondary source, and THEY make the claim that "many scholars" think that. So the statement is referenced to them correctly. If, on the other hand, I was to cite five different scholars who I had independently read and make the claim that they represent "many scholars" thinking something, that would actually be original research - see WP:RS/AC.

So, with the editorial agenda, it seem to me that Mitchell's work is a primary source for Mitchell's views, just as Wilson's work is a primary source for Wilson's views. You or I then considering how to explain the significance, weight or acceptance of these views is original research. What we need is a Secondary source that discusses the range of views on the editing of the Psalter, and we should summarise what that source (or sources) says, and cite the secondary source as the reference. There are already a number of good secondary sources cited in the article, commentaries on Psalms which consider a range of scholars view for example, which would be good starting places for this. If you would like to do some work on this that would be great, or I'm happy to - although it won't be quick as I am quite busy at the moment. If you can have a read through the WP:OR policy if you have not already that would be helpful. Let me know you thoughts after that. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:CantataB.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CantataB.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:CantataB.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CantataB.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CantataB.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CantataB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ronny Cohen. All or some of your addition(s) to Messiah ben Joseph has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
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 can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]