User talk:Yesselman

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello Yesselman, 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! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

Nice userpage ;-) Izehar 22:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you.

Your user page

Hello! I noticed your user page had been edited twice by an anonymous IP recently [1], but I didn't want to remove the changes in case it was you at a public computer, or perhaps having forgotten to log in. Just wanted to let you know, so you can have a look for yourself. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I am making many beginner mistakes.

Edit summary

Hi Yesselman. I have a favor to ask. I would like to ask you, if possible, to put edit summaries more often when you contribute. It really helps to see an article page or a talk page on one's watchlist with an edit summary in. So, in a sense, is more effort for you, but more gains for people around you. I wonder what you think. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oleg Alexandrov. Thank you for your help. Certainly I wiill do as you ask; please forgive a beginner. Yesselman 14:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Jewish culture

Hi Yesselman, I was wondering whether you were interested in joining and developing a new WikiProject. While the more-established WikiProject Judaism focuses on relgious aspects of Judaism, this project intends to look at Jewish literature, music, theater, language and history, among other aspects of culture. If you are interested in helping to edit and review these articles, please join! jnothman ^talk 06:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joel, Thank you for the invitation; I have joined. My main interest is in the Spinozistic Religious aspects of Judiaism; but certainly I want to help in the cultural aspects. Shalom Yesselman 14:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Greetings

Thank you, and may the New Year bring you and yours all the blessings that may be.

And congratulations on your barnstar! TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Religion

Thank you for these links, but since I see no serious conflict between faith and science I have no great interest in exploring the relationship between them much less entering into any discussion about it. I am not a seven-day creationist, and I'm afraid I wore out my patience with the subject recently trying to convince some of my less scientifically-aware co-religionists that "intelligent design", while possibly true, is not a science. Not even my bishop was able to bring them around.

By the way, if you edit someone else's words, I think it would be best to clearly indicate where. I have no idea in your Miller quotes whether or not your "immanent G-D" was the God he intended to talk about; if not, you have made him say something he did not intend. This is, I think, a discourtesy to the original writer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism, I shall try to make myself very clear in the future. Yesselman 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of mind

What is the point of this edit? Did you mean to post it on the talk page? —Ruud 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To show by analogy high the mind works; according to LeDoux. Yesselman 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to sign your name in an article (and linking to your own website is considered bas style as well). Cheers, —Ruud 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud. I stand corrected. I am new; I thought it ok in the Talk page if very relevant; but not in an article. I am 84 year old retired Structural Engineer who has worked 11 years on my web site and my quote from LeDoux is on my web site. I tried to correct it; but could not find it. I will learn, thank you. Yesselman 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK in the talk page, although it's best if you're directly discussing the content of the article. The problem is that you put it into the article instead. This appears to have been inadvertent. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Yes it was inadvertent. Does my edit still exist so that I can put it in the righr place. Again , thank you. Yesselman 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it via the page history. The easiest way would be to go to here and scroll down to the text you added. Cut it out, but don't save. Instead, go to Talk:Philosophy of mind, then "Edit this page" and paste it in at the bottom. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TCC, many, many thanks. How did you get into this and help me, do you work together with Ruud on these matters? Yesselman 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCC might have had your or my talk page on his watchlist and noticed someone posted a message on it. Or, he might have noticed I deleted the piece of text you wrote and investigated why I did this. It happens quite often that people just bumb into conversations. Cheers and happy editing, —Ruud 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud, thank you for your many courtesies in this matter. What a wonderful Wikipedia experience I have had in this matter. I have learned a lot. Yesselman 18:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud is correct. Pages I edit go onto my watchlist by default. I therefore saw the recent exchange and thought I might save you some time by telling you what you wanted to know in the event that Ruud was unable to get back to you promptly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You both are marvelous fellows. I don't know how you get the time; I couldn't when I was working. Your's is a labor of real love. Yesselman 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Religion

Please don't modify posts after the fact, even your own, especially after others have responded to them, without somehow preserving the original information in context. The talk pages are supposed to represent a record of discussions on the subject of the article. By modifying individual posts you modify the context of replies, and often (as in this case) render them non-sensical. (One might, I suppose, show deleted information in <s>~~strikethrough~~</s> format and new text in italics, but the ideal is that you don't modify it at all. Heh. Other than to fix minor typos, anyway.)

If what you're trying to do is to develop article content incrementally, the talk page is the wrong place for that. Temporary pages used for this purpose are called "Sandboxes", and you can create as many as you like in your userspace. For example: User:Yesselman/Sandbox/Religion Cash Value will create a page in that location you can edit as you please for your own reference. Wikipedia userspace is not intended to function as a blog, so it's good form to limit this to developing article content.

I find it convenient to create something like User:Yesselman/Sandbox as its own page with wikilinks to the subpages below it so that you have a handy index for content you're developing. (As I preview this I see that you already have. Many users prefer keeping it as an index page and use individual subpages to develop content, as above.)

You might want to get into the habit of liberal use of the Preview button so that each of your final edits don't entail a series of incremental edits. This clutters up the history, which annoys some editors. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your guidance and good advice. I especially appreciate learning <s>~~strikethrough~~<s>. Yesselman 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll need to ignore the typo in my example. You open a struck through section with <s> and you close it with </s>, and I attempted to illustrate that above. As you probably noticed, the visible tags were not those that actually drew the line, but were merely for display purposes, and I unfortunately typed <s> instead of </s> to show the closing tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External linking

Hi, Yesselman. 1) It is not appropriate to place external links to commercial websites (like a bookstore) into an article as you did here. Linking the ISBN number without an intervening colon (ISBN 0684836599) provides an unbiased way to locate the published source in either a library or bookstore of choice if desired. 2) External links in articles should be minimized in the text body and placed in the External links or References sections if at all possible, because they are difficult to maintain. --Blainster 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blainster; Thank you for your constructive criticism, and I will promply comply and put it in the External Links or Talk/page.

On my users page, I have written this:

== Bibliography ==

It will be a happy day when referenced page numbers, given herein, are electronically available. The technology is now available; but the copy-right problems need to be resolved.

This was my motive in linking the ISBN. I respectfully ask you to re-consider this policy in this, I think, exceptional case. Kindly let me me know if you will re-consider, so that I can start to make the correction.

Another consideration is that I have linked only to Amazon and I think Amazon is an institution these days, much like Microsoft and Google. Amazon has done a marvelous job in making this 'Look Inside the Book' feature available. It certainly makes the day for 'page search' closer.

Another consideration is that the bulk of these links occur only in Talk/Pages; the one you refer to, I unthinkingly placed in an Article. If you so decide, I shall promptly correct it and search for such others in Articles.

Thank you. Yesselman 15:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The G-D thing

I'm well aware that it's a Jewish tradition to spell the word "God" with a dash. However, it comes across as very POV to apply that standard within the context of an encyclopedia. A reader shouldn't be able to tell who wrote the article and from what viewpoint--and by dashifying the word "God" you betray a bias (whether actual or merely perceived).

Think about it. Rob 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rob: Thank you for your prompt reply.

I am new to Wikipedia (two months) and still learning.

My comment is on a Talk Page; not on an encyclopedic Article Page. I thought on a Talk Page there is more leeway.

A more serious thought; how is it possible to write on a philosopher without an inkling of POV—love or hate? I guess you can, if you make a sufficiently clear disclaimer that you are giving the philosopher's opinion, and make clear there some who agree and some who disagree. For one devoted to a philosopher, I think it is very difficult thing not to show your POV.

Therefore Talk Pages are a good solution. Yesselman 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza talk page entry

Yesselman, I am wondering about your last entry on the Talk:Baruch Spinoza. The talk page is for discussion between editors about how to improve the article. You inserted long quotations from author Wolfson about Spinoza, but without reference to the article itself or responding to another editor. It appears that you are trying to conduct a discussion on Spinoza here rather than work on the article itself. Please see Wikipedia:Talk pages and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for official policy on acceptable use. Thanks. --Blainster 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> without reference to the article itself or responding to another editor

Dear Blainster, thank you for constructive critique. I have removed the edit "Wolfson on Spinoza." Would it be more proper to put the entry on Wolfson talk page? Yesselman 14:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed with the quality of your contributions. The issue is that some of them are not focused on the article, and thus do not directly contribute to build a better Wiki. Moving it from one talk page to another does not really address the concern. Certainly Wolfson's book could be included in the bibliography in the Spinoza article. But the material now on the Harry Wolfson talk page discusses a book of his that is not even mentioned (by title) in that article either. It would be better to cite the book in the article and say something about its content there. Also, it is more beneficial to readers for you to summarize content in your own words than to quote long passages. Any published commentary could be mentioned, but remember that to add your own analysis of a book is considered original research, and should not be included either in the article or on the talk page. Where our own opinions come in, is in discussion with other editors on a talk page about what material should be left out or included, or what wording to use. Forgive me if I am incorrect about this assumption, but some of your discussions on the talk pages, even though they draw on material in the article, do not suggest any changes to it, and thus seem to be made with the intent of making a point or starting a discussion for its own sake, rather than simply trying to improve the article. Best wishes with your work. --Blainster 21:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote request

Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is Wiktionary:anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 67.70.68.51 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viva

Is Yesselman deceased?98.110.116.73 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]