User talk:Nycarchitecture212

Reminder[edit]

Hello, Nycarchitecture212,

I realize you don't know me but the discussion on ANI isn't going your way right now but I wanted to make one more stab at explaining Wikipedia to you. The project doesn't care about your opinions or my opinions. It doesn't matter how much you have studied the literature, how knowledgeable you think you are. And you very well may be an expert! But content on Wikipedia is not based on your ideas or original research, in fact, editor interpretation is specifically not just discouraged but editors can be blocked over inserting their own original research into articles and it can result in articles being deleted. Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources which are independent, secondary sources (not primary sources like scriptures) that provide significant coverage of a subject. So, if you can't accept that the content of articles might disagree with your own beliefs about a subject, I don't see how you can work on a collaborative editing project like this one. Perhaps your writing is more suited to a personal blog or website where you don't need to maintain these standards. Or, you could set about writing a book yourself and if it is accepted and reviewed by the academic and literary community, then we might possibly use it as a source. But as a regular editor, today, you can't introduce your own interpretations of any type of literature or concept into articles. It will just be removed or reverted.

If you can agree to abide by this "no original research" policy, then I think Wikipedia might benefit from your contributions. But if you find this policy unacceptable, then your tenure here is likely not to last much longer. We all have to live with policies that might not agree with, and we don't just tolerate them, we have to enforce them as well. It's the core of Wikipedia and you'll have to decide whether or not that's something you can live with. Thank you for your contributions so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out and for the advice. I understand the concerns about original research, but I believe that is not the issue here. I want to address most recently the changes to the "Messiah in Judaism" article. My edits there were intended to clarify established facts, not introduce novel interpretations. I was very surprised when I came across the article. The article, as it currently stands, contains critical inaccuracies regarding Jewish messianic beliefs, which severely undermines its value to readers. Now that you have explained, I can approach it with secondary sources. The reason I initially relied on primary sources is that I noticed many biblical topics written by others in other articles were similarly sourced. However, the other editor completely removing my edits seems excessive and counterproductive to collaboration. Applying a tag for better sources would have been more constructive, allowing me to enhance the article with stronger references and ensuring that readers receive the full value and accuracy they deserve.

The claim in the article that messianic belief was initially considered marginal is unfounded and misleads readers about a central aspect of Jewish faith. I have updated this with sourced content from the Talmud, which has been a foundational text in Jewish tradition for over 1500 years, demonstrating the longstanding centrality of this belief. This contrasts with the article's current characterization that suggests the concept of the Messiah was first codified in Maimonides' 13 principles of Faith. These are basic facts and not by any means controversial. If I can obtain secondary sources that comprehensively cover this topic, how should I proceed to update the article without encountering aggressive opposition from the other user? Secondly, the misrepresentation in the Talmud regarding Cyrus and the incorrect assertion that Jews believe the messiah can be non-Jewish need to be corrected. These are not disputed points; they are fundamental errors that misinform readers about key tenets of Jewish belief. My aim when editing this article was to rectify these critical mistakes in what I thought was a straightforward edit.

This situation reminds me of the contrasting approaches to Torah study between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer, celebrated in Pirkei Avot as a "plastered well that never loses a drop" exemplified a tradition-bound approach to Oral Torah, emphasizing the preservation and transmission of teachings. In contrast his student Rabbi Akiva, known for deriving extensive laws from the Torah's text, adopted a methodology that favored innovation and the exploration of knowledge.

Rabbi Akiva remarked after his passing “I have many coins,” indicating his vast knowledge of Torah, even beyond the comprehensive details taught by Rabbi Eliezer. However, he recognized the need of further insights, saying, “I have no money-changer to check them with” highlighting the importance of having a knowledgeable mentor to discern the value of one’s findings, much like a money-changer who distinguishes between genuine and counterfeit coins.

Similarly, in the context of Wikipedia, the dynamic interplay between contributors with unique insights and those with a deep understanding of Wikipedia's editorial standards is crucial. This interaction can lead to enriched content and a more vibrant community. I have observed some contributors enhancing the platform by refining contributions and adding depth, while others may hastily erase work, overlooking the potential for collaborative improvement. This dynamic mirrors the broader principle of balancing innovation with tradition, where each element tests and strengthens the other. I am millions of magnitudes away from their level but I aspire to be like both, bold like Rabbi Akiva while strict and disciplined like his teacher Rabbi Eliezer to only speak on matters that I know for sure because they are well-sourced. Thank you for reading and with a little initial mentorship, I believe I can significantly contribute to Wikipedia. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, wanted to follow up on this reply I took the time to write in response to your post on my talk page. I was a little surprised to not hear back. Looking forward to hearing from you. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban[edit]

Hi, NYC. I'm sorry to have to inform you that the community has supported a WP:topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed.

As you're very new here, you're going to want to understand what is meant by broadly construed. It means you can't edit anything that touches on Judaism at all. This is unfortunately a very broad topic, and it includes discussing the topic on talk pages or anywhere else. I strongly encourage you to go edit architecture topics; stay away from synagogues etc.

If you're in any doubt at all whether editing a topic might violate your topic ban, come back in here first and ask for advice from an admin; to do that you can simply open a new section and place {{Admin help}} in that section. An admin will be along shortly. That kind of discussion, here on your talk page with an admin you're seeking advice from, is the only exception to the topic ban.

This ban can be appealed after six months of editing other topics, by which point we hope you'll have learned a bit more about how we assess sources. In case you're tempted, do not under any circumstances start editing under a new account before this topic ban is lifted; that is considered WP:sockpuppetry to evade a ban, and it will get you banned completely from editing. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, and no worries on that, I'm not interested in doing that if my contributions on that topic are not welcome at this time. I know everything is for the best and I'm not worried about it. Hopefully in 6 months the situation has changed. Hope you have a nice day. All the best. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to you. Valereee (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone pointed out that you might not be familiar with what an 'indefinite' ban means. It means the ban is in effect until it's lifted -- that is, you can appeal it in six months, but it doesn't automatically expire then. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that the first time. As mentioned, I know everything is for the best and I'm not worried about it. Hopefully in 6 months the situation has changed. Hope you have a nice day. All the best. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]