User talk:Misha Wolf

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me understand what is the correct way to include information about Andy Votel's Vertigo Mixed^[1] album on Linda Hoyle's page. Andy Votel's album uses material by Linda Hoyle. Thanks!

Misha Wolf (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears Andy Votel's album makes use of material from many people. I don't think it's appropriate to mention that on all the other articles, and I see no reason to single out Hoyle. Are there reliable sources discussing that Hoyle's songs are being re-used by others? If so, we could summarize what they say, but if the only source is a track listing that, from the Hoyle article's point of view, offers nothing but a name-drop, I see no advantage to discussing it. Huon (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me understand whether it is legitimate to cite quotations which appear on a Web site if one has no first-hand evidence that those statements were made. I am thinking of some of the statements quoted by Angel Air on their Web page for Linda Hoyle's The Fetch.^[1] I managed to locate one of the quotations (the one from Goldmine Magazine) on the Web and have cited it. Is it legitimate to cite the ones I have not found elsewhere on the Web? Thanks!

I've since discovered that a number of these statements have been made in emails to Linda Hoyle and/or Mo Foster. I believe that it is legitimate to cite them as such.

Misha Wolf (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If those quotes are not backed up by reliable published sources, they are inappropriate for Wikipedia. They might be suitable for a promotional blurb on the label's website, but they don't provide the context we need for encyclopedic coverage. Anything less than positive likely would not have made it onto Angel Records' website. Instead we're far better off if we locate independent reviews by reputable publications and summarize what those have to say about the album - the good and the bad (if any). In particular, emails sent to Hoyle and/or her collaborators are useless as Wikipedia references. Huon (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed those quotes. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Misha Wolf, wanted to let you know that I made a lot of changes to your Ronit Kark article. You did a really good job and I can tell you put a lot of effort into it. There were a few things I changed around like I removed the links to their profiles, took out the books and articles they published, and I had to remove a chunk of the intro because of copyright. Here's an example of kind of how these articles should sort of look (Mikhail Katz, and Shafi Goldwasser). Keep up the great work! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dr vulpes, thanks for your message. The Mikhail Katz article contains a list of publications. What makes the publications I had included in the Ronit Kark article not useful? What would I need to do to make the inclusion of (some of) them useful? Thanks

Misha Wolf (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Misha Wolf I think a better way to think about it is if it's a notable book or an important paper then I would add it. The problem is in general you get people (not you and not this article) who treat Wikipedia like it's some sort of resume/cv. So if you are going to add something just make sure it's notable or important. For example if a book has won an award or was a best seller then absolutely add it, if they published "The Handbook of XYZ" then I wouldn't include it even though it might be highly cited it's not really notable. I'm a not an IO psychologist so I can't really tell you what papers and books are the best to add because I just don't know the field well enough, but I am a health/quant psychologist so I at least sort of know what's going on. Hope that this was helpful, if you have any other questions or anything feel free to ping me and I'll come and try to help the best I can. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 16:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Misha Wolf (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks 168.121.86.156 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Dr vulpes, I see that many Wikipedia articles have Google Scholar identifiers. Why is it incorrect for the Ronit Kark article to have such an identifier? Thanks

Misha Wolf (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you can add them if you want, just stick to like Google Scholar since it gives you a nice list. You don't need to add one for ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and and and and. If you go to the page history you can just copy and paste the removed wikitext back into the article to save you time. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 16:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Misha Wolf (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Misha Wolf, I reverted your edits on this page. The sources you included (Google Drive links) are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Could you instead cite where you got these drive files from? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TheManInTheBlackHat, the quote I inserted comes from a letter signed by 143 historians and is linked to by a Washington Post story, which I cite. It's a nuisance that the historians chose to publish the text of their letter in this way, but I think that the Post's link makes it acceptable, doesn't it? Misha Wolf (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking back and I see that you did link the Post's article. Sorry about this, I've reverted by edit. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @TheManInTheBlackHat, I've just found the same statement in WordPress (see https://gath.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/historians-letter-eng-v3.pdf). Would that location be considered more reliable than Google Docs? Misha Wolf (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: I guess the problem is that the Post's link validates the Google Drive version but not the (seemingly identical) WordPress version. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Thirty-seventh government of Israel has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa, thanks for your message. I had the copyright holder's permission for including that text. I now see, at the link you provided, that there is a formal process that must be followed in such cases. I shall find out whether the copyright holder is willing to go through that process. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Diannaa. @Jonathanabujj, who owns the Web site from which the text was quoted, has now followed the process described at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others and was advised to change the copyright statement on the Web site to align with Wikipedia's requirements. He has now done so. If that is satisfactory, please could I request that you restore the deleted text. Many thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If you could tell me which article you are talking about and which website is now compatibly licensed I would be happy to take a look at it. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. The article is Nexus Task Force and the relevant Web page is here. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the revision deletion but I am not going to restore the content as the source website does not look like a scholarly high quality source. — Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two-state solution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Jonathan Jacoby. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and WP:BLP. Refs are passing mentions. Need real WP:SECONDARY sourcing.Looked at the first two ref blocks and there is nothing these. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. scope_creep^Talk 18:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Scope creep, I'm investigating additional sources to establish Jonathan Jacoby's notability. I have come across a hand-written letter from a well-known Israeli President to Jacoby, praising his work. That is, of course, not a secondary source but I imagine that it has serious weight when determining notability. Is that so? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Misha Wolf, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jonathan Jacoby, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Jacoby.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Jamiebuba}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Jamiebuba (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Misha Wolf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Community oriented primary care, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Misha Wolf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sidney Kark, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Misha Wolf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Emily Kark, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Per PAG's - it is not good form to change any talk page comment after another editor has replied to it. When there's good cause to do so, the time of the revision can be indicated with five tildes, like this17:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC) to indicate the order of commentary on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SPECIFICO, I didn't know about the five tildes trick. Thanks, I'll make a note of it.

I struck out the "1" as:

• The description given for that option in the survey ("current") was no longer correct.
• The para had changed a number of times since the start of the survey, with a lot of discussion on the Talk page. I didn't want to appear to be proposing that it be rolled back to the version of Aug 5.
• No-one else had (or has) voted for either of those options ("1" or "2").

Misha Wolf (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my edit on Nexus Project, accusing me of vandalism in the edit summary. WP:VANDALISM is deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia, not good faith edits, even if you disagree with them. My edit was adding content from an WP:RS and in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, both of which this page sorely needs attention to. If you believe the edit was inappropriate, please WP:AGF rather than making unfounded accusations or casting WP:ASPERSIONs. Happy to discuss on the article’s talk page if needed. Thanks. Longhornsg (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)