User talk:TL-WP-CA

Improving articles, and responding to criticism
Hello TL-WP-CA, and thanks for your very pleasant note on my talk-page. This is one of those rare opportunities to show wikipedia's workings "behind the scenes" to a new editor (yourself). To be honest, I can't see why that particular notice was added, and if the article had been on my watchlist when the notice was added, I'd have challenged it, not because it's "wrong' (we really don't need to go there) but because I don't see any confusion in the article's treatment of Biblical and modern fictional narratives or sources. I think this might be why your attempt at further clarification ended up more-or-less repeating what's already in the article. The only issue I can see is the inclusion of Josephus' account under 'Biblical'; Josephus was a Jewish historian, not an author of Biblical (rather, New Testament) text or commentary, and might be better placed under a new heading - something like "Contemporary accounts', or even plain 'Josephus'. Other than that, just read, and read, the best secondary sources you can find. As far as I can tell, nobody has the least idea what dance Salome performed, assuming she danced at all. I'm sure there have been many guesses, some better informed and more scholarly than others.

In circumstances like this, it can really help to see why a notice was added. Open the 'article history' tab, then open the '500' tab. Looking at the article history, the notice was added in this edit:. The editor gave an edit summary, offering reasons for adding the tag. More information on the talk-page might have helped. If the article had been on my watchlist at the time, I'd have entered into a dialog about the issue on the article talk-page, having boldly removed the notice and inserted a new /additional heading (as above). Hopefully, a consensus would have been reached on the talk-page as to whether the notice was justified or not. But that wasn't to be the case. I placed the article on my watchlist only a few weeks ago, after having removed some attempted publicity. It's not a topic I know much about.

I should warn you that an even-handed WP:NPOV encyclopedic treatment of Biblical material can pose a particular challenge for some editors. I'm not going to advise you to edit or not to edit such articles. I tend to avoid them. Just please make sure that what you do conforms to Wikipedia's general editing and evidence-based policies. Best of luck! Haploidavey (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

PS: I also note what you said about fact versus fiction. People like to know which is which, but in history and religion, things are seldom so divisible or conveniently clear-cut. Haploidavey (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Attributing translations
While reviewing Isa Silveira Leal, I noticed it was translated from the Portuguese or Spanish article. What was the source language? Note that copying text within Wikipedia, including translations, require attribution. You can read more about it at WP:TFOLWP. You can indicate the source project in the talk page using the Translated page. Let me know if I can help. Best, MarioGom (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)