User talk:Debresser/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page

Regarding your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=553061965&oldid=552963784

This was already discussed at length here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_147#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Fladriff already concluded that it's reliable. If you have a problem, raise it on that page. Thanks. Yonoson3 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not reading the edit summary. The problem is not the source. The problem is the info itself. If you have a look at the talkpage, you'll see that there is consensus that the info I removed can not be true. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

All I see there is an anonymous I.P. editor saying that the info is, in his words, "not believable". Don't see any consensus that the info is not true. This issue was discussed at length here. Fladriff concluded there: "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board." Sounds pretty clear. Reliable source, so it belongs in the article... Yonoson3 (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a Religious Zionist, I fear to tread here. Still, Yonoson, with all due respect: Have you ever taken a course in formal logic? Any statement that "All A are B" can be refuted by a single example of "A is not B". See Haredim and Zionism: Clearly there have always been some haredi leaders that support the State of Israel, and at very least those rabbonim would never compare joining Zahal to committing murder, idolatry or gilui arayot, which is what that quote is indirectly saying. The source may well be a reliable source, and Johns Hopkins a reliable publisher. That does not mean that the authors necessarily meant that phrase absolutely literally. In fact, if in context the author did not intend to go off on the subject of which haredi rabbis disagreed, that would perhaps even have been a reasonable simplification. But literally true? If you insist on the sentence staying there, I think you must attribute it as the opinion (or at least the words) of the author. StevenJ81 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Yonoson, but the reliability of the source is not enough when a statement is so obviously exaggerated. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ashkenazi Jews". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I went there and posted. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halakha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Serge Gainsbourg

Hi Debresser. I'm writing this message to you because of your reverts on my edits about the category "Russian Jews" in the article about Serge Gainsbourg. The main problem that appears in this case is the understanding of the whole concept beyond the Russian Jews. Unlike many other ethnic groups or nationalities that are purely based on the region where the person was born or his or her predecessors historically lived, the "Russian Jews" represent an ethnolinguistic group of Jews with Russian being their native language. You can check the article about the Russian Jews to note that this includes not only the Jews that live in what nowadays is called Russia, but as well Jews that use Russian as their native language regardless of the territory of their residence. It mostly refers to the Jews from the territory of the Russian Empire, but in recent times many other Jews that populate many other parts of the world. One may say that it is so simple and you can refer to the Jews from Ukraine as "Ukrainian Jews" or to the Jews from Belarus as "Belarusian Jews", but these two designations broke the concept of the Russian Jews and tend to follow most of the other definitions about the ethnic groups, such as those about the English people, the Dutch people, or the French people. But even if we agree on the usage of "Ukrainian Jews" or "Belarusian Jews", then it doesn't restrict the usage of "Russian Jews" simply because the Jews that inhabit or descend from the territories that are now parts of Belarus or Ukraine use or used Russian as their native language. Similarly, Serge Gainsbourg is a Russian Jew from a territory that is now part of Ukraine because the language that was used in his family was Russian and the territory was once part of the Russian Empire. There are many other Russian Jews that have no association with Russia, such as Vilna Gaon, Léon Bakst or Isaac Levitan. Finally, the people are called "Russian Jews" because of the language and their historical homeland, not because of Russia today. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You convinced me. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Move template over redirect

Some time ago, Rich Farmbrough moved EngvarB to {{Use British English}}. I didn't object to it at the time as it seemed eminently sensible. However, as I broadened coverage of the script action, I have been experiencing increasing frequency of complaints such as this and this from 'nationalists' (used advisedly) because the tagging does not conform to their code of English. I'd like to have this template move reverted, but before I start the process, I'd like you advice as to how I might execute a potential merger of these templates (except Canadian and American), and what other factors I may need to consider. As I wrote the script offering only 'vanilla' British English and have no intention of creating more variants to cater for the different codes, it would be ideal if I could bring all these tagged articles back to a single repository, but with different tags tolerated, so they can be maintained centrally. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for posting here. I personally am of the opinion that those complaints were correct. We should use the more specific tags where possible. Therefore, where an article regards Australia we should use {{Use Australian English}}, where South Africa {{Use South African English}}, etc. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, I feel it is better to change the documentation of Template:Use British English. That template should not include all the other varieties of "Australian English, Indian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, Pakistani English, Singapore English, South African English" as the documentation currently says. Debresser (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand and I'm actually fine with that, and I am merely thinking along the lines of the common spellings 'controlled' by the Engvar script I created and maintain.. The script has a basic vocabulary set that are words common to the abovementioned codes of English. It's not always practical for me to tag an article with the 'correct' English variety tag because it would weigh heavily on productivity (and because there is no difference between the codes' vocabularies vis à vis the script). I was thinking along the lines of henceforth using the {{EngvarB}} as a 'generic' or umbrella tag in its own right and not one currently redirecting to {{use British English}}. Anyone could come along and make the tagging more precise if they wish. I would then regroup all the articles currently tagged with the various varieties under a new 'supercategory' without actually moving them, and any article with a EngvarB tag would remain in the super category until it is reclassified. By doing so, I would hope to avoid future complaints of nationalistic nature whilst continuing to maintain all the articles with a single script function in the simplest manner. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea (regarding the autonomous use of the EngVarB template). Debresser (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I get the total to update correctly in Template:EngvarB progress? this seems to be stuck at zero. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Still thinking about that. Please restore Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month to the category pages where you added Category:EngvarB. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you probably guess I was experimenting with just two. I was heading off to reverse them but it seems you have already done it. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I didn't revert, i just added the old categories to the new one. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take part in a new discussion

Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:

"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ([1]).

Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I added my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:New page/doc

Hi. I'm just wondering why you reverted the changes to this page, because you didn't leave an edit summary. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it said "Please update this template to reflect recent events or newly available information." which didn'tmake sense to me. Just now did the same on Template:Incomplete/doc. This seems like some drive-by tagging by IP users. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

An edit you made may have broken a reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Femme_Nikita&oldid=556797040 removed a closing <noiwiki>"</ref>"</nowiki> tag, which I repaired and then got a less than well considered message on my talk page, because in other edits you seem to have refactored content in the article.

I'd like an explnation, as I don't appreciate getting messages of concern or telling me to read policies, when the relevant contribution in question was neither iniated or performed by myself.

Closing a reference tag, should not be controversial.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review the history of La Femme Nikita, and you will see that I reverted edits by User:AnEyeSpy only. And then please review your talkpage, to see that I never posted there till today. So what are you referring to? I of course am sorry that I forgot a closing ref tag, but it seems that you are complaining not just about that. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was the editor you reverted that complained , assuming apparently that I was somehow responsible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Which you weren't, as a matter of fact. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Read Wiki Policies & Guidelines

Nikita needs work. Comments inside text started before Talk page post, before problems added up to major, for editors who do not check Talk. Like you? That was the first time I tried inline comments, after seeing warnings in movie article where differences in endings and more in DVD extended versions had obviously caused contention, so inline comments prevented future trouble. Your massive "undo" was NOT helpful.

Please be constructive, not destructive. Fix a problem or leave for someone else. Removing comments and sources that can help other editors, does not remove a problem or the need for sources.

Wiki Policies and Guidelines are helpful, to refer, and remember. After another kind, helpful, senior editor gave link, I have word count tools and wiki style, format, and guidelines all bookmarked. Quotes and source follow.

• "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

"Instead of deleting text, consider:" a long list including

• "requesting a citation by adding the tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate"
• "adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself"

• I like the show. Nikita deserves better, best.

AnEyeSpy (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here. Actually, I think the article is not in bad shape. Yes, it can be improved upon, as can be all articles. Just tagging and adding comments and then say "don't remove them - do something about it!" is a little simplistic. Your tags and comments were making things worse, rather than helping. I think we can address some specific issues ourselves, without doing too much tagging. If you would want to discuss them, let's do so (here or on the talkpage). I am willing to help. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greeting... and relevance

Greetings Debresser. Just a quick note to let you know I agree with your reversion of my reversion over at Rape by gender. Mine was really just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the removal of content which had 3 pretty serious-looking references, but as you rightly point out, not relevant. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. It is always pleasant to know that the editor you reverted doesn't hold a grudge. And it really was out of place there. Even though in another article it would have been very well written and sourced. Wish you much success and pleasure in editing Wikipedia further. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus/Book of Esther

I added a brief section to the historicity of Esther, specifically regarding historical evaluation of Esther in light of Herodotus. The article which I cited questions the historical validity of Herodotus'work. This is relevant to the historicity of Esther because Herodotus' writings offer some conflicts with what is recorded in Esther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elantz73 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not clear enough, imho, but after making an effort, i now understand what you mean, so I will the text intact. I do think it should be explained more clearly, though. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about a recent edit

I'm curious as to why you made this change?

Also, how was "(Minor.)" as an edit summary supposed to convey this information to other editors?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Minor" described the character of the edit. I removed an unneeded external link from the middle of an article. Also, why translate a name?? Debresser (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you even bother to follow the link before deleting it? I'm assuming you did not, as it didn't lead to a translation of a name.

IMHO, something like "(removed link)" would have made a more straightforward/honest/informative edit summary. Perhaps "(removed in-line external link)" if one wanted to get technical/precise about it.

In the interest of providing information to readers—and facilitating a red wikilink's evolution into a blue one—I inserted a link to de.wikipedia.org's Sylvia Hoeks article via google translate. While certainly not an optimal solution, I figure it's more helpful to readers than nothing.

If you'd be willing to assist with a better solution (i.e. getting a "Sylvia Hoeks" article started on en.Wikipedia) I'll happily share research links that I've bookmarked. As she's red linked in a number of other articles as well, it seems it would be of benefit to the wiki. I was looking into doing such, but then got sidetracked doing work at the Photography workshop.

In the mean time, I'll go ahead and restore the link and place a quote from this thread on The_Best_Offer's talk page so others know 'what's up'.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramadan (calendar month), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Undone edits

Hi! Why did you undo my edits in Template:Examples, Template:Elucidate and Template:Ambiguous? Did the cause any problem? By the way, please also provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field in the future, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. —Kri (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason is usually (to the best of my knowledge always) kept hidden, visible only when editing the source. We do not want every reason to be there in the open. That is why there are standard formulas. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Well, maybe it can be considered undesirable to have the reason displayed as a mouse-over text when reading the article. However, that is the case for a few other templates, like {{Citation needed}}, {{Cite quote}} and {{Clarify}} (for which the source have been locked), so my edits were an attempt to make this kind of templates more uniform. —Kri (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I though that would be the text displayed. You remind me that it is only mouse-over text. I'll undo my reverts. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Chabad messianism

I repeat Kri's request above: Please provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. When I undid your revision, I provided my reason: To match source. So please explain why you disagree. I'm also not so sure about this capitalization business, which is why I recommend following the source. In an article about a doctor, for instance, would you also capitalize the Doctor each time he's mentioned? -- -- -- 21:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What edit didn't have an editsummary in Chabad messianism? The word "Rebbe" should always be capitalized as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people. In this regard it does not matter if the source followed Wikipedia rules or not (except when that is possibly on purpose). Debresser (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I didn't say that there was no edit-summary. Although you did provide an edit-summary, you only wrote what you did, but not why; which is why I had to go and ask on your talk page. I do appreciate the answer you gave me here.
2. I think that in this case, since the source is quoted within quotation marks, we should change it from "the Rebbe" to "the [R]ebbe". Would you agree? -- -- -- 20:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (Fri. 4:56PM local time)

I understand your point, but imho that is not necessary here. The difference is so minor. And "the [R]ebbe" doesn't really make it clear that there wasn't a capital in the original. I think leaving it the way it is now is the easiest way out. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

OK for now.

By the way, please excuse me for giving you musar, but perhaps now in honor of Elul and the upcoming High Holy Days, it would be a good idea to remove that last Babel-userbox of yours, once and for all,

ובזכות זה תזכה לכתיבה וחתימה טובה און אסאך חסידיש נחת פון חנה שתחיה

-- -- -- 02:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jewish holidays; Shemini Atzeret

Jewish holidays

I take your point (mostly) re Rosh Hashanah and Reform Judaism. It turns out not to be particular to North American Reform, but goes back to the early founders of Reform in Germany in the 1840s. On the other hand, the article does not discuss this issue explicitly with respect to any other holiday; instead, it covers it briefly in the section on Yom Tov Sheni. So my solution is to add two sources that cover the whole issue, to address the whole matter in the Yom Tov Sheni section, and to leave it out of the Rosh Hashanah section entirely.

I saw your edit, and agree with your solution.

I did need to edit out half of a reference that you left in the Rosh Hashanah section. None of us are perfect, of course. But I mention this because I thought your edit summary about "as usual, spacing and punctuation" was a little snarky. We've worked well here over time, and I didn't see a need for that. And forgive me for learning as a schoolchild that commas and periods always go inside quotes, and that periods get two spaces after them. MoS deprecates the first and is indifferent to the second, but you didn't need to be snarky about it.

We have, and I didn't mean it snarky, just matter-of-factly. Sorry, if I offended you. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem settled and done. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret

I was thinking of putting this up for GA. Do you think it is missing any important content?

• It has Ashkenazic pronunciation, but not Sephardic/common Israeli.
• "In Israel, as well as in Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism" I wouldn't mention Reform etc. in the lead, or at least Israel and they should be mentioned separately, somehow.
• "This dual nature" should be sourced, or removed as original research.
• "Observances and Custom" should be "Observances and custom", as wp:mos doesn't allow a second capital in headers.
• I'd remove the commentary of the Vilna Gaon.

Will look further after 9 Av. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks on both matters. Have an meaningful, but not-too-difficult, fast. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and you too. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Copying discussion to Talk:Shemini Atzeret#Aiming for GA, which will be a more appropriate place to resume after 9 Av. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go there. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

613 Commandments

Regarding [2], do you have a secondary reliable source to support this? I would venture that any secondary RS, even Catholic research into their Jewish heritage, better comports with WP:RS than the raw text of the Torah in English literal translation, which remains a primary source. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is a list of commandments, not of anything else. This commandment is very well explained as "Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dog". Because that is precisely what the commandment comprises! No need for metaphors, and in any case this article is not the right place for them. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, please review the source I cited before reverting my edit. And the article should translate metaphors into their intended meaning, to avoid obvious nonsense: If I barter my dog for another animal, said beast cannot be used as a sacrificial offering. Rather, "price of a dog", in the CSB translation, is a reference to the fees of male temple prostitutes, a practice which Moses regarded as an abomination. Judaism and Christianity generally continue their opposition to "sacred prostitution" to this day. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What you call "obvious nonsense" is what Jews consider to be the Will of God. If I change my dog for your cow, then that cow may not be brought as an offering to God. What do you find to be nonsense about that? Debresser (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia is written on the basis of WP:VER and WP:RS, not one's subjective perception of truth, even insofar as concerns the Will of God. I have supplied a secondary RS for my position: an explanatory footnote in an Oxford University Press publication of recent vintage. You are relying on a primary source: a quite literal translation of the Torah. Secondary RS > primary source. My version is superior in its conformity to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Q.E.D. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note [3] no 559 describes the "price of a dog" as "apparently a euphemism for sodomy". Q.E.D.^2 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not relevant. This is the meaning, as expounded by Rashi, Ibn Ezra among others. Any source that wants to bring other non-literal meanings, is not relevant in the context of a list of commandments. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How is the actual intended meaning of the commandment not relevant? Your proposed "no interpreting metaphors, even when we have >= 2 RS" rule leads to absurd results. When the source says "Proposition 121 says it does Y, but I believe that it won't cut the mustard", do we write in the article about shearing (physics) and mustard (condiment)? And remember that's with no interpretive RS at all, but merely a common metaphor. For the commandment, the "price of a dog" metaphor is more obscure, but multiple RS tell us what this specific usage means in this specific context. What more evidence could we possibly need? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest: (a) leave literal meaning in place, adding Rashi and Ibn Ezra there as secondary sources, and (b) add footnote to DLE's preferred interpretation? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Good enough, iff Rashi and Ibn Ezra actually are correctly cited as secondary sources for Debresser's position. To be clear, <ref>Rashi</ref> doesn't count. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pray tell me why ref>Rashi ad locum/ref> would not be acceptable. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I do not think that a Christian book can be used to explain a commandment in Judaism, where it offers an interpretation that is not sanctioned by sources in Judaism. Not to mention that it deviates from the literal text, and I find it strange that you insist on adding this interpretation when it is so blatantly a deviation from the original Hebrew text. So no, this compromise will not work for me. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a "Jewish source" that says the same thing: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm item 559 Yet this you have ignored, and instead concentrated on my citation of "a Christian book". You can't use "Rashi ad locum" as a reference, because it's blatantly ambiguous. "Ad locum", as in, find it yourself, I won't tell you what the title, date of publication, or publisher are. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that I wouldn't use "ad locum" unless the verse were specified. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I only just now noticed the Jewfaq source. This source is not very reliable, and in this case might have your source or the likes of it as its source. I'll do some extensive search tomorrow among Jewish sources, and will post them here, obviously including any sources that would support the interpretation you mentioned, if such will be found. Debresser (talk)

Explanatory note just in case

I am not going to reply to the last post of this editor on the talkpage of 613 commandments. Not because I agree with him, but because I hope he will see that he is not correct. Unless he'd pursue his line of reasoning and make an edit accordingly. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My arguments? 1. practice is always as I stated, that the sources are not accompanied by publisher and date of publication. 2. the dispute involves some Christian source, which sources are themselves unclear, by the way, and Christian sources are irrelevant concerning the meaning of commandments in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Update 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, a bot pulled the RfC template. So I went ahead and archived the discussion as "closed without prejudice" along the lines of the discussion near the end. Keep me posted if you hear anything. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed. But thanks for the note. Will do. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[4]

Hello, I'm DavidLeighEllis. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:613 commandments that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that was not very civil. But then again,you are an annoyingly arrogant editor. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You strive to please? :) Debresser (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish holidays (ethnic holidays)

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at User talk:StevenJ81/sandbox.
Message added 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I appreciate the post. I am confident you'll appreciate my reply there. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I did, and thanks. Will correspond over there on this issue hereafter. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the current version in the sandbox. If you're good I'll publish, and transfer the whole discussion from the talk page over as well. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Miła 18

Debresser, because what happened there on May 8 1943 is often called Masada of Warsaw [5] or second Masada Boston9 (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not mentioned in any of the articles, so can not be linked. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence

Under the heading "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors" the policy quoted by User:Sean.hoyland states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule". Which means that his removing it was in accordance with the rules. But the policy also says that removing such edits is not mandatory, so if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it. But not in the form of a revert with an edit summary that is factually incorrect. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit". Well, it's not really your edit is it, so I can't really consider it as such. It's the edit of a blocked (on both Spanish and English Wikipedia) racist ultranationalist who compulsively lies and unethically exploits a charity for ethno-nationalist reasons through extensive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. My concern is block/ban enforcement in ARBPIA, not the nature of the edits by people who are not allowed to edit. Blocks and bans have to be enforced and someone has to enforce them. If they can't be enforced there's really no point imposing them.

Here, by the way, are some quotes from the real world by the person whose block evasion you are, in my view, facilitating and encouraging by restoring their edit whether or not that is your intent. You can google him.

• lol "palestine" does not exist, never did and never will
• Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM ISRAEL WIN
• Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim.
• Down with Islamoapes

If you have any ideas how you can help make policy enforcement in ARBPIA more effective so that people evading their blocks can't profit from their lack of ethics and are not encouraged to continue evading their blocks by other editors, let me know. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both editors, for your posts. I will check his sources carefully, and if they are correct, I'll make the edit, not in the form of a revert. Of course that does not mean an endorsement of his real-life points of view from my side. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sources checked, and references improved. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the policy more carefully, I found that it says also "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor". So, Thomas.W, I was correct when I said that "That policy bans editors, not edits." And a little further that same policy said clearly "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." With my editsummary of "That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit" I did precisely that. So your revert of my edit was based on two misunderstanding of the policy. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, my revert was not based on a misunderstanding. You reverted User:Sean.hoylands removal of an edit made by a banned user with an edit summary that implied he was wrong in doing so. He wasn't, what Sean did was in fact in total accordance with the policy. Or in other words, he was right and you were wrong. Which I pointed out when I started this thread. At the same time I also wrote that removing edits made by banned users isn't mandatory, but that reinserting material removed in accordance with the policy should be done as a normal edit, made by you and with you taking full responsibility for it ("if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it"), and not as a revert with an edit summary claiming that you're simply correcting someone else's mistake. Meaning that your "more careful review" of the policy confirms what I wrote when I started this thread. So what's new? And why the message on my talk page telling me to self-revert something? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 06:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your say my editsummary "implied" that he was wrong. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. You misunderstood. But don't apologize, if you feel you are right. Just know that you are wrong. In any case, it is in the past. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.zionism-israel.com

You might like to replace http://www.zionism-israel.com by a reliable source. That one fails WP:RS rather obviously. Zero^talk 02:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should this be an unreliable source. See http://www.zionism-israel.com/about.htm that "Zionism & Israel Center is maintained by a group of volunteers" and "We try to maintain the highest standards of academic and journalistic integrity in our work."

But I'll move your comment to the talkpage, and we'll see. Debresser (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm honesty surprised by your question, and I answered on that talk page. Zero^talk 10:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Gallery =Add nothing?

I do not agree about that that gallery did not add anything to the article. On the cortrary. Beside that it was a lot of work getting it together, it did gave a pretty good picture of the Mikveh in the past and now. I was attending a lecture about this subject at the university, and I have to say it was rather difficult for all of uss to picture how this mikveh lokked like. We asked a lot of quistions about it, and since I am not Jewis was still wandering how these places looked like, and what kind of mood they had an so on. I found ,loooking for these pictures that they seem to be secret places, dark and privat, and charming. Also shows the water to cover the entire body of capite ad calcem, the whole thing is fascinating and very interesting. I really would like to see more pictures in that article, just to be able to collect a general impression of it. Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There are ten large and beautiful pictures on that page already. I do not want to detract from your efforts, but I do not see the need for additional pictures at all on that page. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• That is of course very sad. You would have made a religion history student very happy if you would think it was OK, that, because I am not going to make a e-war over this.Hafspajen (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Missing information

My changes were discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_12#Template:Missing. It was sitting in the holding cell for 2 months, so I decided to get started on it. Also, what was wrong with my error handling? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. Sorry then. A note on the talkpage would have been helpful. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Chabad Chasidim for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chabad Chasidim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad Chasidim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Rebbes of Chabad for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rebbes of Chabad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebbes of Chabad until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ohel (Chabad)

I just noticed that someone moved this page to Ohel Chabad Lubavitch and, in the first paragraph, linked Chabad as "Chabad Lubavitch". I tried to fix the new title by putting Chabad-Lubavitch in parentheses and hyphenating it, but now I'm wondering what's going on here. The main Chabad page has not been changed, nor have I seen any renaming discussions about changing "Chabad" to "Chabad Lubavitch". Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I added my own request for an explanation to yours on the talkpage of the editor who moved this page. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

שחזור העריכה שלי על ידך

ראיתי ששחזרת את העריכה שלי. חפשתי בדף שלך, ולא להפתעתי גיליתי שאתה חב"דניק. מכיון שלא רציתי לפתוח את זה בהערות על הערך, וכמו כן אני מעדיף להמנע ממלחמת עריכות בלתי פוסקת, אני כותב את זה כאן (כאמור, הסתכלתי בדף שלך וראיתי שאנחנו אמורים להסתדר די טוב עם דיון בעברית. לנהל אותו באנגלית יהיה קצת קשה, לפחות לי. עמך הסליחה). ברור לכל לומד מסכת סוכה או הלכות סוכה, כי בסוכה ישנן שתי מצוות - לאכול ולישון. מה שחב"דניקים עושים (או לא) בסוכה, זהו עניינם הפרטי, וייתכן שהוא ראוי לאזכור בגוף הערך. אתה מוזמן לערוך אותו באוות נפשך (גם מזה אני לא אהיה מרוצה, מן הסתם, אבל אין מה לעשות, ויקיפדיה לא שייכת לי). אני חושב שהגיוני להסכים שבחלק הראשי על הערך נרשום מה שמופיע בשו"ע, ושינויים אלו או אחרים מכך, לטב או למוטב, נציין בגוף הערך. מה דעתך? (בבקשה בבקשה בבקשה תוכיח לי שאתה שונה ממה שאני חושב על החב"דניקים.) חג שמח! איל דימנט (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not even going to read all of this. Please use English. In any case, your edit is factually wrong, and has been reverted again. For your benefit I added some additional explanation in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but in your user page you wrote you can contribute with an advanced level of hebrew, so i thought it will be OK. To the case in question, your prove is unacceptable (see, for example, the Tosfot on why not bless on sleeping in the sukka). BUT, because i really hesitating that this discussion won't lead us anywhere, i doing this: i will change the Mitsva to "living in sukka". this is the term of the Torah "בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים", "תשבו כעין תדורו", and it can be interpreted by both of the sides according to the interpretation in the real world following the Minhagim. Again, Chag Sameach! איל דימנט (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eyal. And welcome to my talkpage. I live in Israel and have a perfect Hebrew. I just prefer all posts to be in English, since this is the English Wikipedia. And also because the Hebrew font here is not so clear. I did of course read your post. :) Debresser (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons makes sense. It will be hard, but I'll try Bl"n. Comment (and the really main reason I'm writing here): my name is Ayal, not Eyal (there is difference between the meanings). איל דימנט (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please tell me what the difference is. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ayal is the animal (deer). Eyal is power. Look here (the hebrew wiktionary). איל דימנט (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew "ayal" and "ayil", but "eyal" not. I do remember Rashi saying that "ayil" is called such because of the word "strength", but I seem to remember he brings an example from "ele ha'aretz". Debresser (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dovid, mostly I am on a Wikibreak until after the chagim. However, איל דימנט is correct. One important point to consider is that in Eretz Yisrael, many/most people do sleep in their sukkot, while in many parts of Chutz they do not, because of cold nighttime temperatures. There is plenty of reason and historical precedent to allow that leniency concerning sleeping when the temperature is cold, but sleeping is really an important part of the mitzvah. I'd recommend that you allow "Living in the sukkah" to remain in place, per the reasoning of איל דימנט.

Moadim l'simcha! StevenJ81 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you StevenJ81. I am well aware of the differences between Chabad and non-Chabad, Eretz Yisroel and Chutz Lo'Oretz. Still, the main thing of the Succah, that unites all the different customs and locales, as well as the only thing that all poskim agree that one may and must say a blessing on is eating in the Succah. And I'd say meals in the Succah are also the easiest recognizable and best-know aspect of the festival even for those Jews who do not keep the commandments themselves. In any case, the first point is clear enough. Also, Eyal Dimant is changing a consensus version, and should have discussed this on the talkpage before his edit, or at least as soon as he was reverted. It is never good to change basic information without first asking the opinion of other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

StevenJ81, please write your things here. Thank you and Chag Sameach. איל דימנט (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Genocide"

Regarding Bar Kokhba revolt, please keep in mind that it's 2000 years old event while genocide is 20th century coined term for describing systematic destruction of groups driven by modern ideologies. There was no any Roman ideology for such systematic destruction, only an armed conflict in which Jews were shamefully defeated. No any difference between Roman campaigns in Gaul, Carthage and many other places, or hundreds of campaigns by other great powers. Such events may be described as massacres or ethnic cleansing, but surely not as "genocide". Describing Jewish ancient defeats as genocides is childish and unencyclopedic, and most important of all - not supported by reliable sources. Provided source is not strong enough, neither are tens in which you can find terms like "Palestinian genocide". Some sources desribe invasions by Gengis or Timur (millions killed just in Iran) also as "genocidal", but categorizing those articles under genocides still would be WP:FRINGE. So please don't take it very personal, baseless accusing really isn't necessary here. --HistorNE (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't personal. You remove a sourced category, you have explaining to do. And you are now warned, that if you do it again, you will again find yourself on WP:ANI, this time for edit-warring and removing sourced information. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see - no arguments, just threats. Very typical. To be honest, your threats are laughable more then your soldiers during revolt. :) --HistorNE (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My argument is that the information is sourced. And your post here is insulting, and will help me prove your bad faith. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Politics section on Chabad

Hi, I've noticed the back and forth editing were having on Chabad. I've taken up your suggestion to move rather than delete a subsection. But due to the fact I'm using a mobile phone I had to break up the edits into two. Now that I've moved the section, I will delete the earlier one (as it makes more sense to place political statements by Schneerson in the activities section rather than philosophy). Do you have any objections to the move?I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No problems here. You have extensively edited this article of late. I noticed you edit from a phone. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

Dear Debresser, you've reversed my deletion of the link to the Russian language because his birth certificate must have been in Russian. I object to this reversal for two reasons:

1. The phrasing is faulty because it is misleading, it gives an impression that he was Russian, but we both know that he was not Russian and he did not know the Russian language. He could not even read his birth certificate, and the placement/phrasing of the misleading link conducts the idea that it refers to Asimov, not to his unattested but supposedly existing birth certificate.

2. The practice in 1900s Russia was that all records were denominational till Stalin replaced religious registration with a national system of registry, long after Asimovs left Russia. In all probability, Isaak' birth was registered in Yiddish in Hebrew alphabet, and any certificate, if any, was also in Yiddish in Hebrew script, and all records were destroyed with all their inventory in the campaign of confiscation and destruction of the churches. The Azimovs lived in the Pale of Settlement that was dissolved only in 1905, it was not incorporated into the Russian state until Stalin instituted new apparatus.

If you want to maintain a note that Asimovs' supposed birth certificate was supposedly written in Russian, you should find another way to note it, accurately stating what you want to state that that is a Cyrillic spelling of his name. Please find a way to make it more to the point. The link to the Russian language is surely out of place in the introduction section that describes Isaac Asimov, not the peculiarity of his envisaged birth certificate. Barefact (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't feeling strongly about this from the onset, and your post has persuaded me. Thank you for posting here. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag that probably wasn't intended

I don't know what your intention was when you put the tag {{empty}} in the page User:Debresser/EditCounterOptIn.js, but what that tag does is request speedy deletion of an article because it has no content. My guess is that was not what you intended, and in any case the tag should go only in an article, not a user space page. I have removed the tag to stop the page from showing up in the list that alerts administrators to pages nominated for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. My intent was to use {{Void}}. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah! That makes more sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

Dear Debresser,

I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you personally. I was not, however, I felt that your ideas about "unacceptability" of the certain sources were based primarily, if not entirely, on your original research and personal experiences. You keep mentioning an aspect that I believe is irrelevant, so I have not addressed. Because it continues to be brought up, I will explain it here.

You say: "If anything, that and the fact that the last foreign country occupying Israel was England, are the two obvious reasons that English is so popular in Israel (no more popular than in any other country in Europe)."

First, note that the source at hand (the one you do not accept) does not dispute this view. It says, "This priority given to English is related to the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and the current status of English as a lingua franca for Jews worldwide."[6] Related to does not mean "exclusively related to," as your previous comments suggested. In other words, these could be two of several reasons. In addition, your personal disagreement with this fact, for better or worse, does not negate the reliability of the source.

Second, note that the use and priority of English in Israel has strengthened since the mandatory period. This is, indeed, in part—again, not exclusively—due to the need to communicate with Jews around the world. (See [7], collecting several reasons for the prevalence in English in Israel, among them: "the fact that the most active Jewish community outside Israel is English-speaking . . . strengthened the demand for English and the possibility of using it.") Thus, this source also repeats that one of the reasons for the priority of English in Israeli education was due to the need to communicate with the Jewish diaspora. There should be no issue with this

However, I emphasize that this fact was not the matter of dispute. Our matter of dispute was not over the reasons that English enjoys priority in Israel (which, we can see, is due to a variety of factors). Our dispute was over the source stating "the current status of English as a lingua franca for Jews worldwide." Whether or not you agree that this fact is related to (not necessarily the exclusive or primary reason as you suggest the source contended) is not relevant to our discussion about the reliability of sources. --Precision123 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your post here, and will read it later today more carefully. In general, I think it is hard to escape personal experience as a basis for our beliefs. And you do have a case here. What bothers me most is the lack of intrinsic connection between Jews and English. To give an example, it is like saying that Russian is the lingua franca of Russian Jewry. That may be true, but the statement is trivial. Please consider that. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Chabad offshoots

Thanks for the notification about your edits of Chabad offshoots. What strikes me is that your setup/writing style of the smaller branches (Liadi, Niezhin etc.) would have to be re-written somewhat as soon as someone finds additional information about the group. I'm guessing you had in mind that these dynasty pages are just stubs, so the more summarized the better, but it should be restructured if new information comes up.

On another note, I was wondering what your take is on whether or not these groups are "branches/offshoots of Chabad" or whether, to be as neutral as possible, all groups (Chabad-Lubavitch included) are branches of Chabad as founded by Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Currently, the articles reflect the Chabad-Lubavitch narrative of Chabad history.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your first remark. Yes, I think these pages are just stubs, and think that not much more information will be added to them.

On a related note, I think that some of the stubs, like for example the articles about the rebbes of Kopust, should probably be merged into the article about Kopust. I see no reason for a separate article about each one of them.

Regarding your second remark. I understand that it doesn't look neutral, but I think historical facts justify that approach. Just as Karaism will by most be considered an offshoot of Judaism, e.g. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for adminhelp

Please change {{administrator|cat=no}} on User:Bahamut0013 to {{Administrator topicon|nocat=yes}}, because a recent edit of mine to that template has changed the parameter use. Debresser (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret

This got approved GA, then tagged for reassessment. You might be interested: Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw it today on WT:JUDAISM and had a look. :) I have been busy with template editing lately, in the little free time I have. But thanks for dropping a note. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uppercase on featured article icon

Hi. I imagine whatever you are doing, you started with autism because of alphabetical order, but it is unhelpful to find an edit that makes no useful change, done with no edit summary, that causes editors who have the article watchlisted to have to click to find out what the edit was, and in this case, no reason given for the edit that makes no useful change. If you start doing this to every FA, some editors (like me) are going to see their watchlists go off and not even know why. So whatever it is you are doing, it would be helpful if you a) went to WT:FAC and let the FA community know the whys and wherefores, and b) used an edit summary, so that c) when our watchlists go off, we'll know why and not have to click to check the edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia. Are you out of your mind? What in the world would you revert a capital for? Not to mention that all other templates there have a capital, and that the name of the template itself is also with a capital. As to why I didn't leave an edit summary, because I was not there to make an edit, I was there to make a null-edit. Instead I changed a capital, and didn't even pay attention to it. Your coming here to bark about such a trivial thing is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I wonder where you learned your manners. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Same place where you learned to bite people for changing capitalization in an article on your watchlist. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Allrighty then, we will try again.

Help:Edit summary explains why and how we use edit summaries; specifically, they help other editors understand the intent of the edit, review the history of the article, and decide whether to click on the edit to doublecheck or review it. The template that we use for editors who don't use edit summaries is:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!

Now, still not knowing why you would make such a trivial and unnecessary change to an article, but assuming that maybe you started at "A" and intend to do it to all FAs, I suggested that you would want to a) use an edit summary, and b) explain to the FA community why you are going to make their watchlists go bonkers. There are many editors who have dozens, scores or hundreds of FAs watchlisted, and seeing a nonsensical edit with no edit summary -- that takes their time to investigate -- is Not A Good Thing. Now, why you were there to make a "null edit" or why you think a null edit doesn't need an edit summary (they need them even more, since editors don't know why they are made) are other issues, but I hope this is now clearer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Followup, and here is an example of how hard it can be to see minor/trivial edits, and why the edit summary is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you decided to be a pain in the ass. I know all about editsummaries. I already told you that I came to make a null-edit. Please read (and understand) my replies, before adding a lot of clutter to my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I repeat myself (I'm a Very Good Pain in the Ass): null edits need edit summaries more than even other edits. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You have now proven that you do not understand me. I came to make a null-edit. A true null-edit does not need an editsummary at all. In the process I noticed the capital, and switched it to the more correct capitalization even without paying attention, and that is why there was no editsummary. No need for reminders, and especially no need to try and bite me over such a trifle. I repeat that your original post was out of proportion, which prompted my sharp reaction. Putting an informational template on the talkpage of an editor of over 5 years with 70,000+ edits wass simply insulting. Please refrain from returning to my talkpage without good reason. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I am still here for the same reason I came here to begin with-- to get clarification and to offer a suggestion. If you are planning to make the same edit to other FAs (I may have mistakenly assumed you were starting with "A" and intended to go on through the list of 4,000 some articles, but you have not answered that question, so I still don't know), would you a) please use edit summaries, and b) please let WT:FAC know what, since many of us will have to check hundreds of items on our watchlists if that is your plan. If that is not your plan, there is no concern, nothing more needed ... but you have not yet told me that isn't the plan, or why changing an uppercase matters, so I am still asking. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not come here to get clarification, because 1. Your original post doesn't contain any question marks 2. You don't listen when I reply anyway. You came her to teach me a lesson. And that is not appreciated, not the first time, and certainly not the forth time. I'd call your repeated posts sheer insolence. If you had read at least 2 of my posts above, you would already have understood my purpose and put your worries at rest. Now per WP:NOBAN please refrain from posting here further. You are not wanted. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your revert

You reverted me here, commenting "not needed". I'm puzzled. Are there similar templates for those other uses that I'm unaware of, or is there some other reasoning at play? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the template needs to balance accuracy with being to the point. I think that the word "religion" includes "faith and other such belief system" for most editors. If you disagree with me, please feel free to raise the issue on the talkpage or anywhere else. Please drop me a note if you do. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree, that was the point of my original edit. Most users will not understand "religion" to include such things as astrology, numerology, homeopathy, racism, nationalistic bigotry, etc. Some will not even consider it to include scientology, transcendental meditation, etc. Yet all these areas have problems similar to religion articles, with walled garden sourcing being used extensively, irrespective of its basis in a belief system that carries little credence outside the wall.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had no idea you were referring to such "belief systems". But obviously a template named Template:Religion primary doesn't have the right name to gather all those things under its banner. The current template was created as a generalization of Template:Religious text primary, and you propose a further generalization. Please consider the existing templates: Template:Too few opinions and Template:Unbalanced. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately those templates address content, not sourcing. Others that come closer are Template:Third-party and Template:Primary source-inline, but neither quite hits the mark. I'd really prefer to see a template that takes a parameter to clarify the kind of faith/religion/cult/belief/etc that the problematic primary source refers to and is based upon. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy this to the talkpage, and let's continue there. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Chabad revert

Please see my response to your revert on Chabad talk page. My edit took your note into account. Let me know if there's anything further to discuss (and please undo your revert). Thanks in advance. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are presumptuous to presume I will undo my revert just because you replied. I will reply there that I still disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Please replace the incorrect protected page template at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea. That page is not semi protected but fully. I'd have put the request on the talkpage, but I see it was deleted twice already. Debresser (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see there is a second issue there. Please put <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around the protection template on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea to avoid an error category on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 23. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And could you please do the same with the protection template on Template:POTD/2013-10-14, for the same reason on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 2013. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Both  Done, well spotted. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:In popular culture

Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'll leave my opinion on the deletion proposal there. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Template sandboxes

Hi. I noted your objection at Template:Reviewer topicon/doc. Could you please comment at Template_talk:Documentation#Avoid_categorizing_template_sandboxes ? Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'll leave some comments there. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of article from template

Why do you keep removing the article Adult bar and bat mitzvah from the Template:Jewish life? Xyz7890 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

For the reason I mentioned twice in the editsummary: that it is nothing different from a bar and bat mitzvah. Moreover, I am not sure this article should exist, as it seems a fork of the regular article about bar and bat mitzvah. What is sure, is that an adult bar or bat mitzvah is not an integral part of Jewish life, for the obvious reason that normally one would have it in childhood. So here you have no less than three reasons. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This article has every reason to exist. #1 it is clearly notable. There have been several books written solely on the topic specifically of adult bar/bat mitzvahs as opposed to regular ones. There have been articles on the topic in many newspapers and magazines. Altogether, these provide a mountain of notability. #2 The guidelines as to whether or not there should be an article on Wikipedia are not based on its normality in tradition. They are based on sources and coverage. Sure, the customary age for a bar/bat mitzvah is 12/13. But there are so many people who do it at an older age, and so much coverage to prove this, that it is a noted fact of life. #3 The amount of information that can be written can be lengthy enough to be a separate article. This article is not finished yet. I am still reading through more sources. That qualifies the topic for a separate article. Xyz7890 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree the subject is notable, no problem here. The question is if it should be treated in a separate article from Bar and Bat Mitzvah. I think not. If the article would grow substantially, then perhaps. Still, all of this does not mean I agree it this article should be mentioned in the Jewish life template. Let's take this to WT:JUDAISM for further input. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcomed!

As I've seen you participate in discussion at WP:Judaism in the past, please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:European people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Chabad Kabbala section

As per your comment, I've modified my Kabbalah edit in Chabad. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Grea6t. Btw, I have your talkpage watched. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I will appreciate it to see your notes concerning my remarks in the Arab Israeli 1948 war talk page.

Hi

I will appreciate it to see your notes concerning my remarks in the Arab Israeli 1948 war talk page.

I am an Israeli, but try to be objective. I am the only Israeli regular editor in this articles, and the other editors reactions are mostly negative , as expected. It is much better to hear your opinion as well. If you are not too busy, will it be possible for you to comment in the talk page.

thanks Ykantor (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject matter. Sorry, but I don't think I can be of much help here. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jewish descent

Just when I thought there was a consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism that Jews were not, by default, Asian, there is a user of a different opinion who is reverting my edits removing these categories. I responded to him on the WP:JUDAISM talk page but it's clear he's going to plunge straight ahead. I don't want to get into an edit war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have warned him regarding WP:CONSENSUS, but on WT:JUDAISM and on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Judaism and masturbation

Hi, you reverted a recent portion of my update to this article claiming that the Talmud does not say that masturbation is not prohibited. How do you understand then Rab's statement in Niddah 13 where he says that "why is it not forbidden?" "because he merely incites the evil inclination upon himself"

Doesn't this mean that it is not prohibited? Rab literally says that. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not regarding the act of masturbation, but regarding bringing oneself to an erection "hamkshe atzmo ledaat". Debresser (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So, where does it say masturbation is prohibited then? The Talmud talks in euphemisms and gives multiple opinions. No where does it explicitly state that masturbation is prohibited. Does it?

--Daniel E Romero (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I found something in addition to "as though committed murder" and "as though served idols". In masechet Kalla Rabati (2:4) it says in addition: "hold up the coming of the Messiah" (מעכבים את המשיח).

In the same masechet (2:7), as well as in Nidda 13a, it says that such a person is "liable a death sentence" (חיבב מיתה). That already clearly shows it is forbidden, since there is no punishment without transgression.

The prohibition (איסור) is mentioned explicitly in Rambam on Mishnayot Sanhedrin 7:4, Kolbo Ch. 75, Mishneh LaMelech 21:18 (by Yosef Karo), and Tur and Shulchan Aruch and commentators there vol. Even Ha'ezer ch. 23. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Authority control?

Я прочитал Ваш ответ и полагаю, что я вправе восстановить мою версию в Catherine Asaro. У Вас ведь больше нет вопросов и претензий? И данное исправление не будет считаться "войной правок"? С уважением,--Пробегающий (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll even do it myself. Thanks for posting here in advance. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--Пробегающий (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Пробегающий removing information from various articles?Mdy66 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked the same question, even on wp:ani, and the answer is that those details he removes are now provided on wikidata. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

PROD 2 template

In making this change to the {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} template, you may have left some broken formatting.

The cat parameter of the underlying {{Ambox}} template is supposed to take an unlinked category name, not the linked category. I.e.

cat = Endorsed proposed deletions

not

cat = [[Category:Endorsed proposed deletions]]

The latter version leaves an odd "[[Category:]]" string on the page. (See this version of Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud for an example.)

I would just fix the issue myself, but I'm not so much an expert on template editing that I'm hesitant to touch one that has such wide usage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I got bold and fixed it. Spreading my wiki-wings! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I got confused with another template where the |cat= parameter should yes have brackets. Well done! Debresser (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

RfA reform

If you check WP:RFA2011 you'll see that it redirects to Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued) which is a multi-page project and is still active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The last edit on Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued) is over a year old. Or am I misunderstanding something? Debresser (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued) is a complex multi-page project. What you are looking at is the project's home page which doesn't strictly need editing. Some of the sections are transcluded sub pages which are active. Other sub pages in the project are active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I am sorry for the removal then. I would have self-reverted, but I see you were faster. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, 446 pages link to that project home page alone, not to mention 100s of links to it various sub pages. A lot of Wikipedia projects are like this, whether they appear to be active or not, or whether they contain perennial arguments. Thus, it's probably best not to remove links to them or declare them as inactive. There are no policies or guidelines that suggest if and when a project is considered inactive. It's usually left to the members themselves, and if it is, links to it are generally left intact for historical reasons and for any easy access for future reference. A quick read of the RfA Reform home page will show that the page (one of its transcluded elements) was edited as recently as 8 November, so simply checking the page history may not convey the full story. Hope this helps. Keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Filton railway station services (first) and Template:Filton railway station services (second)

FYI, the ref is defined on Filton Abbey Wood railway station, which is in principle the only place these templates will ever be called. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I know. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Template loop help

Please blank the page User:Freshh/vector.js. It was edited only once, with an edit that obviously causes a template loop, and has no use in its present for. It causes the page to appear in Category:Template loop warnings, which I have been emptying, successfully so far. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular need to do this? Mediawiki is smart enough to figure this out and not go into an infinite transclusion. Why not talk to Freshh and see if they'll do it on their own? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I had noticed only that the page was edited once a long time ago, but not that the editor is actually active. Will write him now. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

He seems to have removed it. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

For your recent edit to Category:Jews. Please don't reprimand me for doing something (which I admit that I shouldn't have done, but I felt removing some of those categories went too far), and then go and do it yourself.

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Evildoer187 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

At least you admit you should not have done that. That is a step forward. Please don't forget that I am just reverting your non-consensus edit, so your warning is really lame. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

I don't know what sect of Judaism you think I come from, but I happen to be chareidi jew not aligned with any political party or school of thought relevant to Rav Shach. My only problem was when I came to the article I saw that in the synopsis of the subjects biography, it is mentioned that he was a zealot etc. and other controversial things. I hold that that is not in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (see-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), and the article was written with bias interests. Once I did that edit, I added in honorifics. I held these do not conflict with any policy as such, but if they do I do not care for their ommission. (please refer me where this rule is in the guidelines). I just hold that the conflict of interest policy must be upheld, even if you are a chabad hassid, wikipedias standards must be kept. P.S. This is not my first time editing Wikipedia, just the I.P. address is new. P.S.S. Thank you very much for all your valuable work you have given wikipedia, it is over here that it seems you have some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.178.89 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is a policy that is not connected to the issue at hand. You seem to completely misunderstand what the subject of that policy is. Please feel free to look it up at WP:COI.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorifics and all it subsection for the relvant guideline.

In addition, please read some additional articles of rabbis and see for yourself that such is common practice on Wikipedia. You are not the first one to have tried this on this or other articles, including by the way the article about the Lubavitcher rebbe, and all have been reverted.

I am a 7 year editor with over 60,000 edits. No need to think that I am pushing some point of view. (See WP:POV , which by the way is the policy you meant above instead of WP:COI.) I know how to edit Wikipedia. Do you? Debresser (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you didn't get my point. I was trying to say that the initial synopsis is quite biased, calling him a zealot etc this is an opinionated position of the person, brought from an opinionated source. And you know this. And there is no denying this. You can carry on leaving a biased opinion on there, all it does it shows how much you care for wikipedia's quality, and all you care is for your own political agenda. It also may reflect on some of the other 60,000 edits that you have made, maybe they are also expounding your ideals and opinions? Besides for the above, what I did with honorifics is not in conflict with the article you brought at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.178.89 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you don't get my point. If reliable sources say he is a zealot, then we can write it on Wikipedia. My personal opinion is not a factor here.

Your reading of WP:HONORIFICS is incorrect, judged by common Wikipedia practice.

But you go on and insist on editing according to your opinions, and you'll be blocked soon enough.

It seems Shach even after his death attracts the likes of his: zealots and idiots. By the way, that is my personal opinion, to which I am entitled on my userpage. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Belshazzar

Answered in the diff. I don't understand why there should be so much reverts about an unsourced sentence.--Phso2 (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because you are a problematic editor, who doesn't accept that he is wrong, and insists on reverting instead of discussing? Debresser (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not revert once, i changed the formulation each time to adress your laconic diffs. You kept plainly reverting without trying to improve the article (re-adding wrong statement about this "common opinion" in the process), though it seemed rather obvious that the words in brackets ("otherwise unknown") was not referring to what Herodotus himself said.--Phso2 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Tags at Herem article

What "legitimate tags" are you talking about? Not even one of the tags was legitimate. First of all, the brick at the top of the page makes no sense at all. The article isn't very technical at all; it's perfectly straightforward in its style of expression. If the Judaic references are a bit beyond you, there are links. I read the article and had no trouble with it, even though my background is not Jewish. I notice that English is not your first language. It could be that your less-than-native fluency (you rank yourself level-3 in English, I notice) makes a text on this subject seem a bit muddy to you. I sometimes have the same trouble with a text not written in my language. Nevertheless, this article is clear and is in no way "too technical". I've seen much more technical articles -- in English -- that nobody has ever complained about (often on mathematical topics). As for your two "who?" tags, they were just thoroughly ignorant. In answer to your first "who?": Click on the link -- have a look; that name is linked -- and you'll find out who they are. In answer to your second "who?": Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal on Joshua 24:33 -- That's right in the article, at the end of the commentary that you flagged. Read on and find it. To me, these lapses suggest a problem with reading comprehension. That's quite common when the text isn't in the reader's mother tongue. There's one other thing: you reverted some textual corrections along with your restoration of the illegitimate tags. Please do not do such things. I notice that another user has also complained about you doing that. Kelisi (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Warn" me all you like! My edits are in good faith, and I think I have every reason to believe what I said just above. You are not helping Wikipedia by doing this. You are marring it. Just cut it out. Kelisi (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not rant on my talkpage.

As to my English, I think it perhaps should be level 4, but I'll leave that to others to decide. I still consider modesty a virtue.

The tags are justified, as they are asking for names of those who hold stated opinions and those names are absent. As to technical. The article is technical, because it is about Judaissm concepts that are not commonly know to the large public. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's no rant. Those are my reasons for believing that the tags are illegitimate, and they are. Furthermore, Debresser's ignorance of Judaism is in itself no reason to tag an article "too technical". We'd have to tag a great number of articles if somebody's ignorance of the article's subject were enough to warrant that. For Pete's sake, what do you think this website is for? It's full of information that lots of people don't know so that they can come here and get to know it. A reader's lack of knowledge in itself doesn't make an article "too technical". Now, forget about your threats of having me blocked. You yourself have already broken the Three-Revert Rule, which hardly puts you in a position to threaten me with blocking, and despite what you might think about your edits, they are not legitimate, and I notice that you have once again reverted some textual corrections along with your restoration of the illegitimate tags. Now, since it seems clear to me that any discussion on my part is passed off as "ranting", and since you have now violated the 3RR, the matter really should be referred to a third party, seeing as how you won't take me seriously. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to resolve the matter here, you can further understanding by answering these simple questions for me:

1. Why do you consider the article "too technical"? Can you cite some passages from it that are particularly "technical"?
2. Why do you flag "Chazal" with a "who?" when it is linked and a reader can simply click on it to find out who the Chazal are?
3. Why do you flag "Torah commentaries" with a "who?" when (a) Torah commentaries are not persons, and (b) the man who made the commentaries is named at the end ("Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal")?

If you can do that, understanding will be all the deeper.

And if you will not do that, I'll know you're not showing good faith. Kelisi (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Debresser is a rabbi, which at least implies he is knowledgeable about Judaism.

As to the second question. The {{Who}} tag is not asking what Chazal stands for, but who specifically of the sages are of that opinion.

As to the third question. Some as above. If the sage is know, Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal, then replace the words "Torah commentaries" by "Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal in his Torah commentary".

I'll need some time for the first question, but I'll get back to that within 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Anyway, as for Chazal, fair enough, but I would suggest using Template:Which instead. As for ben Yehiel Michal's commentary, yes, why don't you just rephrase the sentence that way? Whatever you do, I am going to go ahead and risk an administrator's wrath by once again correcting the textual errors. Kelisi (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Aussie

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Infobox Australia state or territory/testcases. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As an experienced editor you should know better than to edit disruptively AussieLegend (✉) 03:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I already explained to you on your talkpage that this was an edit conflict (in the technical sense). In the time you made two edits, I made one, and your two edits were lost. No reason to use insulting editsummaries [8] or paint my talkpage with warning templates. If you don't understand, that is no reason to assume bad faith. A trout for you! Debresser (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The above refers to both of your edits to Template:Infobox Australia state or territory/testcases, not just the second. The first inexplicably replaced testcases on the testcases page with a copy of the infobox code,[9] something that could be expected of a new editor, but not one with as many edits as you. The other edit that you claim was an edit conflict was not handled properly at all. If there was an edit conflict, you should have checked to see why there was an edit conflict, instead of simply overwriting what I wrote with your preferred version.[10] That was inexcusable.

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

--AussieLegend (✉) 06:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, okay. In any case, replied on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Change template

On User talk:Lovelight please replace {{RFM-Request|September 11, 2001 Attacks}} by {{subst:User:MediationBot/Opened message|case=September 11, 2001 Attacks}}. This will remove the usertalkpage from Category:Pages using deprecated templates, and is part of the deprecation process for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote. Debresser (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Debresser, I've removed the template; didn't see any point to putting the new one on, though, so I didn't bother. Cheers, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I you could please do it as requested: the reason is that the new template will link to the relevant discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is already a link to the discussion (immediately following the template, which has now been untranscluded by <nowiki>), and I see no advantage in having another one, particularly since the discussion was deleted seven years ago anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Right then, thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your help please

Hello i see that you are a Rabbi and if you would be so kind i would like your opinion on a passage i remember reading in the Talmud where Eve complained to Adam about the mode of their intercourse so Adam left her for Lilith who did not complain about Adams needs, i believe this signifies that Adam preferred anal sex, this is my interpretation and i may be wrong but can you please give me further clarification as to the meaning of this passage.--Sleeveman (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopaedia

Re my revert of your edits to the Jewish Encyclopaedia templates, please see Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Code question 2 -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I already replied there that I agree with you. You missed the same edit on Template:Jewish Encyclopedia, btw. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I did not, that was the first one I saw in my watch list but as JE relies on Cite JE obviously Cite JE should be the first one to change and I wanted to discuss it before making the second change. -- PBS (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you have changed it back -- thank you. The other edit you made changed something which was there for a reason. That is calling a redirect {{JE1906 cite}} rather than {{Cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} directly. It allows for a differentiation on those articles that use {{Cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} directly and those that use {{JE1906 cite}} which can be useful with applications like AWB. Whether it is worth doing this given an overhead of a redirect is debatable, but you did not ask if there was a reason for it before you made the change, hence no debate, and I bet you never thought there was a reason or I suspect you would have asked before doing so. -- PBS (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. Now that you mentioned it. I still don't really see the reason (meaning that I understand what you said, but do not think it is a reason good enough to keep the redirect). Would you be able to agree with that? Debresser (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Only for very nice admins

{{Adminhelp}} I've done some cleanup on Category:Pages with misplaced templates, and the 4 .js pages are basically the only thing left in this error category (I am working on Template:Merge sections). When I had a look at them, I didn't notice the category at the bottom of the page, so maybe a null-edit (opening the edit window of those 4 pages and saving without making any changes and no edit summary) will fix the error message. Would you be willing to try this for me? Debresser (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Tried that, my guess is that one of the scripts they have in their .js is calling the category. And given it's only doing it on those pages I'd guess it's the one that User:Fæ created. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I had a look, but it looks like a horrendous job searching through to find the problem. However, it is true that they all use stuff from Fæ, so it does seem likely that the problem is somewhere in there. (By the way, please forgive me for posting here, even though I'm not a very nice admin.)JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fæ is still active on commons - Commons:User:Fæ - why not drop him a line there? All admins are nice, only some are more nicer then others ;-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. I will disable the adminhelp template for the time being. It seems that User:Fæ is on a wikibreak though. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Siam and Thailand soft redirects

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Soft_redirects.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:PBS (Result: ) -- PBS (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Let me see what you wrote there about me. I think I have an idea what this is about. :) Pretty silly, if you ask me. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

SIU seal

The SIU seal is for the SIU System and for SIU Carbondale, and the new SIUE seal is totally inappropriate for both. The new seal needs a new file page. I tried to revert the seal to the actual SIU seal, but it would not revert, so I have requested administrators' assistance. GWFrog (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Deprecated template

Your recent changes appear to have broken the output when the format {{Deprecated template|Old|New|parameter}} is used. See the template documentation under "Additional" at Template:Deprecated template, or see Template:Basketball-reference for an actual example; a link to the new template is no longer provided after your changes.—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. This is a side-effect I hadn't anticipated. I'll fix it in half an hour. Have to run now. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I tired it Even thought I had found the problem. But no. If I comment out the parameter, the link is there, but with the parameter not. I asked another editor to help out. I'm sure this can wait a few days. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevance

I closed this discussion, so it would be great if you could merge the two. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done a reverse merge as per the discussion. I am working on the parameter usage, which is not the same for the two templates. As soon as I finish that, I'll update the documentation as well. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on Template:Off-topic caused a bug...

Hi. I reverted this edit of yours because I noticed a bug appearing on transcluded pages and thought your edit may have caused it:

[[Category: (month given) (year given)]] or [[Category:]] would appear immediately under the template message on all transcluded pages on a separate line; undoing your edit seems to have fixed it.

You may (or may not) wish to troubleshoot this in order to keep your last edit, not sure how important it was. Thought I'd let you know in case you disabled reversion notifications. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank yo for dropping me a note. I had seen it in reversion notifications, but still appreciate you taking the trouble to write me personally. {{Ambox}}'s documentation used to mention this, and for whatever reason this was removed. I reinstated it. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Test category

Continued from Template talk:Relevance-inline. Recommend using hidden categories to test templates in the future. -- Brianhe (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. It will still show for editors who have 'show hidden categories' activated, but it is definitely an improvement.

On a side note, the three test categories X1, X2 and X3 are all non-hidden. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Db-deprecated

There is probably still some cleanup to do (Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Wikipedia deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Can you close Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4#Template:Obsolete_template as a redirect, please? This Jay guy just relists everything. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All over it (Cfd, Mfd). Debresser (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:NPOV

Notifies you to update your comments on Template talk:NPOV#Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. since the debate continues. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Template to merge

Hello, Debresser. I have closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Template:Obsolete_template as "merge". Since you wrote "if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself", perhaps you would now like to perform the merge. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your revert at Talpiot Tomb

Why did you revert my edit on the article Talpiot Tomb? As you can see at the article you linked to, East Talpiot is in East Jerusalem. In what way is that in Israel? --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I explained myself in great detail in the edit summary. To repeat and add:

Because the link was to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel, and that is correct.

Even if you want to say that the status of that area is disputed nowadays, that does not detract from the fact that at least according to some it is Israel. It is a Wikipedia guideline to clarify that ambiguous status in the lead of all relevant articles. The lead of Talpiot Tomb already does that by clearly mentioning East Jerusalem.

In addition, it is de facto Israel. Just go there and see for yourself that Armon HaNetziv is a regular Israeli Jerusalem neighborhood. No Arabs there. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality. Apart from in politics, it has no connection to the West Bank. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not in Israel. Lets see how it's described here at Wikipedia:

East Talpiot or Armon HaNetziv is a neighborhood in southern East Jerusalem,[1] established in 1973 in the upswing of building that followed the Six-Day War, in an area unilaterally annexed to Israel. The international community considers Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to be illegal settlements,[2] but the Israeli government disputes this.[3]

It is regarded as occupied and it doesn't matter if it's "according to some in Israel". It's not "de facto Israel" just because it's occupied by them. It's not neutral and a fringe view to say that East Jerusalem is in Israel. If you don't self-revert, I will bring this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That link redirect to Rock-cut tombs in Israel, which it seems that you didn't see. There is a general article about Rock-cut tombs. But still, the big problem is that you put East Jerusalem in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert my edit on Jabel Mukaber makes no sense at all. It was an improvement with the exception of that I by mistake removed "r" of the name when I removed bold and a comma from the sentence. If you look at the edit, I removed space where it was unnecessary and updated the links. It was an improvement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I for one think the spaces and whitelines add clarity. So since you removed the "r" and the spaces and whitelines, I reverted your edit. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In what way? Compare this with this. It doesn't show different from that view, just when you edit. It's unnecessary space. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

While you can think that it "adds clarity", Wikipedia is not a place about where you decide what is clear and what is not. If you have no argument based on guidelines, then don't revert because you think it "adds clarity". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to know if you add space between a header and text in other articles. Looking at your edits, I can't see that. So it's unclear why it's needed here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If you ever started a new section on a talk page you may have noticed the spaces before and after the == and the whiteline after the section header. It is actually Wikipedia housestyle! And you didn't know that.

Also, if there is no good reason to remove or restore them, then why did you remove them, even though they were present consistently in the article? That is the strangest thing here. Comes along a new editor, and decides he needs to remake the whole style of the article. Now isn't that something that guidelines specifically warn against? Debresser (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that but nearly all articles got no space. They are unnecessary, that's why I removed it and I have explained that. However, reverting it because you think it "adds clarity" is weird and you don't do that in other articles. So you have no reason to revert my removal of that extra space. If you had done that on other articles, maybe I would have some understanding of that.

As you did not self-revert your edit, which put East Jerusalem in Israel, I can't see another action than go forward with this. I will open a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote at the talk page instead. It's better to start there. It's you who should make the case for why it's right to say that East Jerusalem is in Israel. It is not viewed as such, that is why settlements, Old City (Jerusalem) etc. are not listed or described as in Israel. That's why we don't say, amongst others, that Jerusalem is in Israel (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem). Until you get consensus on that, it's not acceptable and any edits should be reverted. So you are welcome to discuss the issue there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Think on that before you revert someone because you think that space "adds clarity", in addition to the missed "r" which could easily be added, especially when you don't change other articles to "add clarity". Removing unnecessary space is not "remaking the whole style", which can also be seen by clicking the two links I inserted as comparison. Such a claim is not understandable at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied an the talk page and agree that that is the correct second place to take this issue. We can always take dispute resolution a step further at a later time, should such be necessary.

Your edit was reverted mainly because of the "r" you removed by mistake. Reverting your changes to the layout was an additional gain. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I will reply there now.

When you start to revert those things in other articles, then maybe your action here would not be regarded as unwarranted. Read the guidelines about reverting and use common sense. If you revert any of my edits again for that reason, you will be reported. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you were reverted because you removed the letter "r" from the bold repetition of the article's title. Therefore there is nothing to report me for. If you want to thank me for fixing your typo's, you are welcome. You, on the other hand, should not be making changes to layout if that is the only thing you do on an article, or you will be reported. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you said you did it "mainly for that" but also because space "add clarity", which you don't "add" to other articles. Don't change arguments now. You didn't "fix a typo", you reverted it, when you could have only changed that. I "can change the layout" how much I want if it's consistent with the policies. I removed unnecessary space, which doesn't mean that I (who, by the way, is not a new editor, as you wrongly called me) "changed the whole layout". In addition to that, I updated the links and formatted other things so that was not "the only thing I did". Go ahead and report me if you think it's not allowed. Unless you have something constructive to add, this discussion is closed. --IRISZOOM (talk)

You shouldn't come to my talk page to tell me when discussion is closed. That is bad taste, to say the least. As I said, the layout I reverted to was 1. the consensus version for quite a while 2. the Wikipedia housestyle. I think you should have a good look at WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What was there more to discuss? What you think is "a change to a style" and that you think you can report me for removing unnecessary space? No, that's silly. In addition to that, as I've pointed out, you were wrong on several of your claims, such as that I "changed the whole style". Such silly discussions is not my type and I can end those whenever I want. In addition to that, you claim that I "only changed the layout" and that's it's not accepted and that I will be reported. You don't have any basis for such claims. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The one-time most prolific editor of Wikipedia was blocked for precisely this type of edits. Admittedly, he made them with a bot. In any case, you may not believe me, but if you think other editors will take kindly to you making unnecessary edits based on WP:ILIKEIT, then you are mistaken. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of my edits are copyedits, not "unnecessary edits based on what I like". In fact, it was you who reverted because you didn't like that I was removing unnecessary space, which you thought "adds clarity", which you dont change in other articles. So my edits are mostly rewording, updating links, removing unnecessary space etc. I do think it's both accepted and welcomed. If you don't agree and think it's a violation, you can report me as you said you would do. Until you can prove it's wrong, I will keep making edits I think are constructive. Go report me, as you say I am wrong, and we can find out who's right. I am not interesting in any meta-discussion here. Bye. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented there now. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Month abbreviations

Hi Debresser! Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Month abbreviations would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Posting there now. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

POV template

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I'm not miffed at your reversion whatsoever... in fact, I rather expected it! And that's not meant to be a snide remark... I just wanted the diffs so we could examine what the text would look like as I try to articulate the concept. I'll get a talk thread started in the near term. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understood from you using the word "boldly" that you were ready for this revert. Please let me know when you open a discussion, and I'll comment as well. Or, if you please, we could discuss it among ourselves for the mean time. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Labor Day (film)

Hi, I just wanted to know why did you remove the nomination from Labor Day (film)? I provided the reliable sources with it? Is it not worthy to be included in an article?--Jockzain (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That was a mistake of mine, which I have now undone. Thank you for coming here to ask me. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem.--Jockzain (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Committee of Union and Progress

Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'll join the discussion on a permanent basis, but I left a post with my opinion. Thank you for the invitation. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Chabad holidays

See my reply to your comment on my talk page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I follow your talkpage since I posted there. Debresser (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard

Just to let you know that due to the size of the category, I have relisted the CfD for this category on today's page. Splash - tk 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Thanks for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy anointing oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calamus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Calamus

From what I can gather most of the most expert authorities these days favour the lemongrass theory, which was also espoused by Maimonides, so I think there is a real debate, leaving aside the ridiculous cannabis palaver. Also, since there is now a whole section on the debate, it just seems wrong to be directing readers who have only read the first few paragraphs to the "right" answer as determined by Wikipedia editors, not by the experts. I understand that you may have a worry about pointing readers towards a section that includes the cannabis theory, bit I don't see any way out of that. Paul B (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I usually watch talkpages of people where I post, by the way.

Actually, that was not my worry. I dislike the idea of a link to a section for what should be a straight link to an article. but I agree it is probably the best way out. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Byzantium

This is in regards to the above mentioned article. I do not intend to enter into an edit war over the matter, but I'm afraid that this article's lead is lacking in relevant information. The lead can be greatly improved which is why I added the template. But you stated rather matter of factly that I am not to compare this article's lead to other articles, and that it is perfect for this kind of article. So tell me how is it perfect? And why should it be treated any differently to other articles? It shouldn't. The point of editing is to improve the articles standard and this one can still be greatly improved, and you can't really argue against that. I suggest that you discuss the matter on the talk page before you remove the template again, and explain your reasons for why you believe it to be "perfect" for "this article". I understand that it may not be a massive blockbuster and so won't be as big as others, but the intro can still do with some improvement. And remember that you have already reverted the edits I made twice with a reason that doesn't hold up. If you do it again you will be in violation of the 3 Reverse Rule and you may be blocked by an administrative editor. Thanks. And if you have any questions feel free to leave a message. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 21:22, 09 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD#Length says clearly "a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic", which is precisely what this lead is. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD that if you make an edit and it is reverted, the burden of proof is on you. Why didn't you open a discussion on the talkpage to establish consensus? Debresser (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

After a discussion on Project Film with another editor it was agreed that the intro was too short and incomplete. I was, however, informed that the template was not needed as the article is a stub and that the templates presence would do little to heighten the awareness that it was in need of improvement. I just thought I'd let you know. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 21:22, 09 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note. Technically however, this is not true, since the article is not marked as a stub. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. And sorry for any inconvenience. I'm still getting used to all of the rules and guidelines on wikipedia. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tziniut: Western Sephardim

Hi, I am wondering what the issue is with adding this section. Why doesn't it show up? Also, why did you move it? It is sourced and relevant. People should be able to use it and be part of this article. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is on the talkpage section you opened. You and I are both there. So let's keep the discussion centralized. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Spelling

Thanks for letting me know. According to Wiktionary, "cannot" seems to be more common, however. Graham87 03:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sephardi Jews

Dear Debresser,

I apologize for not following the correct procedure regarding this article. I don't have much experience editing Wikipedia in the past, so I did not realize how the talk page works. I actually did not realize there was a talk page. I did not mean to be disrespectful, undoing your work. I though the only availability for comments was in the short paragraph next to the actual edit.

Thanks for letting me know how the proper mechanism for editing works, 129.67.199.152 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. I suppose we can expect you to post on the talk page shortly? Debresser (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I will first look into how creating a user profile works so that my edits do not just show up with my IP address. I have only done minor edits in the past, but I would still like to start a profile for the future. Once I do, I would like to see how people feel about possibly adding or changing some of the individuals who are currently in the infobox, but if the consensus is that people are happy with the current list, I don't feel strongly that it needs to change. 129.67.199.152 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. We have had similar discussions on the infobox of Ashkenazi Jews (see Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 7) and made some changes. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Wikiproject Judaism

Debresser, I got into mini-edit wars (1R) with two users over whether to apply the People of Southwest Asian descent categories to several Jewish descent categories (for example, Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent). I was told I was arguing against consensus but I thought the problem at WP Judaism was that there was no consensus (although I thought there was a majority leaning towards not identifying every person who is "of Jewish descent" as being Asian).

I've reread portions of that long, long discussion and I still don't see a definite consensus and I just wanted to check in with you because you were a participant in that discussion. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Liz. I just now noticed your post. I agree with your understanding of that discussion, see also User_talk:Gilad55#No_consensus where I explain this in some detail. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, I'd like to get this resolved one way or the other, so I posted on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion to see if that was an appropriate forum for debating this. But the discussions there usually aren't about what parent categories applied to subcategories and I think it would result in another stalemate. I just wish this discussion was not about identity and DNA and editors could see the overall structure of the "of descent" categories. Maybe one day this pretty boring organizational topic will be less politically charged but it's not going to happen in the near future, I think. Thanks for your response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

TRPV1

Think before you revert. I made a large number of edits unrelated to the removing the superfluous month from the date parameter. Or to you think replacing "hacking" with protein engineering is removing useful information? I am trying to build an encyclopedia by improving content. I am not sure what you purpose is. Please revert your revert. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit that you undid was to remove several unused parameters and to use consistent citation formatting through out the article. This is consistent with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit which you also undid was to integrate this section of the article with the rest of Wikipedia by providing Wiki links. Boghog (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Per this discussion, the {{PBB Controls}} template is no longer used (and in fact was never used) by User:ProteinBoxBot. The Bot maintainer has therefore recommended that these templates be removed entirely. That was the rationale for this edit. Boghog (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit that you also undid was to provide proper in-line citations. The purpose of this edit was to provide a more logical ordering of sections consistent with WP:MCBMOS. Boghog (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See my revert. Boghog (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you keep the discussion on your talk page? Debresser (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Your recent editing history at TRPV1 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Boghog (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it is you who I am edit warring with, please be so kind to post this same message on your own talk page as well. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

May I remind you this edit. And we still have not had a meaningful discussion. A good start is to answer the question I asked on my talk page. Boghog (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What did you want to remind me of with that diff? I am discussing this on you with your talk page. As a matter of fact, I still don't understand why you had to come to my talk page at all. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

I confess to having made a slight error in judgment. The categories in question were added in January by an anonymous editor, after the discussion concluded in December. I made the mistake of believing you were going against consensus, and for that I apologize. That being said, you still violated the 3RR, which is grounds for a temp. block.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Evildoer187 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. At the same time, I am quite sure I did not violate the 3RR rule, please check. Debresser (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

One https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Canadian_people_of_Jewish_descent&diff=596652048&oldid=596598925

Two https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Canadian_people_of_Jewish_descent&diff=596710199&oldid=596685534

Three https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Canadian_people_of_Jewish_descent&diff=596821282&oldid=596715343

That's three reverts.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is for when there are more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period on a single article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. That is what I had in mind. Also, it is not nice to try and catch people on technicalities when you agreed already you were wrong. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you jump on me

I reverted Liz here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AAmerican_people_of_Jewish_descent&action=history) because the cat was there at the end of discussion, when it was decided there was no consensus for change in either direction. This cat was first removed in February 2014. See this diff, and check the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AAmerican_people_of_Jewish_descent&action=history

If I have made a mistake, let me know. I am human, after all.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The category was added recently (for a category page), and the discussion showed there is no consensus for it. therefore I have reverted to the last consensus version. In simple words: removed both categories. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:Gilad55#No_consensus where I explain this idea in more detail. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand that you never achieved consensus for removing the cats either. The discussion was divided, and no consensus was achieved in either direction. You had no right to remove those categories.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted myself, because I have no desire to get into a war with you. However, I'd like to point you to this passage you left on User:Yambaram's page. "I mean that when this was discussed recently, the consensus was against adding these categories. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_32". This is false. You did not achieve consensus for removal of the cats, and if you read through the discussion, it is clear that there were strong arguments against their removal, and by the discussion's end, more were in favor of leaving the cats as is than in favor of removal. Further, here is the rationalization you gave for removing the cats from Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent, "Note that they were added fairly recently, often by those same editors who are in favor.", and on my page, "Do not add categories that you know very well you have no consensus to add. See the diffs that this category was not on Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent before you came along." You removed them on the grounds that they were added after the discussion ended, so now it is clear you are moving the goal posts.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought there was a slight majority, from regular editors that not all "of Jewish descent" categories should have the "of Asian descent" parent category. Some of those editors chiming in were not active editors and I wonder if there was any off-wiki canvassing going on. I'm not sure about that but it's clear that there is disagreement on this issue and neither side can argue that they have a clear consensus on this topic so there is no moral high ground here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harper expressed it rather well on User_talk:Gilad55#No_consensus. The idea of "no consensus" is that we go back to the last not contended version. That means that these categories, which were added recently, will be removed as a no-consensus addition. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, the cats were there since December 2012. They were not removed until this month, long after it was decided that there was no consensus for removal or for addition. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself. You over-stepped your bounds this time. Obtain consensus for your change, then revert.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"The idea of "no consensus" is that we go back to the last not contended version". Both versions were strongly contended. That's what "no consensus in either direction" means. You did not have consensus for removing the cats, and yet you did anyway.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

These categories were absent till you added them a while ago. It took a while before this was noticed, but then they were contested. Ergo, reverting to a consensus version means removing them. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The categories had been there until this revert about a week ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:American_people_of_Jewish_descent&diff=595508344&oldid=588133201. Likewise, the Middle East descent category was there until you reverted it this week. If anybody needs to look at the diffs, click here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AAmerican_people_of_Jewish_descent&action=history

Either you are being dishonest, or you are not paying attention. I am personally inclined to the former, given how strongly you feel about this particular issue (as exhibited in the December discussion), but I will withhold judgment.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about your "personal inclinations", and not you are to judge me. That having said, it is you who conveniently forgets that until you came along the categories weren't there. See this and following edits. That is what I have been saying the whole time, that you added these categories recently and without consensus. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Snap! That's a convincing diff, Debresser. The category wasn't there before December 2013. Maybe this disagreement should be moved to Dispute Resolution....I really hate to cover all of the ground that occurred at WikiProject Judaism yet again but I have the feeling this difference of opinion isn't going away and maybe we can get it settled one way or the other. Of course, DRN is voluntary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you even look at his diff, Liz? It was from December 2012, not 2013. The categories were there almost continuously from that date until you removed them this month (February 2014), long after the dispute in late 2013 ended. If you had achieved consensus for removing the cats in the December 2013 discussion, you would have been well within your right to remove them. However, the discussion ended in a stalemate, so neither of us had the right to make any further changes, but you did anyway. That's the point I've been trying to make. And Debresser, I am well within my right to judge you based on your actions. Even WP:AGF has its limits. If constructive criticism is not something you can handle, then why are you here?Evildoer187 (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was made a year ago, and it does not have consensus. It is simple. All the rest, about AGF and my abilities to handle etc. is WP:NPA. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And you have failed to obtain consensus to remove it. The categories were there before the discussion began and were not removed at any point through the duration of the debate. They were not removed until February. Why exactly is this so hard for you to grasp? I have also noticed that despite this, you are edit warring two other editors over it as we speak. Do not think for even a moment that rules on edit warring and violating consensus (both of which you are doing) do not apply to you as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Evildoer187, I thought the diff was from December 2013, not 2012. As for the discussion, I was unclear on what the "no consensus" results of a discussion were. I didn't think that it meant no future edits could ever be made on the subject and I'd like to see where on WP that is explained. I just thought it meant that there was no definitive decision, not a moratorium on future edits.

By the way, what did you think of the idea of dispute resolution? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion ended in somewhat of a stalemate, although I felt we did have the majority, which is why I initially restored the cats on Canadian people of Jewish descent. However, it is clear there are a lot of people on both sides who feel strongly about this, and I don't particularly relish the idea of getting into another protracted debate over it. My preference would be to wait a few months for things to cool down, then start a new discussion. My issue with Debresser was how he had resolved to take matters into his own hands and remove categories that had been there for at least a year, despite never having achieved consensus to remove them. I'd rather just leave it alone for a while, and discuss it when things have calmed down.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

While I am not eager to launch back into this debate (which was exhausting the first time), there were a lot of editors who wandered in and out of that discussion, airing their opinions and then disappearing. Plus, there are different editors working on gender, ethnic and religious categories and I don't think an informal "hands off" agreement between the three of us will prevent other editors from adding or removing categories. So, it's either let's dive into this mediation now (hopefully, one last time) or keep close eye on all of these categories for months and explaining to every new editor why their edits are being reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, I am inclined to the latter. Getting into another debate about this is just not something I am up for right now. I have enough on my plate as it is (real life obligations), and there are a bevy of other articles I wish to work on. The categories in question are already on my watch list, so I doubt any further changes will be made without me noticing it.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

outdent@Evildoer187 One year is not considered much on a category page. Especially not since the edit was made by an editor who was involved in the discussion which took place later. @ All I also don't want to go through the whole thing again, but I will not relent, believing honestly that the category is wrong and in violation of consensus. The first argument is personal, even though many have agreed with me in that discussion, enough to claim a majority I think, but the second argument is straightforward. I see only two ways out: an agreement from my Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to remove the category in view of the previously shown lack of consensus for it, or a procedural discussion at a location I am not yet certain of to enforce its removal in view of that same lack of consensus. I leave it to Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to decide which it will be. Since I am certain that I understand the Wikipedia rules and guidelines correctly in this case, and have the personal conviction to want to bring this issue to its conclusion, I prefer the first, as being the easiest way to end this. In any case, I think no discussion will re-open the debate, however much some will try to do so. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the categories were there and you didn't have consensus to remove them. As much as you proclaim that you had a majority, anyone who actually looks at the discussion will see otherwise. Editors Kitty1983 and Yambaram also reverted you a couple of times. That's at least 4 active editors who disagree with you, not to mention others such as Ankh, Camelbinky, JSteven, etc who came out against you in the discussion itself. How you could possibly call that consensus for removal is beyond me.

I will not agree to your first proposal, because I still believe you are wrong. My argument is also personal, as were several others on both sides, and borne of a desire for accuracy. That being said, I am too busy (not to mention too old) to waste my day here chasing moving goal posts.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am sure of this. You pointed out some editors who recently reverted me. I can point to Liz and Iryna Harpy who reverted you and them alongside me. And see the unexpected agreement of Nishidani on Category talk:People of Jewish descent‎. I agree with you that this is a matter of debate, in which we hold opposite positions. I do claim that there was a majority against, but even if the conclusion was "no consensus", your recent addition of those categories (by which I do mean December 2012 also) should be undone as not having acquired consensus. That is the point I will be arguing, as soon as I will go back to working 8 hours a day instead of 14. Debresser (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely why I said "no consensus", because there are too many people on both sides who disagree, and vehemently so. You don't get to remove something unless you have consensus for removing it, and you don't. And since the cats were there before the dispute began, you violated consensus.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Gentle notice for you

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Almasworld (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Completely correct. In view of the efforts of two editors acting against consensus, I asked two other involved editors to help. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it mindboggling that a week-old account, with 35 edits, is leaving a warning on your talk page about canvassing. This is clearly an experienced editor who either has an alternative account or one who is shedding a previous identity. Is that you, Yambaram?

You left notices on two editors' talk pages who were already discussing this topic and were involved, that doesn't sound like canvassing to me but communication. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz. My point precisely. In addition, this tagging of an experienced editor's talkpage with standard messages, is often perceived as insulting. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am amused at the use of the adjective "gentle" in this situation.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Debresser made open appeals to both you and Iryna Harpy to revert me, since he obviously passed his 3RR limit. That sounds like canvassing to me. Why Almasworld's editing resume should factor into this, I have no idea. If there is a rule here supporting such selectiveness that I missed, I'd love to see it.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. That is not canvassing. That is openly asking for help. Precisely. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2013

Actually, as per what Liz says (who is a user who is on your side in this topic of debate): "There was a months-long discussion at WP:WikiProject Judaism and it was far from resolved, with a slight majority arguing against labeling all people of Jewish descent (not Jewish, of Jewish descent) as being "Asian"." I'm not sure if you haven't had a chance to look at the debate at Archive 32, Debresser, but there is a majority in favour, and I reverted your deletion based on that majority, which I did not feel was an unreasonable decision on my part. Clearly I haven't made up that majority, or it wouldn't be mentioned on Liz's page as well. Also, please do not use emotionally loaded and impolite terms like "outrageous" on people's talk pages. This is the first time we've spoken in person and I don't feel rudeness was called for; this is an encyclopedia and a forum for rational debate, not your personal boxing ring. If you do intend to post on my talk page again, I'm happy to speak about this further, but I would appreciate if you would do so in a calmer fashion. Thank you. Kitty (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was part of that discussion (I suppose there was only one major discussion about this subject this year), and remember it very well, including the conclusion that there is no consensus for addition of Asian and (less outspoken majority) Middle Eastern categories to Jewish category pages. I do not understand how you could have come to any other conclusion. If I was a little too outspoken, I still find your revert unsupported by that discussion, if not directly in contradiction to its conclusions, so I think that you should have refrained from that revert. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And no consensus for removal either. What part of that do you not understand? I counted the editors on our side, and those against us. We had 11, you had 7. That in no way constitutes consensus for removal.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand the principal rule here. An addition that does not find consensus will be reverted. That is the default. The default is always: revert to the last unchallenged version. What do you not understand here? Perhaps you should read WP:NOCONSENSUS. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The version you proposed was not unchallenged. That's my point.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Debresser :) That's fair enough. My stance on this is that at the time, as Evildoer mentions, there were 11 people speaking for and 7 against. Both sides do, of course, have good points. But I do believe the number of speakers in favour is entirely relevant as well (especially as gaining a complete agreement between both sides on an issue such as this would be an impossible task from the start), and I think that it's reasonable for the categories to be kept in light of the prevalence of Semitic y-DNA markers even in non-Mizrachi populations, so I made the decision to revert based on that. If we go by the logic of absolute consensus needed for any category to be kept anywhere, things could end up pretty chaotic on Wikipedia, since of course the odds are people are going to disagree with each other about almost anything, so isn't the majority relevant as well? Kitty (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not remember this clearly at the moment, but I think of those in favor (and I did not say I agree with your count, since I haven't review this carefully yet, just speaking from memory), a few were one-time contributions to the discussion without much of an argument. I would need to review it more carefully, but please also consider that in counting votes (and remember also WP:NOVOTE) it says specifically to pay attention to the arguments. If an editor just "tags" the discussion with his unexplained opinion, that does not count for much. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the people who posted in favor explained why, from what I've seen. Either way, does it matter if they were active in the dispute? I feel like we're just grasping at straws now.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter. If you have been involved in AfD or CfD debates (and I believe you have), you know it's not like an RfA where there is a straight vote count and I don't think that accounts that appeared out of nowhere to support or oppose and then disappeared should be weighed as heavily as the opinions of long-time editors in this field (and, by the way, I don't count myself as one of them).

This is all moot though because in Dispute Resolution, we will all have a chance to present our argument and the mediator will help negotiate consensus. In DR, only the named parties participate and there won't be any newly created accounts weighing in with agreement to one side or another. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish descent

You make an excellent point, there (sorry to bring it here, but I'm so done with that conversation for now). Who'd have thought it'd come to you, Nishidani, and me on the same side of a question? Maybe we could solve the problem by turning it around and forbidding all descent categories except Category:People of Edenic descent and then just add it to every article about a person?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we have disagreed on most issues. I see it as an indication that we are on the right track here. May I quote your post here as an agreement with my point of view in this matter in further discussion? Debresser (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. John 18:20.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha. An anti-Semite verse if ever I saw one. :) Debresser (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox World Triathlon Series

Last December, you tagged {{Infobox World Triathlon Series}} for speedy deletion. The tag appears malformed, and the template is still there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Nominated for regular deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 3. Debresser (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some users in the Ashkenazi section who completely disregard consensus and additional articles

I'm making this section, because a user called "Evildoer187" edits and cherry picks as he wills regardless of consensus and additional articles. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

His non-consensus editing is well-know to me and other editors, but since he seems (at least) to follow the rules and seems (at least) to be seriously convinced of his case, we have to go through a lot of writing to deal with this editor. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sephardi Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sasson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no better link than the disambiguation page in that case. Sasson (surname) doesn't exist yet. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Template names in articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halakha&diff=601388843&oldid=601347946

Inline, small and/or low-impact templates seem to use lowercase, while standalone, larger and/or more significant ones sport sentence case. At least, that's the tendency I've noticed while editing. If that is the rationale, it seems worthwhile from here. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case. I think it is a matter of who is used to what. Some users just never write capitals; some people never use them in text messages. I was raised to be particular about this, and so I am on Wikipedia as well. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And fortunately the software is case insensitive when it comes to first letters, so you can both have your ways! How often does that happen on Wikipedia?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 1001, that is true. And, by the way, feel free to stalk my talk page. :) Debresser (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories

Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)