User talk:Debresser/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Favicon #18 and #19

http://www.quantummuse.com https://advertise.baltimoresun.com/portal/page/portal/Baltimore%20Sun/FAQ Zero^talk 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am so grateful! 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I ever saw that second link. It must be that the favicon was previously used on more baltimoresun pages. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can find several more. Go to http://images.google.com and click on the little camera at the end of the search box. Enter the URL of one of your favicon's and it will search for similar images. I think most of them will give some hit, though you can't be sure it is the original page using the favicon. I believe Bing also has a type of search that looks for similar images. Zero^talk 09:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried that, and even found one or two, but the ones that are left I couldn't solve in this way. Maybe I'll try it again, since it is about two years since I last tried that. Thanks for the idea. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They must have improved it, since that is how I found those two. And I only tried 3 of them. Zero^talk 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I used the tool today, and found a few more. Thanks to you the number of 'orphans' is down to 11. That is the largest change I have ever had in one day. And one more icon was also found by the tool, just that I couldn't reproduce it. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nahum the Mede

Your heavy-handed reverting does you no credit. Twice you've reverted my edits to restore factually incorrect material that mischaracterises what the cited source says. In fact, to say almost the opposite of what the cited source says. Could you please actually read the source and stop behaving in a WP:OWN manner? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:OWN accusation is not appreciated, and should not be used to defend yourself against my reverts of your bad edits.

Your accusation that I have not read the source is also a bad faith accusation, and not only does not do you credit, but is against a Wikipedia guideline. It is untrue as well, and was, frankly speaking, pretty stupid, in view of the fact that my latest edit summary indicates that I had in fact read the source beforehand.

If you want to discuss the issue, neutrally, without personal attacks, on the talkpage of the article, please do so. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm out of line. I apologise and I'd be happy to blank this. I'll post again at the article talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I think I'll just drop this. Happy to leave it with you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod

Please stop with your patronising comments. They help nobody. Cassianto^Talk 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I rephrased it. Still, it is the truth. If an editor makes lame reverts, they get templated like a newbie. Debresser (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No they don't. You're being a dick and you need to stop. I see you're now being disruptive by trying to edit war. It's not worth the effort to revert you again so I'll let John decide if he wants to keep it on there. Cassianto^Talk 07:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the one trying to edit war?!

You call me "a dick" and revert my edit where I said another editor behaves lie a newbie. That is large! :) Please don't complain if you get templated as well. You deserve it. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly a troublesome editor with a deficiency in social skills. Because of that, I suggest you go and be troublesome somewhere else on your own rather than troll my talk page or others. I don't have anything further to say to you. Cassianto^Talk 08:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It is you, who decided to comment on my post on somebody else's talkpage, and then on my talkpage with obscenities. I think the problematic editor, in all respects, is you. Goodbye. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ayal

Take a look at this edit and at Kohen Gadol. I can't figure out where the editor is coming from. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Doug Weller, I'm not sure if Debresser will be back until next week (after Passover). But for what it's worth, it seems pretty clear to me that the user at hand has some kind of eschatological agenda, at least part of which trickles over into WP:FRINGE. Moreover, he added an UNSOURCED fact about an otherwise unknown (not NOTABLE) individual who is apparently living (BLP violation). So I think you were well-justified in reverting at Davidic line. And as you well know, the individual's talk page is already loaded with warnings. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I am here. I cleaned my computer for Pesach. :) Debresser (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Moed tov. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No, really. :) You too "a gut moyed", in Yiddish, or "mo'adim lesimcha", if you prefer Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for a second set of eyes on something

Hi, Dovid. This can certainly wait until after yom tov, but I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at something I've recently put together. I've never been happy with International Date Line#Judaism. It is written as if R' Heinemann's opinion is the beginning and end of the discussion (POV), and it additionally has always felt incomplete. So I cooked up something which you can see at User:StevenJ81/sandbox#International date line in halacha. I'd appreciate your advice/input/etc. (Even if you look Thursday, I'm going to sleep on it until after yom tov, so as I said before, don't feel in a hurry. Thanks, gut moed, gut yom tov. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. We write halakha with a "k" on Wikipedia. I would remove the section about keeping seven days, since that pertains only to one who does not know at all when Shabbat is. Why do you call the Star-k traveler's guide the "majority opinion"? Wouldn't do that, just attribute, and that's it. I would mention the rabbi after the organization, like "The Star-k traveler's guide, compiled according to the rulings of rabbi etc., " Debresser (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Responses to that:

1. "The section about keeping seven days ... pertains only to one who does not know at all when Shabbat is." That's actually the point here. Notionally we refer to someone in a desert or aboard ship who really doesn't know what day it is halakhically (got that spelling bit). And then there are separate rules if s/he has been ticking off days (so knows when last Shabbos was by his/her count) or not (so doesn't). In the current case, the person knows what the secular date is. So, therefore, as long as the person is somewhere other than between 177E and 169W, let's say, s/he knows the correct halakhic date. But if one is between 177E and 169W, one may not really know the correct halakhic date, even if one knows the secular date. So it's all very nice for Rabbi Heber of Star-K to say that you have to keep a 49-hour Shabbat in that zone. But the reality is that in this case we precisely have someone who does not know the halachic date, and should therefore keep Shabbat by his/her own count from previous Shabbat.
   Interestingly enough—though I didn't quite get to this level of detail—if you follow Rav Heinemann, then this approach ("counting days") only applies within that band of longitude, because everywhere else you can get a firm majority opinion to apply. If you follow Rav Kasher, you might apply this ruling (theoretically) almost anywhere there is not an established community, depending on how you got there...though I'd imagine in practice that you would only apply it in the same 177E-169W zone, or at most the 125W-144E zone. As it happens, Rav Kasher proposed establishing the IDL as the halakhic date line, but refused to do it in the absence of a ruling from the "central beit din of Israel", whatever he meant by that. But it doesn't appear that he was willing to go quite that far in the absence of approbation of that sort. So in practice that means falling back to counting days where you can't resolve your uncertainty.
2. I wasn't describing Star-K as the majority opinion. I was describing its methodology as ruling in each case according to majority opinion ("rov") amongst the three general opinions (Chazon Ish, mid-Pacific, Rav Tucazinsky). So I'll clarify that going forward.

As for the rest, your points are well-taken, and I'll incorporate after yom tov. Gut yom tov and gut shabbos. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a short reply before Yom Tov. Seven days is only for one who doesn't know at all when Shabbat is. Somebody who knows it is either this day or the second, will keep only two days, which is basically what is described in what you called the majority opinion. Again, this means there is no need to mention about seven days. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Try now. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I see you worked my comments into the text. I still don't like "Establishment of a date line by majority halakhic opinion", because it is not that there is a majority; it is that a majority of opinions happen to agree practically in certain cases/locations/scenarios. Perhaps rename it to something like "Based on coinciding opinions". It has to be long enough to be truthful, and concise enough to be clear. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the reason I wrote it this way is because that's actually how the Star-K sees it. In their view, they see three valid opinions among אחרונים, and are not prepared to choose one as decisive against the other two. They accept that all three are valid, and as in other cases where there is a מחלוקת אחרונים, they follow the opinion that is the majority among those three opinions. [They don't accept Rav Kasher's opinion (i.e., that there is no date line at all) which they write off as a "minority" opinion.] Because one of the "three" opinions—the mid-Pacific position—actually breaks into multiple positions when you zoom in close, they feel there is no working majority in that zone (the 177E-169W zone).

Look, in truth, I'm not sure you're entirely wrong. I think they find the Chazon Ish the most compelling position, in part because it is based on the Baal HaMeor and the Kuzari; at the same time, they needed to find a way to justify the actual practice in Japan and New Zealand that Shabbat is Saturday, not Sunday. (And in any event the Chazon Ish himself needed to stretch a point to keep Sydney and Melbourne west of his line.) But the way the Star-K states their view is that they are ruling according to the majority among those three positions.

So I'll tell you what. I'll title that part Establishment of a date line by majority among three halakhic opinions. That's an accurate description, and doesn't imply in any way that it's a majority among "all" opinions (whatever that means) or that any other opinion (like Rav Kasher's, which is actually the one I follow personally) is less valid or a "minority" opinion (though Rabbi Heber of Star-K describes it so).

As always, thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you remove text?

[1] - why not tag instead? This conduct is terrible. Chesdovi (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not conduct, see WP:NPA.

Removing unsourced claims, especially when they are not self-evident, or even to the contrary, is not terrible conduct on Wikipedia, Chesdovi. Don't bullshit me on my talkpage! Debresser (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Would it help if you're both wrong? Chesdovi, your behavior is not acceptable, you do need to tone it down. Debresser, it's very common knowledge similar to the sky being blue that in Europe the dress was more colorful and Chofetz Chaim indeed still does colored shirts and feathers, etc. Not only that, the reason why the Chevron Yeshiva was sent to Chevron was because they were seen as too modern for Yerushalayim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not wrong. The statement was removed because it was unsourced, first and foremost. Even if the statement is true (and it is now indeed sourced), I was completely within proper conduct to remove it at the time. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is the second time I have found Debresser removing text from this article on tenuous grounds. Debresser's editing is disruptive. Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My edits are proper according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You accusation is therefore baseless. Please refrain from soiling my talkpage with baseless accusations. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With all due respect, I think you can both dial back the rhetoric here a little. Per policy, unsourced material can be removed, so Debresser was within his rights to remove the text. In that light, Chesdovi, I find your description of the editing as "disruptive" as out of line. That having been said, Debresser, I agree with Chesdovi that on something like this you would have been better off requesting a source than removing the text outright. If nobody provided a source after a time, then you could easily enough remove the text.

I've seen you guys interact in the past, and it just feels to me like you tend to look for problems with each other. You're both productive members of the community, so why do that? 'Nuff said. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Law of Moses

I undid your edit. Your edit summary "Completely irrelevant. See talkpage consensus." and your talk page comment "As a matter of fact, there are no quotation marks, so not a quot at all." are incorrect. It clearly is a quote. Wikipedia is taking a direct quote from the King James Bible version of Deuteronomy 31:26, and correctly uses quote marks. The Bible may not be using quotation marks, but we are quoting the Bible, and a specific version of it. I believe attribution is required per MOS:QUOTE. How is this an irrelevant objection? There was certainly no talk page consensus when you restored the edits since there were only two differing opinions on the talk page. You then added your flawed argument to the talk page. Two people have restored the attribution since it is a direct quote. The person who originally removed the attribution seems to be arguing WP:OSE and you think it the quote should be paraphrased, thus eliminating the need for attribution to a specific Bible version. That's not consensus. Your observation about paraphrasing eliminating the need for attribution is correct, but it's not a reason to remove the attribution while we are still using a direct quote. Meters (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Law of Moses has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. This is indeed a direct quote, with quotation marks, as was pointed out in the edit summary three times, on the article's talk page 4 times, and on your talk page. If you think that the attribution is not needed then discuss that issue, but don't vcontinue to revert with false edit summaries Meters (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Meters. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Really you template a regular for edit warring after only 2 well explained reverts and multiple attempts to discuss the edit on the talk page, and threaten to report me? Not even close. Meters (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Law of Moses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Meters (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you just, oh hypocrisy, complain about me posting a warning template on your talkpage? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I did indeed. See my reasons above. Unlike you,

1. I wasn't at 3RR
2. I was giving valid reasons rather than making up bogus objections
3. I was attempting to discuss the edit on your talk page and the article's talk page
4. I wasn't threatening to have you blocked in the edit summary

Not only did you not self-revert while this was under discussion (as I suggested), you immediately reverted another editor who undid you. That's pretty much text book edit warring. If you think I've done anything wrong feel free to take this to the appropriate board. As another editor pointed out, you might be subject to a boomerang though. Meters (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

1. You were also edit warring. The fact that you weren't at 3RR does not make any difference, especially since I wasn't either at the time, at least to the best of my knowledge at the time.
2. My reasons are valid, in my opinion eve more than yours, but surely not less legitimate.
3. I am also actively participating in that same talkpage discussion.
4. That is correct. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: ). Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have replied there. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Seven Laws of Noah in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. TJH2018talk 22:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, keep it to yourself, okay? Just because my keyboard was still in Hebrew you template me? And did you really have to undo the edit just because of that. You couldn't guess why I reverted, or ask me without reverting. Not nice at all! Debresser (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Faith primary

Template:Faith primary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. damiens.rf 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will do. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Top icons

There was no parameter until I added |number=, which I later found to be a bad name. So now I changed it to |sortkey=, and it is documented as such on {{top icon}}. So please look further before reverting. I'm sorry if this adds extra work (which I'm willing to take off your hands), but this is better in the long run. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Might be irrelevant to the case at hand, but ...) Use of {{top icon}} is pretty much not necessary any more. Use of the tag <indicator> is a lot easier. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, 99% of all top icon templates use {{top icon}}, which in turn uses <indicator>. It ensures proper formatting of the icons. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but I suspect that was done to insure backwards-compatibility. I completely rewrote my header subpages (like User:StevenJ81/Myheader and simple:User:StevenJ81/header) without {{top icon}} and found it much easier. As I said, my comment was not necessarily relevant to whatever disagreement you have with Debresser; it was intended to be a helpful comment. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Edokter, 1. Did you discuss this? I see no discussion that concerns preference of "sortkey" over "number"? 2. Why didn't you change all the documentation pages as well? 3. Did you ever hear of WP:BRD? 4. Did you ever hear of If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Debresser (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I was the one that introduced the number parameter in the first place, and quite recently at that. I didn't like it as it was clearly misnamed, so I changed it. Should I argue with myself? I was not aware it was already in use. I changed the main documentation (on {{top icon}}) immediately, then found some templates still listed the number parameter. I also announced the new parameter on WP:VPT so everyone can use it now (the old parameter was never announced). I really don't get what the problem is... you don't even use |number= on your user page, but an even older one that hasn't worked for over a year. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You more or less made my point for me. Changing the names of the parameters leaves people with broken code. That is precisely why you shouldn't do it. You don't WP:OWN any of these templates, that you decide what you rename parameters to and do so every once in a while according to your whim. If you do so, at least 1. take care they are backwards compatible 2. change the documentation pages. I think this is a serious behavioral issue, and feel strongly your edits should be reversed and your edit submitted for community review. Please explain yourself. Perhaps I don't understand something. Debresser (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed you don't. The parameter was in beta, ie. for testing only. Really, the was no parameter until I added it just two weeks ago. So the little use it may have is easily corrected. Don't make any change out to be about ownership. The reason the old parameters don't work anymore is because we switched to using <indicator> two years ago, and sorting was disabeld in the proces (by the change in /core, not by me). I just now re-added that possibility, so why the flack? Discuss the parameter name on Template talk:Top icon if you have to, but I won't stand being reprimanded by someone who doesn't see the bigger picture. Your reverts actually broke those templates and left a discrepancy with the 200+ other templates I edited. Yes, someone added the number parameter prematurely to those templates; I'm not on his back about it. I think long-term, and most people know that. I welcome any review. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, and from what you tell me, you indeed made an improvement, which I can only welcome. That, however, can not detract from the two things I mention: making the parameters backwards compatible is easy enough ({{{icon-nr|{{{number|{{{sortkey|}}}}}}}}} or something like that), and changing the documentation is something you definitely should do. Do you plan to do these two things? Debresser (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to prevent any parameter wildgrowth. All the old parameters were made obsolete two years ago. Any documentation still stems from the old days, but I'll see what I can do. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding what you call "parameter wildgrowth". Perhaps there is a way to detect and replace usage of old parameters? The documentation pages of those templates where you replaces number by sortkey should definitely be updated by you, that is a reasonable expectation. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Andy M. Wang beat me to it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see. That is regarding the documentation pages. What about detecting old parameter usage? Or taking care of backward compatibility? Debresser (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The old parameters were made obsolete two years ago, so I see no point in resurecting them, and I am not going to fix every old parameter usage. If users really want ordering, they have to use |sortkey themselves. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: One way would be to add a tracking category, something along the lines of Special:Diff/720425195. The point to add it would be at {{top icon}}, but I'll abstain. (don't know if it's worth the effort?) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sure there are not that many instances. I would be willing to change all the old parameters in a few hours (if there aren't many more than I expect) some 20 hours from now e.g. Since changes were made to the template, it is only a matter of good form to provide that service. Otherwise we should have left the old parameters. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that can all be done with good intentions, but I personally will not modify other users' spaces, even if it may be a good service. Note that most users are still using |icon_nr= for a very long time, and they edit as if the topicon misordering is not a big deal anyway. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made such technical edits to templates in userspace in the past, and have good experience with it, and no problems with doing it again. What I don't remember is how to code it. You don't need an existing category, because even a non-existing category page will show pages that go there. I think {{#if:{{{number|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|{{#if:{{{icon-nr|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|}}}} should do it? I remember there being an issue with if the parameter is defined (like | number = {{{number|}}}) or not (like | number = ), that the latter is perhaps not found by this code? Debresser (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's similar to something like Special:Diff/720425195 without {{Main other}} and addressing multiple named params. Again, it can be done, but I personally still honestly think it's getting a bit fussy to track this. I also take Edokter's absence as agreement with what I think as well. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do agree it is not worth tracking and fixing. When top icons switched to indicators, it was made very clear the old parameters would no longer work. I announced the new parameter on WP:VPT and everyone can go from there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The real problem being that you think that things like this should be announced by any one editor, instead of agreed upon by consensus. And even in the case of consensus, no serious template editor, and I have worked closely with many of them, being not a novice to field myself, deprecates a parameter without providing either backwards compatibility or changing all occurrences. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Would anybody have serious problems with it, if I did this myself? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've stated my views above... but I wouldn't object if you added tracking categories. As for changing users' pages (probably needs consensus elsewhere), depending on the number of incorrect uses, you might even need to submit a BRFA. For the record, I'm not encouraging this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You are making this out to be bigger than it actually is. And I did not deprecate those paramters, the devs did. I simply reintroduced it. Your only beef is that I changed the paramenter name not two weeks after I did so. I really don't need consensus for that. If I have to run every little change, in the test phase, by the community, nothing would be completed. What is the real issue here? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd do this manually, not with a bot. I have no other issues than those I wrote above. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: I am now working on the pages that are appearing in Category:Fix. I see no reason to use a more descriptive name for a tracking category, which I intend to remove within 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, somce interesting cases came up, like {{PubMed indexed}}, {{Virginia Tech ribbon}}, {{WikiOgre}}, Wikipedia:WikiPlatypus/topicon, User:EWikist/WikiFun Police/WikiFun Police Topicon, {{WikiProject Star Trek Top}}, {{DOOM}}, {{Template:Arbitration Clerk topicon}}, {{Eventualist}}, {{JLOWP}}, {{Grump}}, {{Pokeme}}, {{WikiWitch-icon}}, {{Olympicrings}}, {{Pageprotection}} and most seriously User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have 870 cases, not counting the once I replaced already. 870! I think this should be a lesson for you not to replace parameters without providing backwards compatibility. What right did you have to render a parameter inactive that is in use on almost a thousand userpages? I am really angry at you for this. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Again; they have not worked for over a year, and no one complained. I introduced a new parameter that is more versatile, and named it accordingly. Your anger is highly misplaced. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I do appreciate the new parameter, but it also rendered the old one inactive, and that was careless. Could you, as an admin, please help me out on User talk:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon? Debresser (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't careless; it didn't work anyway. And such situations are an excellent opportunity to cleanup stale parameters. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done well over 1,000 instances. there are 26 pages left, all because of fully protected pages. I have dropped a request to some 5 editors, and there will be a few left that will need admin help. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you did not remove the obesolete parameters; they are useless and will never come back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, and to a certain measure agree with it. My reasons were 1. to minimize interference on userpages 2. because it would take more time, including because it would be hard to do with AWB 3. because it is always possible somebody will revive them at a later point in time.

I also understand that when you coded the "sortkey" parameter, the old "icon_nr" parameter was not active, still, since you added the functionality for "sortkey", it would have been easy to provide backward compatibility, and in view of the many instances (way over 1,000) I don't understand why you didn't do that. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wildgrowth. Sometimes a clean break from all the old baggage helps maintain a sane template landscape. Providing backward compatibility isn't helpfull if it means a parameter ends up with four(!) names. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help a bit more. There are 8 pages left with the old parameter. Perhaps you could edit the first four of them?

• User:Bahamut0013 Fully protected page of deceased user with 4 instances of "icon_nr" that have to be changed to "sortkey".
• User:Franamax Fully protected page of deceased user with 1 instance of "icon_nr" that has to be changed to "sortkey".
• User:Gunmetal_Angel Fully protected page with one instance of | icon_nr = {{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}} that has to be changed to | icon_nr = {{{sortkey|{{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}}}}}.
• User:Jclemens/icons Fully protected page with 3 instances of "icon_nr" and 4 instances of "number" that have to be replaced by "sortkey"(notably to only one to have "number" parameters in use).
• User:LadyofShalott Fully protected page with 2 instances of "icon_nr" that have to be changed to "sortkey". Posted on user talkpage.
• User:NQ/nqup.css Fully protected css page with 1 instance of "icon_nr" that has to be changed to "sortkey". Another page depends on this change. Posted on user talkpage.
• User:Equazcion Completely unclear what is happening on this page. Posted on talkpage.
• User:Interlude65 Reverted my fix, and said on the talkpage he'll take care of it.

Admin help

{{Adminhelp}}

I would like to ask any admin to fix the first four instances above, to finish this job. Over 1,000 pages were fixed, just 7 remain... Debresser (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected them, unprotected Gunmetal's userpage since there is no more need for protection, and reduced the protection on Jclemens' userpage so he can edit his own userpage again. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal discussion

Debresser It is very likely that Lemongirl942 arrived the artcle by WP:STALKING my (other volunteer) edit summaries, as she did here,diff and then here,diff after she uncivilly attacked my paid work here.diff. The paid work had been up for 14 months and various other editors had contributed/reviewed without indecent/discourse. As a paid editor, I can't edit/restore the content in article space, and it can take months to get an edit request answered, so restoring even improved prose is no simple task. Her departure from the guidance (tagging, wholesale deletion, and then leaving the tag), established in WP:DT, which has been published since 2010,diff She practices disruptive editing on a daily basis imho.

I hope you will take the time to read WP:Local consensus, which cannot override Wikipedia-wide consensus. The local consensus here appears to support the passage I added in #6, yet of her own accord, Lemongirl942 again removed some of the content. [diff] In an attempt to avoid having her disruptive editing technique -- disrupted.

I would not concern myself with the discussion about this Help page if it were not for the fact that it is being added to face of the tag templates. I appreciate that there is a "local consensus" in this discussion, I apologize for losing my cool with her, but other editors deserve to know why she is here and because of the Wikipedia wide visibility of this help page, the discussion is more important than inconveniencing a few electrons. Finally, I don't believe I've ever placed a banner tag in four years of editing, I use inline and section tags.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 19:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I switched the editors. Please see my changed post on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks for your clarification. Do you think we should restore this to the see also section? It is the guidance on the matter that has been active since 2010, would be nice to collect it all in a central location. Thanks again for your clarification. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 20:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess so. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(This wandered off topic from the Help page discussion, so I brought it here instead.) It's been two years since the Foundation's paid (declared) editing consensus, and a small group of editors has been allowed to sustain their POV into the matter. (Again, we are tasked to judge the content of the article, not the intent of the editor.) A recent instance I wish you could have seen, concerns a lack of integrity surrounding an AfD I stumbled into. The final version in article space had (pruned by at least 10?) fewer references than my version[2]. And I was warned not to add reliably sourced content back into the article after reverting a revert of my content.[3] Then, the involved editor (after voting and pruning) hatted conversations in the AfD, which included my list of the better references that apply to the subject.[4] This is not what I would call conduct that is congruent with the goals of the Foundation, especially for editors who primarily involve themselves with compliance issues.

As a declared paid editor, I do not work in, nor even visit the company offices. I am a buffer between the PR guy, who openly admits he cannot write neutrally (his background is marketing mine is tech), and the submitted (AfC) product. The idea that somebody who works in the office daily, with no knowledge of the guidelines, holds some kind of superior position among inferiors seems subjective. Finally, the writing is much like the job of a paralegal. The law (policies and guidelines) are primary when composing and knowing platform (similar to the old WordPerfect editor IMHO) is secondary, but another good reason to hire a specialist -- who is one-step removed. When I am confronted with an inferior understanding of the written guidelines, I can't take it to ANI or COIN and expect a neutral outcome (nor any outcome come to think of it). My only real recourse is to start an RfC to see if the local consensus reflects the wider consensus. For this I am accused of being an tendentious paid COI editor. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

1RR

You should self-revert your 1RR violation. You can retain the "improvements". You should not misuse Wikipedia's narrative voice to say "Jerusalem" is in Israel. Wikipedia can't say that Jerusalem is in Israel because it is an NPOV violation. If you mean West Jerusalem say West Jerusalem. This has been discussed endlessly and please do not start another fire. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Give me some time to look into that Rfc you mentioned. If I was wrong, I will self-revert. I made this edit in good faith, as I am sure you understand from my post on your talkpage and the edit summaries.

You are, however, completely wrong about something else. If there is one thing that is not good about somebody's edit, but other things are good, just make a partial revert. The other changes I made are just fine, and it was rude to revert all of it. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It says in that Rfc that there "There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine." It does not say what to do instead. Also notice that the Rfc was about the Jerusalem article only, and is binding for 3 years only. A simple search of Wikipedia teaches that there are 438 instances of Jerusalem, Palestine on Wikipedia and 9,268 of Jerusalem, Israel. That in itself already makes a point in favor of "Jerusalem, Israel", but in any case shows that both alternatives are considered completely acceptable on Wikipedia. Also compare the Google search results, which are comparable: 331,000 to 5,950,000. So what should be done? The answer is simple : don't change anything without consensus. Since the article originally said "Jerusalem, Israel", there is no consensus for changing that. The conclusion is that your edit, as well as the edit of Cliftonian, changed a consensus version without showing consensus to do so, and should be reverted. If you want to insist on 1RR, I am willing to revert, but my argument is solid, and there is no reason to insist on formalities since it is clear the consensus version should and will be restored in the end.

I will also post on the talkpage, and propose to post here if you want me to revert the 1RR violation, but keep the substantial discussion on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. My only concern is with constructions like Jerusalem, Israel or Jerusalem, Palestine because they are unambiguous NPOV violations. I think it's better to simply say Jerusalem and leave it at that. I'm going to be away in a forest for while so I'll leave it with you to consider and pick it up again next week. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point. On the other hand, we have hundreds and thousands of them on Wikipedia, and nobody is proposing to change all of them. Especially since both Jerusalem, Israel and Jerusalem, Palestine redirect to the same Jerusalem article.

We could open an Rfc and create a WP:JERUSALEM page, analogous to WP:WESTBANK. There are basically 3 options: 1. change all instances and remove both "Israel" and "Palestine", 2. keep all articles as they are, 3. decide that the rule is that there is no rule and local consensus will decide in all cases, which means keeping the present anarchy. IMHO the first alternative has no viable chance of being accepted` the third alternative is a non-solution, and is therefore not likely to be accepted, in addition to the fact that practically it will mostly come down to the same conclusion as the second, just after a lot of edit wars and discussions; the question therefore is if we want to make the second alternative, which is identical to what I argued above regarding the Birthright Israel article, into an official Wikipedia guideline? Debresser (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps you meant that "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" and [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" is worse than "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]". I agree with you. That opens a fourth alternative, change only "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" or [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" to "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]", and keeping all other cases as is. I would be fine with that proposal as well. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I accept the first alternative; it's what most nations and organizations adhere to. Sepsis II (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We are not talking about the question if Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but if Jerusalem is in Israel. The facts above are clear enough. I even remember this clearly from elementary school. :)

Do you think it is a good idea to open a new Rfc about this, perhaps on the Jerusalem talkpage? Debresser (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification: I opened an Rfc on this subject at Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Top icon help

Hey, thanks for the help on my top icons! I have been away from Wikipedia and editing for over a year and came back to find that something had changed. I just couldn't figure out what it was. Nice surprise to log in this morning and find all of them back again. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 13:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice to receive such positive feedback! Enjoy! Debresser (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not interested. I firmly believe in Jimbo! Debresser (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Things

I don't appreciate your tone saying "another undiscussed initiative that isn't a good idea". That's not very nice. No, Jews aren't a tribe, but they are a collection of tribes. The precedent is Samaritans, who are in Ten Lost Tribes (Tribes of Israel). Samaritans are three tribes, Ehpraim, Menasseh, and Levi. Something needn't be strictly one tribe to be in tribes of israel. Tribes of Israel as you should know is the analogous article to "Israelites".--Monochrome_Monitor 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jews are the result of over 3,000 years of history, evolving from tribes. That includes converts.

My tone is a reflection of my exasperation at you making yet another change that is incorrect or at least controversial. I accept that you act in good faith, but I have the right to be frustrated by your lack of common sense in editing Judaism and Jews related articles and categories. In addition, this was by far not the first time, and still you do not feel the need to discuss before you make changes. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Please see WP:TPO. Modifying my comments is incredibly annoying. Please stop doing that. nableezy - 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that page. I thought you would only be grateful if I fixed the occasional mistake. Since you are not, I will of course not repeat such edits. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be great. Next, would you mind explaining to me what you don't get about contested moves? Because when a move is challenged you don't just move it to another similar title you like more, you open a request for move and ask for comments from others. Please self-revert that move. nableezy - 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why should I? If a vocal minority opposes the move, I am willing to take into account any reasonable arguments. You voiced a concern of a purely technical nature, regarding the parentheses, so removed the parentheses. If your POV will continue to blind you, and you will continue your edit war and revert again, perhaps I will make an official move request, but to give in to your unreasonable POV from the start? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Shavuot

I thought you had more respect for my work than this. If this had been a brand-new statement, you would (of course) have been correct to delete-and-then-justify. In fact, this statement had been stable for four years until Enigmaman came by, and there was a healthy discussion on the talk page already. With all due respect, you really should have let the discussion run its course. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do respect your work. That doesn't mean I have to respect this one sentence. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You do understand that I did not originally write the sentence, right? The sentence has been a stable part of the article for around four years. On that basis, it could be assumed that it was accepted as (more-or-less) BLUE. In other words, it's not that it's an unsourced statement, but simply a statement for which it is unnecessary to state a source. If you disagree with that, then you should ask for a source. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that not you originally wrote the sentence. In any case, I was surprised by you taking this personally. I did not mean anything personal when I removed that sentence. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't exactly take it personally, and didn't think you meant it that way. But I did wonder why you felt the default position for a (non-absurd) stable-for-four-years statement was to remove first and ask questions later. You never responded to that bit. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

But I did. I repeat: Wikipedia policy is to remove any unsourced and challenged statement. I know, the best thing is to tag it, see if somebody can source it. But that is of the statement is likely to be true. This statement, in the form it stood, is not true. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Feh. It was challenged for relevance, not accuracy. And as for its truth, well, we must agree to disagree about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I'm going to report that if it isn't reverted by the time I finish the report. nableezy - 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1. What would you report that for? 2. After your recent edit warring on Ancient synagogues in Palestine, for which I did not report you in the end, I would have expected a less vindictive tone. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well somebody reverted it for you, so Ill finish my report and file it and you can explain your contempt for established consensus at AE when Im done. nableezy - 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I already did so on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser nableezy - 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will reply there. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Southern Levant

As you were involved in the DRN, I thought I'd let you know about the current RFC on the Southern Levant talk page here Drsmoo (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will have a look soon. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Commented. Very interesting. Please also see the subsection I added there. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page

I only care to comment on content at specific articles. Sepsis II (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to respect your wish, with the exception, of course, of formal notices that Wikipedia obliges me to post on your talkpage. Please be aware though, that your unwillingness to engage in dialog will not work in your favor, should I want to pursue my suspicions regarding a possible POV in your editing on Wikipedia in a formal user review. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that your edits are almost exclusively in the IP-conflict area, and that you have been blocked before because of edits in this same field. Not a good sign. Not that I don't edit the same area, and haven't been blocked myself. But still... I am starting to become suspicious of you. I am also noticing a few talkpage discussions where you are taking an illogical position. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Consensus seems to be that this needs to be closed. Also note that my edit was repeated within 2 minutes (!) of my self-revert, so was evidently "The Right Thing To Do". Debresser (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Meir Ba'al HaNes

This is not really an article, is it? It's more like a disambiguation page. The organisations mentioned each have their own pages.Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but then you should turn it into a real disambiguation page. Not just remove one category. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I did some steps in that direction. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Endless/useless

Could you please take a look at this? There are editors I choose not to deal with, maybe you are more detached.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tel_Faher&diff=726571806&oldid=726550885
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_synagogues_in_Israel&diff=725346956&oldid=725305993
For the second one: what about changing the title? Land of Israel in stead of just Israel? There must be some accepted term. Israel and occupied territories might not please others :-) Common sense doesn't help much. "IAA-administered territories" would be my favourite. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The first I reverted. I think that quote is very illustrative of the (indeed subjecive) feelings of the Israelis. On the other hand, that is not very important, and if he would insist to remove it, I wouldn't oppose further.

I am aware of that edit, and at some time in the future will restore all those that sources say are in Israel.

The titles of both Ancient synagogues in Palestine and this article are not good. I recently proposed to move the first, but my proposal didn't receive enough support, because of a block of 4 editors from WP:PALESTINE. Regarding Land of Israel, I don't think that would be an improvement. Debresser (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Basic distinction: "subjective" is bad if referring to EDITORS. The ALLEGEDLY subjective feelings of parties to a conflict are a hugely RELEVANT, and if proven: OBJECTIVE and ESSENTIAL part of the conflict. "Allegedly" ends where good sources are presented. Reverting as such doesn't bring much.
The Golan is not part of int'ly recognised Israel, nor of Palestine, and only in part or questionably of the Land of Israel as usually defined. "IAA-administered territories" was a joke, but a very serious one. ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Kseniya Rappoport ‎

Hi, Debresser. No, no, that's what I figured. I would say that since EthniCelebs is, by it own admission, "for entertainment purposes only" and not to be used as a reference source, that adding it as a second source does hurt in that it can suggest to other editors that it's OK to use. Also, if the cite that's given is truly RS, we don't really need a second one, right? Thank you, by the way, for adding all those footnotes; I probably should have sent you a thanks as well. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to one statement. I coudn't find a source, not within one minute at least. If nobody else will come up with a source within some reasonable time, it suppose that second sentence may be removed. By the way, I don't doubt it is correct, just that it is unsourced. I never remove information that it don't doubt is correct just because there is no source, unless it would be libelous, of course. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand you believe the unsourced personal-life claim is correct, so I have to ask, and I say this with respect to an obviously thoughtful editor. How do you know this? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Which claim precisely? That she went to school 155, studied French and liked puppet-theater? Debresser (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. It's primarily the school; we can't make claims that she attended Harvard, Yale or even "School 155" without RS citing. (I was exaggerating for effect there, to make the reason evident.) That she studied French and liked puppet theater is actually non-encyclopedic trivia unless she went on to work in French or in puppet theater. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really mind removing all that, because it is indeed trivia. Which school she went to, is also something, which I think is not really important, so as far as I am concerned it can all stay off the page. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wallemia sebi page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Messiah claimants

A user you dealt with in May has come back to do the same thing again. Just letting you know since you dealt with him/her before. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you are dealing with him/her quite fine. I'll keep an eye out as well. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Stupid

I've been following your discussion here and I agree with your points, but I would advise you not to call other editors "stupid" (even if they deserve it). It is against against Wikipedia policy and also not a logical way to argue. --GHcool (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. Sepsis II is a very POV editor, if I can say so in English, and I find him disruptive at times. It was a bit too emotional for Wikipedia, although on the other hand, there is no injunction against being a bit emotional at times. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant 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/Southern Levant 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Posted my opinion there. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel sock

Widr and I have been kept pretty busy as Til keeps finding new IP addresses. A range block request is at ANI and MikeV blocked 71.246.144.0/20 for 48 hours. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed, and thanks. I had no idea the issue was a malignant sock. He did seem a bit too knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As was the editor you were reverting at Talk:The Young Ones (TV series). I see you guessed it was a sock. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a regular editor on Judaism articles, and often find myself on Israel-related pages as well. As such, I am pretty well familiar with the rules. Thanks again. Debresser (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Abbas

I really dont understand the belligerence here. You seem intent on stoking some sort of conflict between us. You could have just included the two sentences agreed to, but rather than do that you choose to edit-war in the maximalist position. Thats fine, its up to you, but youre edit is against the policy objections of several editors, and I am going to file an AE report about it later. Or you can self-revert and seek consensus through an RFC or something. But edit-warring to include disputed material in a BLP probably isnt the wisest course for you. Up to you. I have dinner plans, so Ill check back on this later in the evening. nableezy - 23:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Have a nice dinner. :) I am not belligerent. You know well, that I have agreed with you on many occasions. Even today I was not afraid to change my opinion and agree with you.[5] On the Mahmoud Abbas article as well I have expressed my agreement with a compromise[6], even though I find it less than ideal, but you rejected it, amidst baseless accusations.[7] I have argued my points well and calmly on the talkpage. I get the impression that this page is being censored by you and Sepsis II (who is much less of a civilized discussion man than you are, unfortunately, and has even stronger POVs). There has been no WP:ARBPIA violation, that I am aware of. Please note that over 24 hours past between my reverts.[8][9] Please comment at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Abbas, to resolve the issues, rather than edit war. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Just like 3 reverts is not an entitlement neither is 1. And to that point, you are edit-warring, against several editors. In a BLP, contested material stays out absent a consensus to retain it. In all articles the stable version remains absent a consensus to change it. You seem to think those rules do not apply to you. Well, we're going to find out. nableezy - 02:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE#Debresser nableezy - 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any edit warring, the two edits are clearly over 25 hours apart. Drsmoo (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Nableezy. I have responded there. I hope this time WP:AE will call you to order. You'll recognize much of my reply there from my reply to you above. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Listen, I dont actually have a terrible view of you. I just cant stand the reverts without consensus. Without a consensus the article stays as it was. Yes, that can suck at times, but its the way it is. I learned that the hard way, there were several topic bans that I got specifically over the legality of Israeli settlements line because I felt that the people opposed to it had no backing in policy and that they were POV editors who were doing nothing but obstructing what was neutral, verifiable, due weight ... . And yes I still think I was right on the merits and the consensus that developed bears that out I think, but I was wrong in the reverts. I should not have been just dismissing others, I should have left the articles in what I felt a deficient state absent a consensus to change them. I dont think you should be shut down, or removed from the topic area, and Im perfectly willing and able to work with you. But I dont see how you can expect me to do that when you just brush me aside as a "POV editor". Obviously I have a point of view, but I very much dispute that my edits betray that POV. I dont go around writing Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine, I dont even write that Hebron is in occupied Palestine, I dont put occupied every single time East Jerusalem is mentioned, I dont do a lot of the crap that I would equate to an diametrically opposed POV. I try to edit with NPOV in mind, and because I focus in an area that I feel a specific POV (right wing Israeli) is over-represented my edits may well reflect edits that appear to oppose that POV. You argued to have "Jerusalem, Israel" be the standard where "Jerusalem" currently is used. You did not argue that East Jerusalem should say "East Jerusalem, [occupied] Palestinian territories", even though those are two relatively equally weighted views for West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, maybe even a greater proportion of RSs supporting EJ, oPt over WJ, I. I saw that as a manifest example of "POV editing". But I didnt say that, I made an argument based on our policies, divorced entirely from the "POV" I thought the author, you, was promoting. And I did not edit-war to try to force any change. Im fine withdrawing the AE request if you agree to not perform further reverts at the Abbas article absent a consensus for your revert. Id like you to agree to something more wide-ranging than that, that being to follow WP:ONUS and not constantly revert contested material without having a consensus for it. That isnt bowing to an unreasonable POV as you wrote of my objections in an earlier dispute. I promise you I will show you the same courtesy. If I make a change that is disputed, no matter how weak I think the reasoning for that is, I wont revert without getting more people commenting and achieving a consensus. That sound fair to you? nableezy - 06:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply in short, because my keyboard is broken and I type with my mouse. I do respect you, and have said so clearly at WP:AE. Regarding "Jerusalem, Israel", I proposed 4 alternatives, not just that one. My preference was based not on my POV, but on 20:1 in sources. I too try to edit neutrally.

Regarding the Abbas article, I sincerely feel the one extra sentence is not undue or recentism, and 2 sentences is a good compromise. I do have the feeling the article was being censored, perhaps subconsciously. I don't like the idea of a "consensus" of 3 POV editors (with respect), if the only outside opinion by TM is being ignored, WP:DRN didn't work, WP:BLPN is ignored, and I think I bring some badly needed balance. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I withdrew the AE report. But to the point, the outside opinion wasnt ignored, you choose to revert to include the paragraph that you, against 3 other users, including one not involved who tried to come up with a compromise, agreed was UNDUE. That was my problem, reverting what you knew was opposed by everybody else. In a BLP no less. In my view, once some new edit is challenged it stays out without a consensus agreeing to return it. When you just brush aside the objections of others, even if you think they are without merit and come from irredeemable POV editors whose sole purpose on this site is to sully the image of Israel and or Jews everywhere, even if you think they are anti-semitic, anti-Israel, anti-humanity as a whole, what you do is cause the people that you are supposedly working with in this "collaborative project" to dig in and not want to reach any sort of compromise with you. Fine, you think it was being censored. What possible gain is there in saying it is censorship? You think anybody is going to be convinced to change their mind if you jump up and down and say they are censoring? Of course not. Make your argument without talking about the editors involved or their motivations. And make it without reverting. That might actually accomplish something, like a compromise on the content that even if you dont think is ideal you can accept. If I wanted to be a dick about it I could have re-reverted you. And you would have waited 24 hours and done the same. And I then repeat that process. What exactly gets accomplished in that cycle? The article being how you want in the time between your revert and mine? That seem like anything worthwhile? Cus it doesnt to me. nableezy - 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yiddish dialects

In Yiddish dialects#Varieties, I added the clarifying remark because the quotation itself is not very clear to a lay reader. It is hard to figure out what "period of reforms" might be meant; I'm still not sure what the intended period is. But from researching a little on Wikipedia itself, I came to the conclusion that the intended meaning can only be that Western Yiddish became extinct sometime in the 19th century (although the linked website presents evidence that may contradict this conjecture and that Western Yiddish might have survived longer, considering that there were still apparent semi-speakers in Orange County in 1997). I don't think Wikipedia should present readers with mystifying quotations like this absent any kind of clarification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

1. You added the comment outside the reference tag, to explain something that was said inside the reference tag. 2. You should refrain from interpreting sources, since you may be wrong, and that would be worse than leaving the issue open. 3. It is just bad style to add comments inside text. 4. With an eye on the future, if this were a statement in the text of the article proper, not inside a reference, I'd recommend to tag it with the {{Vague}} template. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll add a {{clarify}} template then. Just because it's inside a quotation does not mean it's not nevertheless vague and in need of clarification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

1RR

I believe that you violated WP:1RR at Israelites. I notified Nishidani about the same violation I think he committed just before you. “WarKosign” 21:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no 1RR restriction on that article. Nor should there be. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for three months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just now saw this. I am very surprised. I'll have a look at WP:AE now. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

To my talkpage stalkers

Please add this source after the sentence"The Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news." in Mandatory Palestine. I tried to look for sources for the recently removed statement,[10] but instead turned up with this. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, Im not going to report it, but thats a violation of your topic ban. And its not a good source. nableezy - 18:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

:), why is it not a good source? I'm not going to add it since I don't think we need ref overkill, but it still is a good source, even if it's from the Knesset. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Its a page from the Knesset. That may be fine for an attributed view of the Israeli government, not for a historical fact. We use third party secondary sources, preferably by academics in peer-reviewed journals or books published by quality presses, for history. nableezy - 18:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy, why do you say this is a violation of my topic ban? By the way, I think it is a fine source. Agreed, not an academic one, but there is no rule that sources must be academic. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I now saw on WP:TBAN that my own talkpage is also under the topic ban. Very strange, but since that is so, please consider this request revoked. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Youre not allowed to discuss the topic, regardless of where. As to the quality of the source, cmon we've gone through this before. You specifically brought up something similar in the past: Talk:Muslim_history_in_Palestine#Israeli_Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_is_not_reliable_source.3F and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#Israeli_Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_is_not_reliable_source.3F. We use government sources for some things without attribution, population figures is the one that comes immediately to mind. But for claims about their actions or history they are involved primary sources and we defer to secondary third party ones. nableezy - 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, but you're right that such is the consensus on Wikipedia. Thanks for reminding me. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: dictionary of mother nature

In mother nature’s dictionary (despite doing so in the dictionary of the prince), the word "child" never refers to anyone having begun puberty & simultaneously being at an age at which it is normal to be undergoing puberty. Oh & by the way, "child" is the most vile 5-letter word in the English language that can possibly be used to refer to an adolescent. It is (despite being used in many legal contexts, unfortunately), by any & every definition, a chronological slur. 65.129.128.18 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)65.129.128.18 (Talk)

Off-topic, but an even worse term is infant, and a child under 18 is called an infant in legal documents. So a court case involving a 17 year old would be all about the infant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is actually an argument to keep the category as is. By the way, Sir Joseph, the start of this post and its continuation are on the IP user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Agunah page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Rav shalom! I am most curious about your thoughts on this discussion and my original edits. Do you believe that my edits were "disruptive editing" and/or POV-pushing? I value your opinion. Thank you. KamelTebaast 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You just added unnecessary detail to a statement, and were rightly reverted. There is nothing disruptive or POV pushing in what you did, but you shouldn't have edit warred about it. Nishidani likes to call people names, and is likely to be called to order for that soon enough. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Is what I did worthy of receiving a one-month Topic Ban? I discussed this in Talk. I'm at a loss. KamelTebaast 05:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't be second guessing whoever banned you. They probably looked at your general editing pattern. I think it may be a good thing, which will help you get on the right path on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ironic that you wrote that while topic-banned as well. Is that helping you "get on the right path on Wikipedia"? KamelTebaast 19:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. I think my topic ban was unjust. If every case of heated editing would warrant a topic ban or block, Wikipedia could close up shop. In addition, I think the rules of topic bans are also too stringent. But that is another issue. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Debresser. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm. You're probably right. As ridiculous as that is. Well, I'll undo it. Perhaps another editor will see merit in the sentence as well, and restore it. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I added it back in, it seems apropos to the topic and was just one sentence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi Debresser, I am trying to understand why you cut out this as I thought it added richer information about Rosh HaShana and was also factually connected. Thanks for your time, IZAK (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, IZAK, for not noticing your post here. The information seems fine, but just out of place. The article is about a specific festival, and the paragraph you added is more than just adding context, it treats the whole subject of 4 new years.

Compare Tu BiShvat, where it only says "Tu BiShvat appears in the Mishnah in Tractate Rosh Hashanah as one of the four new years in the Jewish calendar." and Rosh HaShanah LaBehema, which doesn't mention about the 4 Rosh HaShannes at all. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Empress Myeongseong

Hi Debresser,

This "alleged" portrait is inappropriate as a portrait picture on the main page for Empress Myeongseong as it wrongly depicts the traditions and decorum of the Korean court. The queen did not leave an official portrait during her lifetime and the “alleged” portrait is a less credible variant of the picture that was first published by Rhee Seungman in the magazine 독립정신 (1910). This portrait was later described as being unauthentic and unrealistic by Moon Ilpyung (1888-1939) in his book 사외이문 (史外異聞) and has been widely discredited in recent years. The figure in the portrait is dressed in 적삼 (Jeoksam), a clothing that was worn by common people during Joseon dynasty; lacks any hair decoration that would accompany a Korean women of 양반 (Yangban) or higher status; and is not framed by any symbols of royal court. It is highly unlikely that the queen, who adhered strictly to the traditions of the court, would have posed in front of a photographer in a commoner's attire. To put this “alleged” portrait of the queen on her main page is both insulting and misrepresentative of the Korean tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.223.100.116 (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, after this explanation, which had better be posted on the talkpage of Empress Myeongseong, I can understand why you removed the picture. Calling the picture "insulting" is still a bit overdoing things though, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Technical fixes

Dovid. I've noted your technical fixes, and then your self-reverts. It's never passed through my mind to jump at such things to take you back to some administrative forum, and I just examined them to see what the problem was. Whatever the fucking rules say, I'd never think anybody but an utter arsehole would complain of fixing things like spacing, etc., as a violation of the ban (which, of course, it technically is). I'm not good at them myself, and appreciate such things when done. In any case, rest assured that the usual bad guys like myself are not going to worry you about such edits, whatever the letter of the law, since they are done in the right wiki spirit and do improve. If you have doubts,or think it safer to stick strictly to the 3 month T-ban, or see something that requires attention, you can notify me or Monochrome Monitor, or whoever, and I'm sure we'll fix it.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where someone, somewhere, will try to get you for something, even for fixing things. Keep in mind that asking for someone else to edit is also a violation. :) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I understand why people call this area 'toxic'. I think Dovid understands, and it is gentlemanly of him, what neither you nor, to cite a similar case, that of Islam El Shehaby understood. I was permabanned on the evidence of 2 sockpuppets, who don't play by the rules. I do, and accepted that judgment of my peers, sat out my exile and I bear no enmity (as opposed to frustration, which we all have, in these matters). Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishidani, for your kind words. Nevertheless, I can't take the risk that somebody will have a different point of view.

Sir Joseph, turns out that posting even on my talkpage about articles that fall under my ban is also prohibited.

I think the topic ban rules should be relaxed a bit, but unlikely that will be accepted by the establishment. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm under a TBAN and I was blocked for violating that ban even though I didn't even mention it, but I merely posted at an AE about another AE action from someone else. I would just sit it out and wait, the admins and AE is not the best place to go over tbans and requests for modifications. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Luciano de Liberato

So, how sure are you that the editor who started that page is not another sockpuppet of this editor – as appears distinctly possible? And what is your reference for the date of birth you've restored to the article (it certainly isn't the one you've cited, which only gives the year). That appears to be a WP:BLP violation. Perhaps you'd be good enough to fix it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't much care who started the page. The source gives the year. If you want to remove the date, which you apparently sincerely doubt to be correct, go ahead. I just sourced one or two things, and I am confident with knowledge of Italian, much more can be sourced. Your approach, which comes down to: let's just remove anything, is not productive and does not seem justified in view of the information that you removed. You might start adding a {{Citation needed}} tag or two and post on some WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts or Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm … please read about WP:BURDEN – you added a mass of unreferenced content to a BLP, it's up to you to provide the sources. And unreferenced personal details such as date of birth fall under our clear rules for biographies of living people, and should be removed at once. You appear to be an experienced editor, you must know that. But please feel free to bring it up at WP:BLP/N if you're in any doubt. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with the small fact that I re-added. Still, I agree with you that that doesn't change the burden of proof. And I already agreed with you about the precise date of birth.

Where you however are wrong is regarding the idea that all unsourced information must be removed. That is not true: only information that is challenged and not sourced must be removed. Do you really challenge all the statements you removed? Do you really doubt that they are factually incorrect? Did you make any effort to check whether perhaps they can be sourced? Removing neutral information without reason is not condoned by the WP:BLP policy, nor is removing information without making an effort yourself the way of the good editor.

Perhaps you know some editor who speaks Italian and can ask him to help find sources? Debresser (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Er, well, I am fluent in Italian. But why on Earth would I want to find sources for stuff like "immediately attracting a lot of interest among the most important Italian art critics" and "Since 1994 he has used a unique and very personal language, as well as authentic poetry that avoids fads and mannerist trends"? That's just promotional bollocks which has no place whatsoever in an encyclopaedia. It's beyond me to understand why you added it back. For the record, when I removed all that unreferenced twaddle, that constituted a challenge to its verifiability, its veracity and its suitability for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Unsourced non-personal information does not have to be removed at once, but it may be removed at any time. You appear to have made a mistake; perhaps you'd be kind enough to correct it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that that sentence sounds overly promotional. Your edit wasn't all bad, and I hope I didn't give you the impression that I thought so. But I do think that you threw out the child with the bathwater, i.e. removed all kinds of things indiscriminately. Really, feel free to remove the crap, but if you can, with your knowledge of Italian, there are also a few statements that are of worth and if you could help find a source for them, that would be an important contribution to this article. By the way, I appreciate the fact tat you discuss this with me. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

Debresser, I've reviewed your request on my talk page along with the discussions we've had in other places. I don't see you as a POV-pushing editor or someone who's hopelessly tendentious. It's been only a short while, but I think you've proven yourself level-headed.

For the duration of the topic ban period (i.e., until 27 October, three months after it was imposed), you are under a 0RR restriction in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The topic ban itself is lifted and you're free to participate in edits to relevant pages and engage in discussions on relevant talk pages. However, you are not allowed to revert any other user's edit, except unambiguous vandalism (e.g. blanking a page, adding curse words, you get the gist). If you want to undo another user's addition, removal, or modification of text, you need to make the case on the article's talk page, but you yourself cannot do it. I, or any other uninvolved admin, may impose blocks of escalating severity for violations of this modified restriction.

If you have any questions, please ask me first prior to clicking the undo button. I believe this changed restriction gets at my original concern at AE while allowing you back into the topic. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, of course. But a 0RR is still a serious restriction, and not helpful, necessary or pleasant (WP:FUN). Whatever, thanks again. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Compare: of the 11 edits on my watchlist this morning, 4 were reverts,[11][12][13][14] 5 WaybackMedic edits,[15][16][17][18][19] and only 2 "normal" edits.[20][21] Just to show that restricting my possibility to make reverts is still a severe restriction. Even though vandalism I can revert, but that I could even during the topic ban. The possibility to revert blatant POV edits, or simply unhelpful ones, is much more needed. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think this is as serious in the least. Your input on talk pages has been restored and you're free to make substantive changes to articles in the disputed topic area. And, as always, there's nothing saying you have to edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic to begin with. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree, because you are stronger than I am. You know very well that I have many interests that are IP-conflict-related (not per se, but as a matter of fact), so saying that I do not have to edit such articles is like telling a child that he doesn't have to eat ice-cream: doesn't console him in the least. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Debresser (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, and thanks ArbCom for nothing. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Some advice needed

I think that User:Purrhaps on Talk:Yom Kippur may not be mentally stable. What are your impressions? Debresser (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Something isn't quite right. Perhaps the editor's enthusiasm exceeds their knowledge of Wikipedia policy, but they also seem to have some trouble getting the point. I left them a message and added the article to my watchlist. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I would much rather a 25 hour day celebrating yarmulkas and other head coverings; it would make the day pass more smoothly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Malik. Sir Joseph, come again, please. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

He means Yom Kippa, of course. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC) (!במלון קיבוץ לביא...החתונה של בני בעין יעל מחר)

American humor. :) I'm from the Old Country. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

While sometimes tempting, please refrain from speculating on other editors' mental stability. It only serves to upset them and there are better ways of making your point (like Malik did). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This comes from my talk page as further evidence of my mental state: "Therefore, Sir Joseph's translation of Gen.6:14 must = Make an ark of gopher wood, don't COVER it, just ATONE it inside & out with ATONEMENT, not BITUMIN. ~ The ark won't float, but there will be a lot of thick, accusatory, obfuscatory SMOKE (& mirrors)" -- Purrhaps (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

QED. :) Debresser (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Q.E.D. = "which is what had to be proved" also applies to the LITERAL meaning of kippur & kaphar as demonstrated above. Now, please go back on your medication. :-) --Purrhaps (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to help you with your cry for help ("Some advice needed"). Please avoid ad hominem, character-assassination comments. They just reveal weakness of position & erode respect for you. I'm sorry to touch a sore spot, but "atonement" is not part of OLD or NEW Testament Scripture -- even though hard-to-accept, because it is a deeply-ingrained part of theological / vernacular vocabulary. -- Purrhaps (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, I strongly suggest you leave well enough alone. Editors who write "go back on your medication" are looking to be blocked. The smiley at the end doesn't make it acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So a serious "may not be mentally stable" initial shot is more acceptable???? -- ok. I just read this Wiki Policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Why would you not come to MY defence instead of now making a threat? ADMINS are supposed to be IMPARTIAL !!!!! -- Purrhaps (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps I told you I addressed that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but not fairly, or as severely, & with "interesting" comment. -- Purrhaps (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yom Kippur DR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yom_Kippur -- Purrhaps (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to comment: Category talk:People of Jewish descent#09.2F2016_Attempt_to_remove_Middle_Eastern_cat

Hi Debresser, wondering if you would like to respond here. I'm kind of confused, since it seems what you tried to do now is opposite what you said this month last year. Hope to see you there, and l'shanah tovah! Musashiaharon (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If I got confused, and that is very likely on that category, I'll of course undo my edit. Going there now. Debresser (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrected error

The error in the holy anointing oil article concerning challah is being discussed and mirrored in other forums. I know of NOBODY who believes or practices giving the piece of challah to someone else as a starter.

I HAVE heard of giving away a piece of SOURDOUGH challah to enable others to create new sourdough loaves. But this is far divorced from customs concerning traditional challah.

WHY would you want this horribly inaccurate statement to continue on the internet? And WHAT IN THE WORLD does this have to do with holy anointing oil anyway?

The only reason I tried to rewrite it rather than just deleting it is because I knew you would accuse me of deleting a "whole section." No, what I rewrote was NOT worse than the horrible inaccuracy about challah. Someone DID add "according to traditional Jewish law, this piece may not be eaten under any modern day conditions" which attempt just furthered confusion as to why this paragraph even exists in the first place.

There is SO much in this article that needs redone. Ninety five percent of this article was lifted from an essay I wrote and published years ago along with errors I included when I was just young in my career. I also fought for years against cannabis users from turning this article into a commercial for the cannabis church.

I guess I will just have to be satisfied in allowing a blatant error about Jewish customs to live on.

CWatchman (talk)

What error precisely? Debresser (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A simple misunderstanding I am sure. May deal more with it later.

CWatchman (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works

Participate on talk page, achieve consensus by arguing your point, THEN implement your change (see WP:BRD). You are attempting to enforce a change that does not have consensus (discussions from two years ago do not count, particularly in light of a more recent discussion justifying the retention of the categories in question) and which several editors have reverted you for. You don't have the right to do that. I have also removed your "warning" message from my page. If you do not participate in the discussion and build consensus, your protests will be ignored. Simple as that.2601:84:4502:61EA:6CB6:9CB9:5B50:8147 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove the message from your talkpage. However, you should be aware that the warning still counts.

As to the subject itself, there was and is a clear lack of consensus for that category, so I removed it in accordance with the consensus on the talkpage. Your reverts are edit warring, and you risk being blocked. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I can call you Dovid right?

Some people might get offended.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Dovid. Perfectly fine with me. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you must know

I am User:ChronoFrog. I forgot my password so I've been using my IP address instead. You can take off the tinfoil hat now.

As for everything else, my stance remains the same. I won't allow you to remove the category unless you can show that your removal is justified. If the behavior I'm seeing right now continues, I will not hesitate to drag you before an administrator.2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you telling me (and everybody else) who you are. I think that is the right thing to do.

Just like I will drag you to WP:ANI, because I stand 100% behind the opinion that a consensus there is not for the Middle Eastern category (Yoda speak). Debresser (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Help needed with Zeek article

Hi Debresser, I have been following your edits as of late as a token of excellence I would to ask for your assistance improving Zeek Wikipedia article. I will be honest and come forward that I have a stated COI with the company but I feel the information presented in the article is notable. Any input from you regarding this matter would be amazing. Thanks, Eddard 'Ned' Stark (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion of me, but I think there is nothing I can contribute to that article. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Messianism on Wikipedia

Dear Debresser, I was wondering, since you are a Jewish rabbi and may know a lot of information about Jewish messianism, if you would like to help me undertake a task of improving articles related to messianism, which includes (but not limited to):

• Messiah (overview of the "Anointed One" in Abrahamic religions)
• Messianism (the concept of a savior/liberator like figure(s))
• Messiah in Judaism (a/the "anointed one(s)" in Judaism)
  • Messiah ben Joseph (disputed concept of a Jewish messiah from the tribe of Ephraim)
  • Messiah ben David (currently redirects to Messiah in Judaism)
• Christ (title) (the Greek translation of Messiah, used as a title for Jesus in reference to the belief by Christians and early/Messianic Jews that he is the Jewish Messiah)

All the articles need improvement, by adding reliable sources and more information. The main Messiah article needs to focus more on the Abrahamic religions since that is where the Messiah(s) originated from (specifically Judaism/Hebrew Bible) and needs more information and sources. The messianism article should talk more about the concept of a savior/liberator/reedemer, not specifically the' Messiah(s) of the Abrahamic religions. The Messiah in Judaism needs clean up (too) and needs to be expanded, talking about the Jewish view of multiply saviors/kings as messiahs, and the two main messiahs, the suffering servant and king of the Jewish people. It also needs to talk largely about Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah (the most followed Messiah claimant in history) who is believed by Christians to fulfill the position of a suffering servant and king. The Messiah ben Joseph needs expanding, more information and sources, and the Messiah ben David could possibly be a new article, with Messiah in Judaism focusing on the two plus Jesus as Christ. The Christ article needs more information about how it originated from Judaism and became separate from it. This is just some of the things that need to be done to related articles.

If you are willing to help work on this project, please let me know. You don't have to if you don't want to, but it would be a wonderful help and project to undertake. Shalom. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Withdraw RFC as poorly worded". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Mediation on an Rfc? Debresser (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I see the request was immediately rejected. Debresser (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Withdraw RFC as poorly worded, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A belated new year greeting

A sweet 5777 to you and your family Dovid, and an easy fast. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and same to you. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Will have a look, thanks. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request closed

An Arbitration Enforcement case in which you participated has been closed with the following result:

All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice quote from that Jewish judge. 17:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

KT

Debresser, cmon, the article edit is sourced? He wrote in an article that Bill Clinton signed a Nazi like law. He used as a source a Holocaust museum source that never once mentions Bill Clinton. And he did it specifically because of the dispute at an Arab-Israeli article. You think that is anywhere near the bounds of acceptable behavior? I was legit shocked when I saw the edit to Clinton. nableezy - 04:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy I didn't examine the source, so I'll take your word for it. If that is what he did, maybe a sanction was indeed in order.

At the same time, I think the indefinite lock and the indefiniteness of the topic ban was way too strong a sanction. In general, I have come to the conclusion, based on 3-4 posts I saw recently at WP:AE, that The Wordsmith is biased against whom he conceives to be pro-Israeli editors.

I noticed you removed your post here, but since it is my talkpage, and I want to reply to it, I restored it. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If you hadnt examined the sourcing then perhaps it would have been wise not to say "it's sourced" and that the request should be summarily closed. Saying that there should be no reporting one another back and forth shortly after you filed a report was another curiosity, but more important to me was the apparent excusing of unquestionably bad editing, seemingly based strictly on either an antipathy for me or an affinity for somebody on your side of the ideological spectrum. I was fairly disappointed that anybody would defend that kind of editing. nableezy - 21:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See, it is a good thing we are having this conversation. Because my edit was definitely not based on a dislike of you. I assumed in good faith that if a source was provided, the source says was one would expect. I repeat, that that does not mean I think Kamel Tebaast should have been indefinitely blocked or banned, and I ascribe that decision to above-mentioned bias of the closing editor. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There was another admin there that likewise said they would do the same thing. I expected an indef topic ban, wasnt sure a block was coming though. nableezy - 15:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I think the block was definitely overkill, and the topic ban could have been limited to a year. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Birthright Israel reversion- curious

It wasn't my edit, but I noticed you reverted an edit on the Birthright Israel entry that linked out to Michael Steinhardt. From what I can tell it appears the link was correct, but I want to make sure I understand why you reverted it before I took any action of my own. --LibraryGurl (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

His name was linked earlier in the article. Per WP:OVERLINK, as a rule, we should not repeat links in the same article. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes perfect sense. --LibraryGurl (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I was happy to explain my edit. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts

He was banned at the time, he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Please do not undo those strike throughs. nableezy - 15:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If so, then sure. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian terrorism category

Nothing personal to me also. It just that wikipedia content should be maintained in the same manner that main article name should be combatible with the main category of it. This reflect unified naming crateria. There is no benifit from make the category name defferent from its main article. That's all. Regards--مصعب (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons I mentioned on the category talkpage and the WP:ANI post. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

Last night comments were quite rushed, I have tried to clarify my concerns at the ANI now, but you might want further clarification, I would be only too pleased to explain further if necessary. JarrahTree 03:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That is perfectly okay. Debresser (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The example I have given could be accompanied by a short novel I that could write about the issues arising from the combination of parent/child cats, and overlapping cats, but I suspect the average watcher at the ANI instance is after - why should we bother? My answer, we have a number of editors on wp en who have never been called to account for similar activity, however in this case there is evidence that the editor is interested in keeping going on, regardless of cautions or requests from admins and others as to the 're-creating' category tree structure by principles that are not actually anywhere in what I think (?) the larger wp en community understand categories or category trees to be about. JarrahTree 04:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Need better judgement

Just need to talk to old timers not threaten them.. Lets look at what your doing...does merging a talk page template and article template make any sense to you or anyone for that matter? Does this seem like a valid request or a mistake on the nominator parts that has been explained to them.. So now we all wait for what ,,,for you to understand the mistake made ?-- Moxy (talk)

No need to post here. I am watching your talkpage, and I replied there. As far as talking instead of threatening: as an old-timer, you should have listened to me the first time. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Shachalayim or Village of Shachalayim

There was no village in Israel by this name? I am trying to locate lands. Twillisjr (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Apart from a village from the Talmudic era, which is not relevant to WP:ISRAEL, not that I know of. I searched for it on the Hebrew Wikipedia and on Google, but nothing turned up. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Good news friend, I located something online that explained that it was located in "Edom" which is now Jordan. The term "Watercress" is also used (for food), but historical information is also included. I will try to shorten the link for you: [22]. Perhaps it can be added to the Edom page, but I will leave that up to you (if you choose). Twillisjr (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Arians

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding in the article about Sephardi Jews.

At that time, Christians were divided between the "Nicene" or "Trinitarian" position (Jesus is of the same nature as God) and the "Arian" position (Jesus is subordinate to God). The Nicene position basically won, and was held by the Romans and Byzantines, and by most Christians today, apart from the Unitarians. That is what the article means by "orthodox Christians" and "Catholics". The Arian position was held by the Visigoths, until a later Visigothic king of Spain was converted to Catholicism. For as long as the Visigoths were Arians, they were reasonably tolerant of Jews. Once they became Catholic (i.e. Nicene) things became a lot tougher.

That is what the article was trying to say. As edited by you, it sounds as if "Arians" and "orthodox Christians" mean the same thing. Please read it again, both before and after your edit, and you will see that I am right. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that you are right. That is indeed what I had in mind. Since I seem to have the fact mixed up, please feel free to fix it (again) as needed. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your edit. Very good. Thanks for clarifying this to me and the article. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

1RR

What about 1RR do you think is optional? nableezy - 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I already explain in the edit summary that I consider my edit to have consensus. I just now had another look at WP:NOT3RR, and see that "my edit has consensus" is not one of them. I actually think it should be, but however that may be, my good faith edit was already reverted. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how Huldra could revert my edit with the lousy excuse that the citations are not understandable? I provided extensive quotes from all three sources, after looking them up in the university library, as well as their English translation. You might want to have a word with her about that... Debresser (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What you consider has consensus and what actually has consensus may be two different things. I dont understand the citations, and have requested additional information at the talk page. Thank you. nableezy - 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That is also true. I am also on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit by Huldra and its edit summary "rm rubbish" are not indicative of her positive attitude. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it promotes a positive attitude when you break 1RR, then precede the threaten me (who has not broken the 1RR) with WP:ARBPIA violation???? Seriously. Get real. Huldra (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I already explained it was a good faith mistake, while your edit was plain disruptive, so yes, I do think there is a good case against you, and I will keep this record for future use, should the need arise. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine, in the future I will just ask you to self-revert, then wait for you not to do so, and then just report you, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

People's

Here is some discussion of the topic [23].

I assume you are trying to say that the use of an IUD is a decision of both people in the relationship and thus it should be plural (more than one person) rather than singular? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but the previous version was "person's" and that is better in this case. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Already voted. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you vote oppose for many, as I did? I think this year was the first time I had so few support votes. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I voted neutral for all except the few I know. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Debresser. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

God

Not being critical just curious, why the emphasis on existence over nature ie

There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.

There is no clear consensus on the existence or even the nature of God.

Shouldn't both have equal weight ? Unibond (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Because there is no relevance to a thing's nature if it doesn't exist. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not curse on my talk page

Please do not use expletives on my talk page. Peace. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be an ass, and I won't call you one. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from using such language. I am not being an "a**" as you say it. Please also refer to WP:NPA. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the term I used was within limits for my talkpage. I refer you to Wikipedia:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism

You're now at the limit of 3RR. You're invited to discuss the photo. I'll help. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I already reminded you on your talkpage of WP:BRD. That means that you made a bold edit and were reverted, and should now discuss and obtain consensus before repeating your edit even once! I promise that I will join the discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Have a free meal for starting the AN/I thread. Their remark was offensive so I've handed them a warning not to refer to you as a misogynist and I've given them links to DRN and RfC. I don't fully get the meat of that discussion, but, if you can get your hands on some good quality images of Haredi women, then that may be more useful to you than edit-warring over it. Oh yes, slmost forgot, please avoid editwarring except to remove attacking, vandalizing, copyrighted, or other illegal materials. This trout is merely for fair representation. It's the equal outcomes approach ;). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
Going to the limit of 3RR, I see... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll have to template you too. Please note, that I am careful not to pass the limit. Debresser (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for improving the article about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.I noticed you did a good job in preventing unhelpful edits from being introduced into the article. Eliko007 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That was an old issue, that comes up once in a while. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Schneerson and Crown Height riots

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. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. If you noticed, I did propose a solution, which you implemented, but was rejected by other editors. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, I notice you have tried to officially threaten me on my web page. Again, please show me how I have used name-calling and the sort. But again, my prime recommendation to you is to address with substance the problems with the Schneerson article with reasonable sources. I have no fear that my sources back up what I have stated, and I have no doubt also that this article is marked by recurrent, ill advised biased editing. I have set up a complaint about the neutrality board, as you know from prior discussions, this is not a new problem for this article.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, I notice you have used the vandalism template on my webpage twice. Well whoopee-doo. Is this like a magic trick, which if you say it three times it becomes true? My recommendation is that you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars before you template me, but better yet, I tend to view this as a sign that you are not having luck with finding reliable sources that prove your point on the Schneerson article. It must take a lot of energy to harass other people, when you could focus on the contents of the article. Oh by the way, I deleted your template again, please tell me when does the 3RR rule kick in for your vandalism templates on my talk page?Rococo1700 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware that warnings regarding the consequences of violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not considered threats. Same is true in law, by the way. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem

is covered by the 1RR. And your edit violates the MOS. nableezy - 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even look which page it is. It is a completely technical edit, and it is bad, so I reverted it. I propose we don't make an issue of this, although, unfortunately, I know you are not below trying to use this as an excuse to report me for this "grave" violation of 1RR.

It was actually the other edit which I reverted, that violated the WP:MOS, as I explained in the edit summary. Not to mention that the editor who edited before me ignored WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose that if you wish to show you have the competence required to edit this encyclopedia that abide by simple rules like you are only allowed 1 revert every 24 hours. nableezy - 20:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to show that, nor is my competence an issue, You are being childish again (tu quoque). Debresser (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I am quite aware that you do not show you have the competence required, I had not however realized that you do not want to. Live and learn. And for the record, I was being petty, not childish. nableezy - 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Debresser,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And same to you. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Gave my opinion on one of the two proposals. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, my dear. Same to you. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please consider chiming in...

Greetings...not sure how much we may have interacted in the past, but regardless, I hope you're having a very happy holiday season!

I would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to review this ANI filing and consider weighing in. There hasn't been much participation thus far, and while the editor I reported hasn't made any edits for the past couple of days, they also have historically declined to discuss their edits, and I see no indication that that pattern will change if nothing is done. Pinging you as I saw that you warned the editor previously.

Thank you for your consideration, and again, I hope you have a very happy holidays! DonIago (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this situation has resolved itself. Thanks for chiming in there, and I hope you're having a great week! DonIago (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Very good. Glad to hear. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 80px

Thank you. However, I am Jewish. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding wording

Hello, I wanted to ask you for your thoughts and also give you some background on the reason for my edit which was reverted here. My concerns are that the word "hack", or to "to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows", is a verb being used in a negative connotation towards the Crusaders, of which have a controversial history within this area to begin with. I thought my change to "opened" did not lose any important factual information to this article but did refrain from any verbiage which may offer a connotation other than the fact that it is believed that the opening was created by the Crusaders. To prevent multiple revisions I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if there is another word you might find suitable that more directly correlates to what is known about the opening. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talkpage. Please comment there. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish descent rfc

Not sure if you saw that someone closed it as a keep.🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just now noticed it. Can't believe it. I will appeal that. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just going to post, I appealed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Undid revision of mine

Debresser, you have undid a revision of mine on 'Biblical archaeology' where I removed the Shroud of Turin from "disproved" Biblical artifacts. Your explanation was "Unexplained removal. Also made a plethora of minor technical edits." -- I would undo your edit, however your minor edits are helpful to the page and so I did not simply undo it. I in fact DID explain my removal of the Shroud of Turin in the Talk Page, and I still COMPLETELY disapprove of your re-addition of it. As I have shown in the Talk Page, the Shroud of Turin CERTAINLY isn't disproven. Simply because there is debate in it does NOT allow anyone to put it under the list of disproven Biblical artifacts -- so I am requesting that you remove your addition of the Shroud of Turin under the section if disproved Biblical artifacts otherwise I will have to do it myself as I did indeed bring this to the Talk Page. Thanks.Korvex (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a bit of input. The Smithsonian says... many experts believe the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery,

The Vatican disagrees but the bottom line is that many experts believe the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery,

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/arts-culture/why-the-vatican-believes-in-the-shroud-of-turin/#5PUvmFvGkbXIygBK.99

Peter K Burian (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Never doubted it. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Eliezer Berland.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

I reverted a set of edits, of which yours was just one. No need to post such a long message on my talkpage for that. I think these posts are invasive. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the end. I'll quote it for you again: If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page. Anomie⚔ 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I did. I understand why the explanation, but on the other hand, editors are no fools, and this message is overdone. IMHO. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page

Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I did. I actually asked you a question there. But please, stop pushing your edits, rather obtain consensus first. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop frivolously editing User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer

User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer exists to allow non-administrators to stop AnomieBOT if it is making edits that are damaging the encyclopedia. You have been abusing that ability by posting to that page when the only thing "wrong" the bot has done is post a single message to your talk page informing you that a revert you made was inappropriate (note the linked revert is not this other entirely appropriate and correct revert). Please stop. Anomie⚔ 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You know, I don't like your tone. You call my edit "whining" and "abuse". Well, I think you are abusing your edit privileges by using such words in violation of WP:CIVIL and now also WP:AGF. Per WP:BOTCOMM, that is not the standard of behavior expected from an editor running a bot. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert me?

All I did was add the categories that were already on the main article's page. I don't like the obvious double standard you are trying to apply to Jews vis a vis other groups in the Middle East, and apparent discomfort with calling us a Middle Eastern group at all (even though that is what we are, by any conceivable definition). I find that deeply worrying. There is enough revisionism of Jewish identity out there as it is. We don't need it on Wikipedia too.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Because a Jew from the US is not from Asia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, an African American cannot claim African descent, a Japanese American cannot claim Japanese descent, etc. An African American is still of African descent, even if his or her ancestors moved first from Africa to the Caribbean, before moving to the US. Yet, you seem to be arguing that since a Jew's ancestors lived in diaspora in Europe, or elsewhere, before moving to the US, that he or she can no longer trace their ancestry back to its origin. PA Math Prof (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

if an African-American converts to Judaism, is that person magically from Asia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, my "I don't think you're new" radar is going off. Have you ever edited Wikipedia before? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, neither is a Chinese person from the US. And I have an account, but I no longer use it. I do not like being WP:STALKed.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

you are now edit warring and socking.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not socking if my account (i.e. ChronoFrog) isn't banned and is simply no longer in use out of a desire to avoid being harassed by antisemitic editors. You are the one violating WP:BIAS by pushing antisemitic denial/double standards/revisionism on Wikipedia. So yeah, someone needs to stop you from doing it.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Now you're pushing to CIVIL and NPA territory. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't even care anymore. Considering everything I've seen you and your tag-team partner on here do, you don't deserve civility. And you are certainly in no place to accuse others of WP:NPA. You need to check yourself. Seriously.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lucky enough, I am in contact with a number of journalists and bloggers. People will know what's going on here. Enjoy it while you can.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where did I violate CIVIL? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to like it, but this issue has been extensively discussed, and your manifold edits are like an elephant walking in the china shop. In any case, you are edit warring, and you're obviously a sock. You have been reported on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL

[24]--Shrike (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

:) So I am an ultra-right wing Israeli “settler”? Never felt like one. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

And anti-semitic, plus paid by Saudi Arabia. I wish! :) Debresser (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You're obviously an ultra–right-wing anti-semitic Israeli settler paid by Saudi Arabia. Textbook case. EEng 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

He beat me then, I'm just a plain old regular anti-semite. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, at least your not as publicized as much as the biggest anti-semitic in the world, [25].—JJBers 02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing CFD discussions

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_9#Category:Jewish_agricultural_colonies_in_the_Russian_Empire. It's generally best not to close discussions in which one had participated and expressed an opinion, but as this one was withdrawn by the nominator, I am not here to make an objection about that. However, you forgot to sign your close. Also, I have done a couple of follow-up actions which are required after closing: to remove the CFD template from the nominated category, and to add a link to the discussion on the talk page. For future reference, these are listed at WP:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions (WP:CFDAI). If you have the time and inclination to help again at CFD, that would be very welcome. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I used to be very active there once, but in order to really help one needs to be an admin. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI noticeboard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_and_Sir_Joseph

The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied there and referred editors to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Category:Jews section above, where you are now reported as well. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett

Hello I've reverted your restoration of the information on the Jussie Smollett per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE please do not restore the information without first establishing a consensus. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi I just saw you reverted me again. Please read the policy I've linked to. Per the WP:BLP Policy the information can NOT be restored. Until consensus is reached to keep it. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The guideline you quote is about unsourced information, or information which otherwise doesn't comply with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. This information is sourced. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this again as it concerns a BLP and has been challenged. As Cameron pointed out, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires consensus before restoration of material challenged on BLP grounds. "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Feel free to discuss on talk. Note that I'm making no judgements on the content dispute and am just acting in an administrative role. Thank you. (edit conflict) BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies broadly to material challenged on BLP grounds. In particular, it appears Cameron has challenged the reliability of the source, and on the face of it, that's not an unreasonable challenge. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahavas Yisroel

Hi Debresser, I know we've been writing recently as opponents, but I was wondering if we could bridge some differences as fellow Lubavitchers with Torah. I know that I've been writing on WP mostly based on secular sources, because that is what WP tends to favor. However, my actual belief is that the truth is as things are in Torah. I think we are in agreement there, and that our differences might come mostly as a result of different understandings of Torah. So I would like to learn more about your understanding of Am Yisroel and Eretz HaKodesh.

To begin, Wikipedia is currently unfriendly to religious definitions, so I felt I had to act more as Yaakov, rather than as Yisroel. In other words, in order to realize the maila of ohr (Torah) min ha-choshech davka (WP), we have to present the Torah in terms that the choshech can swallow, dressing it up in hairy skins like Yaakov. Unfortunately, since the choshech only swallows secular sources, that's what we have to give it. But here, we don't need the hairy goatskins and we can talk straight. :-D

The underlying goal of my recent edits was to have WP recognize, or at least mention, the deep connection of every Yisroel with Eretz Yisroel. As it currently stands, the Yishmaelim are listed in the region, but not Jews. This implied heipech ho-emes, that Jews do not belong there. So the situation needs to be fixed.

When I saw from your user page that you were also a Lubavitcher, I asked some local shluchim what they thought, and their initial opinion indeed followed yours, especially when I mentioned the secular arguments I had been using. After all, Torah iz Emes, and any other definition is not. But those were just the goatskins.

When I mentioned the implications for us in Eretz Hakodesh, though, the shluchim quickly came to agree that Jews should certainly be listed similarly to the Yishmaelim. The senior shliach even said that this is the taineh of the goyim that Rashi mentions in Bereishis bara, as the Rebbe explains: The goyim say that since we are a spiritual people, what need do we have of a gashmiyusdikeh land? Gashmiyus is the domain of Eisav, and we're doing hasagas g'vul. That's their problem with us. Talmud loimar, Hashem created the world, and in order that the Yidden fulfill their—yes—spiritual mission, we need a land b'gashmiyus, and Hashem designated Eretz Hakodesh davka for that purpose. That is why we had to come from there to be an ohr lagoyim, and we daven to return there to do all of our mitzvos and fulfill our mission to make a dira b'tachtoinim—mamash with a physical world.

What do you think? Shavua tov, chodesh tov! Musashiaharon (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Musashiaharon. Welcome to my talkpage, and a good and happy month of Adar for you too!

As long as there are no personal attacks, I have no issue with editors who disagree with me.

I stand behind my point of view, and oppose any and all political influence on Wikipedia. That includes that I think there is a difference between Arabs and Jews, in that Jews have been dispersed over the whole world for two millennia. And yes, that means that the Jewish claim to Israel is weaker than it would have been if all Jews had always lived there. That doesn't mean Jews don't have a right to live in Israel though. However that may be, that is not the issue in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was dismayed to see that you betrayed my assumption of good faith and used this to attack me personally. I regret that we won't be getting along on this, but it does not affect my concern for you, whatever else happens. Chodesh tov. Musashiaharon (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not attack you personally. I respect your POV. However, letting a POV influence ones editing knowingly, is not good for this projects, and I asked admins to comment on that issue. Please notice that I never expressed my own POV on the political issue, and don't plan to do so. It simply is irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, Jews' connection to Israel absolutely remains a great part of this discussion. And Jews having always called to return to Yerushalyim (via Pesach) is a strong part of the connection that not only contributed to Jews' racial/Tribal persecution in European and Arab lands, but also allowed Jews, including yourself, to make the efforts to finally return. People who deny Jews' regional/Ethnocultural labels (e.g. Semitic, Southwest Asian/West Asian, "Middle Eastern," North-Northeast African, etc.) risk not affirming Jews' Indigenous rights to the land/region and potentially encourage others to deny Jews' connection to Eretz Y'Israel at all. Do you understand that perspective? Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Still, that is not a valid concern in this discussion, or on any Wikipedia discussion, for that matter. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jews' connection to Israel is a valid concern in these discussions, especially as it relates to Jewish racial/Ethnocultural/Tribal identity and subsequent categorizations, and thus similar-minded editors' perspectives. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—we have a WP:Category called Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. If a person was born in the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If a person's mother and/or father was born in the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If other ancestors derive from the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If none of these conditions apply, but that person spent formative years in the Middle East, it can be argued that they are of Middle Eastern descent. But you are saying something different. You say for instance "...Jews' connection to Israel absolutely remains a great part of this discussion. And Jews having always called to return to Yerushalyim (via Pesach) is a strong part of the connection..."[26] Nope—that is not what Middle Eastern descent means. The Middle East is a geographic location. The connection must be a geographic connection. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, there are geographic remnants through genetics and culture; thus, any Jew can either be of Middle Eastern descent (through genetics/sustained cultural identification), and/or obtain and pass down a Middle Eastern identity (through tribal initiation/"conversion"), as I referenced in the first ANI discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—the Middle East is a geographic area. It is a "region in western Asia and northeast Africa that includes the nations on the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey."[27] The Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is a Category for people who derive from the Middle East. What does "derive from" mean? Obviously if a person was born in the Middle East we can say that they derive from the Middle East, or we could say that they are "of Middle Eastern decent", and they belong in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Similarly if their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents derive from the Middle East, we can Categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent. A geographical area is under consideration here. But of course converts in most cases don't derive from the Middle East. Therefore we can't just plunk all Jews in a Category for those of Middle Eastern descent—because it just is not so. You can't bend facts. This is an encyclopedia. All Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent. Many are, but a sufficient number are not, that it would be tantamount to tampering with the facts to make the misassumption that you would like to make. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, you continue to ignore sources I provide to you. The majority of Jews either have genetic linkages to the Middle East (See here) and/or derive their Tribal lineage/heritage from Eretz Y'Israel via their initiation into the Tribe (See here). Stop denying essential parts to the totality of Jewish identity; I would say that most Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, whether by genetic or Ethnocultural/Tribal heritages or both. Jeffgr9 (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say that I should "[s]top denying essential parts to the totality of Jewish identity", but in fact I am not "denying" anything. I am facing reality squarely. "Jewish identity" is what it is. But we are not discussing "Jewish identity" at all. Under discussion here is geographic lineage, not "Jewish identity". That may be your personal concern, but it doesn't happen to be at all relevant to the question at hand. You have provided a source which says "75 percent of today's Jews have Middle Eastern origins, says DNA pioneer". Note the distinction between 75% and 100%. This is not rocket science. Even my feeble grasp of mathematics leads me to believe that 25% "of today's Jews" do not "have Middle Eastern origins". Please tell me what, in your opinion, I am failing to understand about this, the genetic approach to geographic lineage. There has been admixture of genetic material from people throughout the generations. Those people in many instances had no connection to the Middle East. They were converts whose geographic lineage connects to the many areas of the world other than the Middle East. You cannot bend facts. This is an encyclopedia. You also cite "Tribal lineage/heritage from Eretz Y'Israel via their initiation into the Tribe". What would this have to do with geographic lineage? Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is a Category for geographic descent, specifically Middle Eastern geographic descent. The title of that Category need not say "Middle Eastern geographic descent" because the Middle East is a region. What is a region? It is a geographic locale. I have to define every word. That is the only way to conduct this conversation. The Middle East is a "region in western Asia and northeast Africa that includes the nations on the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey."[28] Do you not notice that the region comprises many geographic locales? Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Those who identify as "Jewish" sociopolitically identify as members of a primarily and predominantly Middle Eastern Tribe. A Jew in Europe will face Anti-Semitism (or, Racism against Jews; literally meaning "Racism against those of Semitic descent," as Jews were the first Semitic group to deeply interact with European societies) whether or not they are genetically or just culturally Middle Eastern. A genetically Middle Eastern Jew need not even identify as a Jew to suffer Anti-Semitism; whereas, a "Jew by choice" chooses to assume the risks that come with being a part of a Middle Eastern Tribe. Point being, the Middle Eastern Tribal designation follows Jews (the majority of whom are of traceable genetic Middle Eastern descent), ergo so does the geographic designation of what it means to be a part of a Middle Eastern Tribe. A Native/Indigenous American with no traceable genetic Native/Indigenous American heritage will be considered Indigenous to the Americas (the geographic locale), just as a Jew will be considered Indigenous to Israel (the geographic locale). Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—just a minor point. I can't respond to everything due to time constraints. You say that Jews are "culturally Middle Eastern". Aren't you aware that the Category:People of Middle Eastern descent concerns itself with a geographic location? The Category:People of Middle Eastern descent has nothing to do with culture. Bus stop (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, are you aware that Middle Eastern cultures and Tribes derive from the Middle East? That all members of the Tribe consider themselves descendants of Ancient Israelites—whether genetically, Ethnoculturally/Tribally, or both? And thus, all Jews are geographically connected and Indigenous to Eretz Y'Israel? Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—when people convert to Judaism they don't magically become "People of Middle Eastern descent" (as in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent). Bus stop (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this last point. Moreover, neither does Jewish culture qualify as Middle Eastern. Unless you'd mean Eastern Europe (for Ashkenazim). Debresser (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have said it to you before—"conversion" or joining the Tribe does not have to do with "magic" (except in a spiritual sense), but adding to/changing one's sociopolitical identity from what it was previously to a Middle Eastern identity. And Debresser, Jewish culture absolutely qualifies as Middle Eastern. Why else would you want to live in Eretz Y'Israel? Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Culture is not Middle Eastern. It's wherever they are. I've been to Israel and please don't say that Jewish culture is the same throughout the world. It's not. It's actually a huge culture shock when American Jews make Aliyah. (Although one Israeli I spoke with has said that Israel has become more "Americanized" with their culture due to the constant stream of Americans.) There is no one uniform Jewish culture. European Jews like gefilte fish and yerushalmi kugel, Sephardim like kibbeh and lachmajin. As to why Debresser wants to live in Israel, I imagine one reason is because it's a mitzvah to do so. What does living in Israel have to do with culture and as a proof that Jewish culture is Middle Eastern? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—inclusion in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is based on feet on the ground, not on "tribal factors" or "ethnocultural factors" or "sociopolitical factors". For inclusion in this Category the person should either be born in the region or the person should have spent formative years in the region or their parents, grandparents etc. should be documented as having had feet on the ground in the region. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that is uselessly stringent. Generally, if say a person grew up among the Roma, participated in their culture and traditions, married another Roma, and were accepted by other Roma, etc., one would assume that they are indeed Roma. In fact it would take documentation to dissociate them from the Roma and prove that they aren't of Roma descent, since this is contrary to normal expectation! I just think the same standard should apply to Jews, viz. unless specific documentation exists to the contrary for that individual (for example, that both parents are converts or that the individual is a convert), someone who was born and raised among Jews is assumed to be of Jewish descent. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is saying they're not of Jewish descent. The issue is that you can't say that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for RfC notification

Please let me know if/when the Jewish/ME descent RfC is re-opened. I do not follow the topic area but I am interested in the RfC. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 13:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

the rfc has been reclosed as no consensus.so those categories should be removed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Sir Joseph, the RfC has been not overturned, which means no changes until another RfC can be properly proposed. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Overturn_Rfc_restarted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley Sure, will do. I personally will not be reopening it. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing other users comments

Please refrain from editing the comments of other users in communal spaces. If you disagree with the argument, respond to it in a rational manner. Do not delete comments, however difficult it is for you to find a coherent counter argument. Thanks 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please remind me what edit of mine you are referring to?

Your insinuation, as though I would remove a comment because I would find it hard to counter, is simply a bad faith assumption, and not worthy of comment. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not bad faith, it's fact and in the diffs. Rather than pretend otherwise, just be aware that deleting and editing other users comments isn't very wiki, however challenging you find the content 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That was a nonsense edit, in no way related to the serious discussion that preceded it. Any editor can and should remove such posts on sight. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It is your opinion that my comment was irrelevant. You are of course welcome to that opinion. But it wasn't irrelevant and you should not delete it. It's assuming bad faith to do so. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I can live with that in case of such comments. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what you can live with or without. One man's "nonsense" is another man's religion, for example. I don't recall deleting any comments prescribing to the notion a person's sacrosanct genetic history can be magically exchanged for another through the power of belief. But then I'm not rattled by different opinions, even when I don't understand them. So please refrain from censoring Wikipedia to suit your tastes as you may find such instances of bad faith lead to an outcome you can't actually live with. Thanks. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Was that a threat? Debresser (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I see from the failed ANI Wikipedia agrees with me. My original comment(s) (which you wrongly deleted) were fair. And my blatantly gentle notification not to delete other Wikipedian's comments - whether you understand them or not - were also considered fair (and not a "threat"(!!)) A simple acknowledgement was all I was really after (the comment I left removed and hey, I'd never expect an *apology* on here!) but you are obviously hell bent on turning this into a battle so I will leave it on this final light reminder to refrain from editing or deleting other users comments during a debate. If you have a coherent argument - let it shine forth. If you find yourself about to censor another user perhaps ask yourself whether its an indication that your position in the discussion is not as strong as you think it is, and open yourself up to consider the alternatives, rather than delete them. Thanks, 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Then I will use this opportunity to repeat that if and when I see a comment that is obviously not relevant, I will remove it. If others disagree with my assessment, they can restore it, but that will not keep me from doing the right thing according to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition to defending my own actions, let me also add something that may help you. Your bad faith assumption is blatant and insulting, and that will not get you far, on Wikipedia or in life. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Crikey, you just can't admit when you are wrong can ya? It wasn't "obviously" irrelevant. If people are openly disagreeing with your assessment of irrelevance, and understood what I meant, maybe you aren't doing "the right thing" running around deleting everything, champ. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I can. In this case I don't think I should. And in view of your own manifold problems, to which you may add being a nudnik on my talkpage, I am absolutely not inclined to do so, even if I though I was wrong (which I don't). Debresser (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol, you don't think you should admit you are wrong because I'm a nudnik? Okay. I don't think you are Middle Eastern because you are Jewish. One of those statements has relevance, I challenge you to spot which one (ooh - going for your Achilles heel, here!;)) 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this is your first post which shows a bit of a sense of humor, and I have no problem leaving it at that. Debresser (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)