User talk:Debresser/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Re: Notice

Hi Debresser,

Should you place another template warning on a veteran editor's page, you will be reported.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. You will find out that you are wrong. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, what do you say about the section just above this one (now archive and linked here)? Debresser (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Dovid - how are you?

1. Notice I've just corrected my previous misspelling "Shefah" (שפע has no Hei. "Hashpoah" does though) on Hasidic Judaism page - I corrected Ohr page spelling a while ago. The new links are to Shefa disambiguation page, and particularly Shefa (Jewish theology). Are you able as an administrator to delete the incorrect redirect page Shefah?
2. Notice IZAK's reply to correspondence with me a while ago (Link below), concerning his convincing reply that no Lithuanian Judaism page should be made, since there is accurately no such thing as "Lithuanian/Litvish Judaism", like there are no such things as "Romanian/Ukrainian/German Judaisms etc. Litvish/Yeshivish (not necessarily synonymous either) Jewish forms are only one particular historical-sociological expression - the most historically traditional form with less (but still lots of interesting/creative/vibrant) innovation - of previous Rabbinic Judaism. I then replied to him some thoughts of alternative solutions to a wikipedia collective page on non-Hasidic Eastern European Jewish Orthodox spiritual history, but I didn't have time to further follow up the discussion. I like the idea of a non-Hasidic collective spiritual history page on wikipedia, as a parallel comparison with Hasidic Judaism page. Notice I made the point in subsequent correspondence to IZAK that Hasidism (Habad more specifically) is my first love in Judaism. Nonetheless, for both scholarly and personal interest reasons I like the idea of a collective non-Hasidism page. Notice my discussion of 2 different streams: Litvish-Mitnagdic and Hungarian-Oberlander (are these the only main ones in Eastern European Orthodox culture?). When I have time, I'll paste the relevant responses between IZAK and me after our earlier corresondence on Lithuanian Judaism etc. on Talk:Misnagdim page.

The link to our extended IZAK-me corresondence is here:

• User talk:IZAK/Archive 40#Jewish Philosophy template, and Lithuanian Judaism
• and here User talk:IZAK/Archive 40#From April8 (I now think the Template:Kabbalah is probably great in its present form)
• and here User talk:IZAK/Archive 40#Update from April8 ("..I'm sorry that Debresser can be difficult!.."!)
• and here User talk:IZAK/Archive 40#Continuation.. ("..Perhaps Debresser is ghettoised!.." Sorry-one needs to pull out all the diplomatic stops to further one's aims! N.B. This last two part post-suggestion to IZAK went unanswered till now)

Best Wishes April8 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, April8.

1. Actually, I am not an admin, just an experienced user.
2. As to IZAK. He often makes good edits, but sometimes he gets a little carried away. In particular, he seems to see some Chabad conspiracy to usurp control over Jewish articles on Wikipedia.
3. I understand the point made by IZAK as to "Lithuanian" Judaism. The point he seems to be missing is that "Lithuanian" here is not meant as a strictly geographical denominator, but rather has become the name for a branch of modern Judaism. He might know it better as "Litvishe" or simply "misnagdim". I think we could make a "Lithuanian Judaism" page, but that it should be a redirect to misnagdim. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

When I checked the link to "Lithuanian Judaism", it lead to Lithuanian Jews, and that article already has a hatnote saying "For the historical Rabbinic opposition to Hasidic Judaism from the 1700s, centred in Lithuania, see Misnagdim". Which I think is adequate enough. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI complaint filed

I have mentioned your action at Palestinian rabbis at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have replied there. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage

You have got to be kidding! How does my clarification not meet standards?? From the information that you kindly sent to me:

• Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits.

• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. We try to avoid advocacy and we characterize issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"

• Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes

I glanced at your personal page; Jewish? Frum? Chasidish? Please check the halacha before undoing my emendations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koheintzedek (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a warning template on your talkpage for repeating a below-standard edit. That is called disruptive editing, and may lead to a block. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a warning template on your talkpage for repeatedly attempting to remove edits which elaborate on the Jewish view of Marriage/Divorce.Koheintzedek (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your warning template anywhere...? In any case, please don't be childish. Your edit was below standard. Your last edit was up to standard, and is therefore not reverted. Your contribution to the content of this article is appreciated. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How dare you

Chesdovi (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't leave me such stupid messages. You have returned to your controversial and non-consensus editing and adding of categories. I asked you be blocked in the WP:ANI discussion. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What Hutzpa. If there's "no consensus", we keep. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

London Gazette edit

Can you explain why you restored the parameters to {{London Gazette}} in this edit? They're deprecated and there are no instances of calls to London Gazette that use these parameters any more, so why keep them around? – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The parameters are deprecated, but are still sometimes used. As you can see in the related category. That is why we have the detection on some 20 citation templates. If you know for a fact that they aren't in use on any of the instances of Template:London Gazette, I think they could be safely removed, because it is unlikely they will be added still. But I have no such information. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a non-editing bot that I used to check, and none of those parameters are used on any calls any more. Mind you, I may keep you logic and simply change the parameters, as there are a couple of parameters like linkeddate and notarchive that are deprecated, but still in use. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have checked, then I have no serious problem with removing the detection. Or using the code and category for other parameters. By all means. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revert then. Based on the documentation for the category, I gather it's only supposed to be used for certain parameter names at the moment, so I'll just do a revert for now; we can reinstate it with different parameters if the scope of that category expands later on. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right, we created the category for specific parameters. But we have added to them as the need arose. So feel free to use it for some other parameters as well. Just that I wouldn't change the documentation for parameters used on only one template. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your response on the category talk page. Thanks! – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. And I noticed that even parameters which are being detected on only one template are added to the documentation page. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Userfied page

I do disagree with that move - as you most likely noted, I have not edited the page, and it is not a single user's draft. It is a community draft to hold expected changes until they become effective on August 1 2011. There are disadvantages to moving it to user namespace as it is less likely to be edited by other users and now it appears to be "my" new proposed page rather than a community proposed page.

But more than all that - with all the other things that need to be fixed on the different Wikipedia page, why would you choose to make this change? It hurts nothing, doesn't violate policy, and doesn't sent a bad precedent for anything. Seriously, why spend the time to make the change and inform me about it? --Trödel 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The question of "why?" is superfluous. Obviously there is good reason. But in fact I have though of a better idea, which I have implemented on some other page already. And which has the advantage of not giving the impression that this is your private page. Give me a few minutes, and I'll take care f it. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree with you unilaterally changing the location of the subpage. We've done a subpage like that every year for as long as I've been editing WP. The reason for the subpage was to make it easier to implement the changes to the actual page when the changes become effective in August. The subpage, set up as a talk page, made it very easy for that to be done. You should have commented on the talk page before unilaterally making such a change. I can't speak for all WP editors, but I would have liked to be involved in this decision before it was made. WP is about users working TOGETHER, not one user changing things on a whim without discussion. Please reverse this change. If you feel it is valid, please comment on the above-mentioned talk page BEFORE making this change again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In looking at your talk page, I've noticed that you seem to have a HUGE problem working with other WP editors. You might want to watch that. It could get you in trouble someday. No one likes to be cut out of decisions, and you have repeatedly and wrongfully asserted your right to make WP page decisions on your own. Discuss it first, please. For your sake as well as ours. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside your general advise, and sticking to the issue at hand. You are right that userfying was a bad move. But making a draft in article namespace is definitely something that falls under the category of things that need to be fixed. Talkpages and article mainspace pages are treated differently by various templates, and the only place to make a draft is in article namespace. I was doing some fairly standard work on maintenance categories. Your draft was only one of 14. So please, do not blow up this thing out of proportion. And in the future, make sure to choose the right namespace for your drafts. Did you consult with other editors when choosing talkpage namespace...? I thought so... Debresser (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

When the subpage was originally created, Trodel posted that information on the article talk page, and while changes were being made to the subpage, at any point, any editor COULD have provided feedback on the move. That they did not signified approval by silence. You, on the other hand, moved the article without the consent or knowledge of those involved in creating and updating it, essentially cutting us out of the deal. And THAT'S what I have a problem with. Again, WP is about editors working TOGETHER, and not one editor unilaterally making such decisions. By definition, two or more editors can come together and make consensus decisions. But in order to do so, they need to be informed about such decisions BEFORE they are made. Having the subpage listed as a talk page made the changes easier to implement when they became effective. I have looked over what you've done again, and I have no problem with that. The thing I take issue with is not being involved in the decision to take that page in this direction. I know Trodel well enough to know that he or she is not happy with your handling of the situation either. So I would respectfully request that you involve other WP editors in major decisions about articles BEFORE you make such changes unilaterally. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your indignation. I have no reason to ask you nor inform you about any edit I wish to make to an article, which - after all - that page is. Especially not since we are talking about a simple maintenance edit. That is the way Wikipedia works: you make an edit, I make an edit. Only if an edit is likely to be controversial, is it wise to discuss it first, and even then usually one finds out only afterwards that it was a controversial edit. And even then there is being bold. Please study WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI - we did consult with other editors the first time we wanted to create a draft and were told we should not do so in the article namespace - like many things at wikipedia - things changed. Unfortunately we forgot to remove(or comment out) the category text so they talk namespace things showed up in categories. See for example the page history for the main page (the August 2010 history being merged with the main page in August by me) and you'll see in May 2010 the categories were commented out. Having talk pages in a namespace category should not happen and needed to be cleaned up - while a request first would have been nice, it was easily fixed - and now we know the "current" policy on where drafts should be placed for next year but I'm sure it will be different in 2013. --Trödel 13:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you had marked out the categories, I wouldn't have noticed, and this discussion wouldn't have taken place. I am surprised by the advise to use talkpage namespace, even then. The main thing is you are aware now that I was just doing some regular cleanup, without any intention to disregard your efforts. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that a simple, "I moved it because it was showing up on category pages" would have resulted in an apology from me and a lot less trouble. --Trödel 15:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Tallit

Hi Debresser, what's up? Why are you doing what you are doing? Lotje ツ (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Lotje. Sorry, but I can't but automatically like a person with your name. I'm Dutch, and I have the fondest memories for girls with that name. Anyway, what I did was move a space from inside an internal link to outside it: [[Hebrew ]] -> [[Hebrew]] . See? Or was you question more of general, philosophical nature? Debresser (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Judaism

WikiProject Judaism		An invitation to join us!                                                                                 If you are already a member of WikiProject Judaism, disregard this message.
		Hello Debresser/Archive 8, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! ___________ -Invited on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta.

Asimov

Hi

Those edits were perfectly acceptable, especially the summaries. For you to put "unexplained" is both ridiculous and insulting.

As for the content, Asimov was not a practising Jew and so I changed it to ethnic to differentiate. There was nothing wrong with that as the current text is misleading and could lead readers to assume that he was a practising Jew when we all know he was atheist. That sentence which is ref'd does not say he is a practising Jew, it simply says that he acknowledges he is a Jew, in the same way I would acknowledge I am English, or that I am of Catholic descent, even though I am atheist.

Why should his name be included in Hebrew? (in other words, if in Hebrew, why not French, German, etc.)

I would remind you that someone added that, I have reverted it and we should now be at the discussion stage, something which you should have followed as an experienced editor.

It is ridiculous that such a large amount of the article and talk page is harping on about his Jewishness when he was an atheist. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first edit was to remove Asimov's name in Yiddish. It was Hebrew, not Yiddish. That Asimov was an atheist is a reason to remove his name in Yiddish? What does atheism have to do with Yiddish? That is why I said that this edit was unexplained. The reason Yiddish is there, is that Yiddish was - together with English - the language Asimov spoke in his childhood. This is specifically mentioned in the article.

Your second edit was to change the fact that Asimov identified himself as a non-observant Jew to that he was an atheist. Although he was an atheist, the source says very clearly "I am a non-observant Jew". However you want to understand those words, these are what he said! In Wikipedia we mention sexual orientation, and ethnic and religious affiliation as self-identified by the subjects of the articles (this is a documented guideline), not by the way some chaotic druid (speaking of atheists) understands it. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And since you ask, the reason I didn't initiate discussion is because your edits are so completely unacceptable in view of these simple arguments. I fact, I checked a few of your other edits, just to make sure your weren't some vandal or anti-semite. Which may serve you as an indication how far off I consider those two edits of yours. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the Yiddish part was removed incorrectly, after reading about his fluent use of the language.

The way you describe the "change the fact ... to an atheist." is not correct. I changed "non-observant Jew" to "of Jewish descent".

This constant misquoting of my actions, first "unexplained", then "to an atheist" and finally some rant about trying to assert some ridiculous religious affirmation from my Wikiname and accusing me of anti-Semitism is insulting.

Calling my edits "completely unacceptable" is merely your opinion, not a fact, and probably due to your own affiliations. Accusing me of anti-Semitism is also a little insulting. Just because I was trying to put his Jewishness into context, that of ethnic origin and not religious following, you should not even suggest such a thing. My religious views are nothing to do with what happens on Wiki, and more importantly, druids were religious, not atheist you obviously need to read about them and learn something.

I will await an apology for your "unexplained", accusation of anti-Semitism, and the way you have attacked me about my Wiki name.

None of this changes the fact that a qualifier should be put in. Leaving "non-observant Jew", is suggesting that he was of the Jewish religion, though he did not practice it. If you cannot see why this should be done, then I suggest that you are indeed biassed. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of antisemitism, so no apology will be forthcoming in that respect. If you don't like my sense of humor in regard to your username, then don't write me on my talkpage. Here I am free to apply my sense of humor. If you had written on the talkpage of the article, I would not have made that pun. Therefore and in addition to this, your copying of this discussion there in its entirety was inappropriate, and I will note so there. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Point Valid.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Point Valid.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Point Valid, with Catherine Asaro.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Point Valid, with Catherine Asaro.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving of sandboxed articles away from talk pages of articles

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at Smuconlaw's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your info boxes and something more serious

You have the "This user is a carnivore" and "This user eats cheese" boxes too close together. You need at least hours of separation after a meat box before a cheese box. That's a joke, but in all seriousness, you should put in a "but not at the same time" or something like that.

On the other subject, Chabad has decided that the documents are authentic, not forgeries, and has posted them on its website, which means it accepts them as genuine. I do not believe that you intended to accuse the Chabad.org website of posting false documents, so I assume that either you did not check the references or you meant the documents were inaccurate, not that they were counterfeit.

Interestingly, some of his enemies have written that he lied about his date of birth to avoid military service (when he was a young man, it was right to lie to avoid serving the Czar or the Communists, but one biased source claims that he lied to the U.S. draft as well and notes that he should have told the truth to the U.S. and volunteered to serve in the war against Hitler). Since there is no real, conclusive evidence either way, I did not think that allegation should be included. On the other hand, your point about the date his parents married is a worse Lashon Hora. [You may notice that I am using the word "he", rather than a name, because I do not want everyone reading this to know who is being discussed.]

I assume the "fringe theory" to which you refer is the idea that he actually was born in 1895, but the article never said that he was. The really interesting point was that he said that he was. The fact that he said it is both "verifiable" (Wikipedia's standard of proof) and something "everybody knows" (your standard). His statement (like everything he said) is noteworthy for the fact that he said it, even if it is not otherwise significant.

The difficult part (which really needs to be handled delicately, not through an edit war) is how to include the fact that he said this (which is significant in its own right), without either calling him a liar or calling his parents something worse. I assume you know what I mean.

See if you can think of a good way to do this. Remember, Wikipedia requires that the decisions about what dates to include must be based on what is "verifiable", not what is common knowledge, so we need a good, verifiable source for saying that 1902 is the correct date (preferably something secular, and definitely something more than "everybody knows" or "his parents were not married"), and we need a way to present the fact that he told the Russian and U.S. governments the 1895 date, in a way that makes sense even without an explanation for the contradiction (unless there is a verifiable way to tell his reasons).

71.109.153.175 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you "in person", so to say.

Yes, with "fringe theory" I meant the suggestion the he (I'll stick to your convention, for various reasons, even though I think it is obvious to all who is intended) was born in 1895. Because as soon as you write that down as (even an alternative) date, that is what it will mean to readers.

In view of that fact, it might have been better to do this another way. Not add another date as birthdate, but add a footnote to the birthdate saying sth like "It is interesting to note that when he applied for naturalisation, he stated another date of birth, namely etc., predating his real date of birth by some 7 years, for some reason".

Ok, I accept that the document is authentic in its present form, which then implies, that it was a lie. That is also a meaning of "false documents": not that they are forged, but that they contain false information.

About the "lashon hara". That is a direct consequence of your edit, so please don't throw that in my lap.

Debresser (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you made the edit. Very well. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ongoings in science fiction

Hello!

Fine that You are interested in my works. It is clear that You, but, will still have some problems to read my novella Top Secret, as it is written in German. I would be happy to have it translated into English by somebody. If You know anybody who could take care of that, just tell me! You can contact me via my e-mail address hansdunkelberg@gmail.com. I could explain You a little more thoroughly my aims, principles, and preferences regarding science fiction, then. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Judaism template

Oh, thanks for telling me. I imagine many hours of discussion have gone into that policy :). PiCo (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied on user's talkpage. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Etablissements René Neymann

Hello, this page is an orphan, I tested to give a link on matzo but you deleted it and said "that's spam!"...

Can you help me for this page?

Thanks, --Vivavanier (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was spamish, so to say. We definitely can't have every factory give its recipe. Especially since most will be the same (flour and water alone). Debresser (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Most industrial recipe are the same, there is just proportions that are different.... And do you have an idea for this page not to stay an orphan?--Vivavanier (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)(sorry if my english is bad, I'm french)

I made some small edits to the page, like removing internal links to years and dates (see WP:MOS, added categories, and a few requests for clarification of terms or statements. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your dispute with Chesdovi

It's getting a bit tiresome now, isn't it? Why don't the two of you head for mediation? It may not succeed, but, who knows, you might be able to find some common ground. Or at least a measure of mutual respect. Are you up for it? --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether I agree with the need for mediation. We have a simple argument: should "Palestine" be used in Wikipedia categories for denoting people (including Jews) who lived in this area during any age, as in the categories Chesdovi created of late, or should it be considered a nationality or ethnicity category, as it was till now? Isn't this a question for Cfd? Debresser (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the CfD should determine that. But what if, after the CfD closes, you then dispute whether the biography for Rabbi X should or should not call him a "Palestinian rabbi"? One of you can argue with merit that the CfD decision applies only to Cats, not content. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Objection! Who says that up till now such categories were considered as denoting nationality or ethnicity? You will see from here that Category:Jews by country does not denote nationality, and neither can it truly denote ethnicity. As lots of editors, not usually involved with Israel & Judaism topics have voiced: "Palestinian" designates the place from where a person comes from, as do all other similar cats. Chesdovi (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I really care. But your reply makes me all the more convinced that Debresser's admirably stolid insistence that the CfD will cure-all in your dispute is unfortunately unlikely to be borne out. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know Debresser has removed the word Palestinian from the Arizal, despite the plethora of RS I brought as support. Chesdovi (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have, and rightfully so. And other editors have done precisely the same, in that article and other ones. Perhaps Dweller is right, and an Rfc is the next step. I see no need for mediation, since the issue is not a personal one. (At least, not for me. Personal attacks and incivility from Chesdovi have been noted at WP:WQA.) Debresser (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

God in Judaism

Please avoid making edit summaries in Russian, like this one. I know you already know, but things might slip once-in-awhile :p. I understand how multi-languages gets you confused sometimes. Take care and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it after I pressed the edit button, and I really didn't need anybody to remind me about it. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you did need reminding, as I had trouble earlier having to decipher this [1]. Chesdovi (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It happens every once in a while, and I dislike it myself when it happens. Irritating me by nudging is not going to make a difference, apart from - obviously - irritating me. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While some may find white lines irritating, the word is an understatement when it comes to edit summeries written in gobeldeegook. Don't you think these "once in a while" slip ups are becoming problematic? Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No. But I do think you are going to lengths to irritate me. On my own talkpage. Please refrain from posting here, until you have something nice to say, unless absolutely necessary. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bully tactics by User:Debresser. Thank you. —JaGa^talk 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You refuse to answer a question, I make an edit, and then you run to WP:ANI... Debresser (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. That discussion was going downhill fast, and wasn't going to improve. Getting ANI involved was for the best. --JaGa^talk 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Next time just be less hostile, and no mediation will be needed. You did notice that your replies were labeled by both admins as less than helpful? Debresser (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The ANI is now closed

For your convenience, I have copied my response below:

Faking smiles for the sake of not killing each other is always a good thing.

As to my thoughts on the issue at hand, as someone who does a lot of backlog work, I tend to like to have backlog trees available (i.e. a Category:XXXs needing YYYs, with subcategories Category:XXXs needing YYYs from July 2011) because a) it makes it easier to prioritize on the oldest issues, and b) looking at a backlog page of 30 items is less daunting than looking at one with 2000 items. At the same time, I know people that like having huge lists, so they can pick items that interest them. There's no reason not to have both, assuming both are kept equally populated, and both link to one another.

Therefore I declare you both right, (but also both wrong for letting it get to this state), and recommend that you continue to at least fake smiles towards one another. Also, if you two can manage not to come across each other for a week, that always helps. Cheers, Sven Manguard

I hope this solves the problem. If not, drop me a talkpage message, as I do believe mediation is the answer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your efforts are much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Monthly cats layout

I notice that the {{Wikipedia category}} does not seem to line up nicely with the other centre boxes as it once did. Any ideas? Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Replied on user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved

Hello. I've moved your question about the bot to my talk page, hope you don't mind. I've also replied. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for dropping a note. Debresser (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Leuk geprobeerd natuurlijk

Maar ik val niet zo maar voor een grove opmerking. Bullying, was het woord geloof ik dat tegen jouw gebruikt werd in een recente AN/I-procedure. En zo klonk jouw aanval op mij ook... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is: in this case you're just plain wrong. You don't have to like it, but that is the truth. I am telling you so as an experienced and uninvolved editor. And your insistence to revert and discuss when the issue is clear-cut, I perceive as an attempt to edit-war. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't clear cut if we clash about it... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Sorry, but could you explain why that information from a perfectly good source, was irrelevant. To a Muslim, the defencelessness of their position at sojud constitutes a very important element of the narrative. Thanks in anticipation Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I mean, I'm not troubled by this sort of detail in many pages. E.g.

• (1) 'After the rally, Rabin walked down the city hall steps towards the open door of his car, at which time Amir fired three shots towards Rabin with a Beretta 84F .380 ACP caliber semi-automatic pistol.) (Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin)
• (2) 'According to an audio-recording of the Mass, he was shot while elevating the chalice at the end of the Eucharistic rite.' (Óscar Romero)
• (3)'He immediately struck the emperor from behind with a knife straight at the neck. Franz Joseph almost always wore a uniform, which had a high collar that almost completely enclosed the neck. It so happened that the collar of his uniform was made out of very sturdy material. Even though the Emperor was wounded and bleeding, the collar saved his life.' (Franz Joseph I of Austria)
• (4)On 31 October 1984, two of Gandhi's Sikh bodyguards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, assassinated her with their service weapons in the garden of the Prime Minister's residence at 1 Safdarjung Road, New Delhi as she was walking past a wicket gate guarded by Satwant and Beant. (Indira Gandhi) etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. A misunderstanding from my side. But some good came out of it, that you fixed the position of the reference. Keep up the good work. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I've long admired your own work here, and was rather reluctant to revert. But hey, with my tremendous reputation as a badman, I really appreciated that it was you of all people who gave me such a nice opportunity to do my first, tension-fraught IRR act in the I/P area!:) Cheers, friend.Nishidani (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Very-long template

Contrary to your belief, I do know how to make edits to templates. All thatI did was remove the need for specifying the date that the template was inserted, by using Magic Words that are substituted. To reflect the need to no longer add the date, I properly removed that specification from the template's documentation. The template is running perfectly normal, and I have made it easier for people to use it. Can you please explain to me (on my talkpage) how my edits constitute "bad" and "BS" edits. I truly do apologize for any inconvenience that I've caused you, and I sincerely hope this does not in anyway impair our ability to work together in the future, Magister Scienta 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magister Scienta (talk • contribs)

Will answer on user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Answered. Gist of answer: user does not (yet) know how to edit templates. Above post testifies to this. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the inclusion of whitespace, the seemingly "childish" remark, and the changing of categories. I sincerely believe though, my edits made a significant contribution to the template, and though I made a mistake not asking for consensus on whether or not automatically supplying the date was worth forfeiting info on when already in place too-long templates were added, I do not think that you, or any other editor, can deny that I was working in completely good faith and that my intentions were not to vandalize or disrupt, but to improve the quality of Wikipedia. More importantly than any of this, I ask for your forgiveness and I pledge that you shall never have issues with me again. I am embarrassed by the unintended consequences of my action, and I (echoing my previous message to you) hope we can move forwards, thank you, Magister Scienta^talk (29 July 2011)

Sure we can. That's why I had to undo another three of your edits to templates, that you made after this discussion... Sigh. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are also not familiar with the rules of Categorising. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maamarim (Chabad)

Was the example too long? I can shorten it if need be (plus add other historical-illustrative examples). April8 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, there shouldn't be any examples at all, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, it's me again. I write to you about are frayed relationship, should I ever try to make a run for administrator I assume that you would be one of the few people, if perhaps the only person, who vote "strongly oppose" or "oppose" for that matter. In short, what can I do to win back your trust and respect? I have through all your user-boxes and I am quite impressed with you, both on and off Wikipedia. I think we share many of the same goals and I truly believe it is far better for us to be friends than enemies. So again, what can I do to mend our current...status? Magister Scienta^talk (3 August 2011)

I admire your initiatives, and bare you no ill feelings. I do think you need to gain some more experience in some fields before you could be a successful admin.

I myself would like to be an admin. Mainly for the sake of being able to edit protected templates once in while, or delete the odd speedy. I have closed Cfd and Tfd discussions upon occasion. But I have had some serious conflicts over the years with two editors, both Jewish, and in relation to Jewish subjects. Interesting, isn't it? So it is not likely that I would make admin. Even though I personally do not think myself unfit to be an admin because of these conflicts. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I assure that even if I should make a run for adminship it would be a long way off. Also, I truly believe that if you could mend wounds with the two editors involved in your "serious conflicts", you have a serious chance a becoming and admin. In any case, I appreciate you bearing me no ill will, Magister Scienta^talk (4 August 2011)

Developments from April8

1. I think that once Maamarim (Chabad) has been given authoritative comprehensive historical-survey text, drawing eg. on Dalfin book etc., then some 3 or 4 - shorter - examples of maamar text should be included, in the same way that eg. Hasidic philosophy has illustrative text samples. This is necessary to precisely present the nature of diversity of maamarim content and style, eg to show how even though some use extensive Kabbalistic content terminology, their aims and nature are different than Kabbalah (the Rebbe's last maamar doesn't contain Kabbalistic terms really, while eg. the Rashab's Eitz Chaim is full of Kabbalah, though its purpose in this transcends historical Kabbalah). I intend this page to become the central theological Habad page, when I will have time to work on it. Notice on my User:April8 page last section my quotation of Joseph Weiss' distinguishement between the theologian and the academic - quite different contributions. Where the theologian seeks unity amidst diversity, the academic does the opposite. My main aim and concern on wikipedia is to identify the difference between Hasidut and Kabbalah, drawing from both perspectives - academic and theological.
2. As part of this, I'm writing up the page Atzmus, which likewise should become, I think, the central theological Hasidut page. Notice the link to Atzmus page on Four Worlds#Correspondences Level of Torah: Adam Kadmon vs. Atzilut-Kabbalah. Notice also link to Atzmus page on Yeridat ha-dorot#Generational ascent in Kabbalah table: Elokut-Divinity, vs Lurianic Kabbalah link to Tohu and Tikun. On the Atzmus page in a footnote is a brief survey of the history of Habad thought, as it is only in Habad's intellectual investigation of Hasidism that the nature of Hasidus is defined, and only in the Maamar and Sichos culmination in the last Rebbe's thought is the relationship of Hasidus to Mashiach and Atzmus explored.
3. I intend to move the section Hasidic philosophy#Philosophical explanation - survey of the Rebbe's Maamar-Kuntreis On the Essence of Chasidus - to Atzmus#Hasidism and the level of Yechidah, in the process improving its present poor quality characterisation of the text. In its place would be put a shorter, better quality, clarified survey of the Kuntreis. I think this is necessary because the present summary is overly long for the Hasidic philosophy mainpage, giving a "Main page:" hatnote link to Atzmus page, and reinforcing the centrality of Atzmus page as the central theological definition Hasidus page (which emerges only in Habad thought). In time Hasidic philosophy page will juxtapose the shortened concise summary of On the Essence of Chasidus with the range of academic perspectives on the nature of Hasidism: eg Martin Buber's phenomenological characterisation of Hasidism as a celebration of material spirituality versus Kabbalah's gnostic abstraction, eg. Scholem's characterisation of Hasidism as the last stage of Jewish mysticism, eg. Social Historians' characterisation of Mainstream (Tzadikist) Hasidism as not a phase of Jewish mysticism at all, but instead a social movement adapting Kabbalistic ideas, eg. Marxist historiography characterising Hasidism as rebellion against elitist Rabbinism, etc. etc. Each academic perspective has an aspect of truth as a dimension of the multi-faceted diversity of Hasidism, but only in the Rebbe's Kuntreis On the Essence of Chasidus is a theological explanation given for the theological essence of Hasidus. This essence, in turn, is often obscured in more external manifestations of Hasidism - such as the Satmar Rebbe's view that "the path of the Baal Shem Tov is forgotten" (see Vayoel Moshe). The Satmar Rebbe wasn't entirely wrong from his perspective - he didn't have the essence of Hasidus! In turn, his ancestry of Chagas Hasidism in its vibrant heyday also didn't have the real essence of Hasidus. Since he saw Hasidus through Chagas terms, he could mistakenly conclude that no one had Hasidus anymore. Eventually, also the Satmar Rebbe's view should be included on the Hasidic philosophy page - demonstrating to the reader its mistakeness from the Habad and Breslav perspectives.
4. The page Hasidic philosophy also will need renaming as "Hasidic thought", which is the correct academic term - Philosophy strictly means using the methodology of Rationalism (independent thinking entirely from first principles), referencing secular Western philosophy thinkers and canonical texts. Terms like "Philosophy", "Mysticism", "Charismatic", "Magical" (a strict term used in academic discussions of Hasidic thinkers who saw the Tzadik's power deriving from functional theurgical manipulation of Heavenly forces, compared to the petitionary view of the Tzadik's prayers), "Gnostic", "Ecstatic", etc. have precise definitions in the academic study of religion. The page on Hasidic philosophy, eventually, will need to point out the strict academic definitions, parameters and applications of these terms in the study of Hasidism. Without that, anyone encountering texts in the academic study of Hasidism would be lost. Only in Habad is the coloquial term "Hasidic philosophy" valid (coloquially), as Habad thought can boarder on Philosophy, eg. in some of the last Rebbe's Sichos when he relates the inter-relationship of Hasidus to other aspects of Torah including its Medieval Rationalism, eg. in the Tzemach Tzedek's Sefer Chakirah etc. The Rebbe's definition of Hasidus as the Torah's Yechidah "essence state that permeates all but remains distinct" indicates that Hasidus (in its Habad version) transcends all particular aspects of religion such as "Philosophy", includes them all in their source, and constitutes a unique category to itself. The term "Hasidic philosophy" is also entirely unappropriate for describing the enormous diversity of Hasidic thought outside Habad (Hasidism is really described academically as not one "movement", as its posseses no unified, non-contradictory doctrine) - the rest of Hasidism is usually anti-Chakirah (sometimes to me upsettingly so), emphasising emotional faith, characteristic of a Romantic movement (Louis Jacobs describes Habad as an "independent offshoot of Hasidism". He also describes Habad as "shunned to some degree by other Hasidic groups as it borders too much to their liking on Philosophy". The Mittler Rebbe's Shaar Hayichud was criticized for "presenting Kabbalah as a system to be compehended rather than merely apprehended"). Once the page is correctly renamed "Hasidic thought", it's opening page-top paragraph should be emended to point out that in Habad the term "Hasidic philosophy" is coloquially prefered for their school of thought, describing why this casual term can be applied to Habad thought - as the page would go on to explain in detail.

All these projects are being attempted by me in the midst of enormous personal chaos, only because people better qualified aren't doing it! Consequently, they take a long time to emerge. Still, I intend to move the section about On the Essence of Chasidus from Hasidic philosophy to Atzmus some time soon, developing it there, and replacing it with something better and more concise instead. Tell me if you have any views on this necessary move.

Also, the page Atzmus will need sensitive discussion of the central tenet in Hasidism of the Divine soul of Jews. This axiomatic issue in the topic of Atzmus cannot be avoided, and anyway is mentioned on Kabbalah page "Criticism" section. I think the best way of doing this is to link to the Kabbalah page section on the Atzmus page, and describe the contribution the concept of Atzmus makes in reducing the difficulty of the issue: eg. in a talk I went to of Adin Steinsaltz, he was introduced by a Modern Orthodox Rabbi who said that he was put off the path of Jewish mysticism by this issue. Adin replied in his speech that from the perspective of Hasidus (Atzmus), spirituality and physicality are equally far from G-d. Consequently, the Kabbalistic difficulty is reduced as it implies no superiority in holiness (Ruchniyus) for Jews. The difference only emerges from concealment in innate Jewish inclination of martydom rather than commit idolatry, even from the sinners of Israel, as the Tanya explains. Also, where Kabbalah's categorisation of this difficulty relates to Divine manifestations, the present metaphysical description of reality, Hasidism's concept of ultimate Atzmus in the Era of Ressurection reveals the Atzmus unity Divinity of every created being - the Jew would have a pre-eschatological head start on this, as in the preparation for ultimate Atzmus, Israel has the hierachical task of "Light to the Nations". Ultimately, all would reveal Atzmus, even if Israel retains some ultimate differentiation in this. The Rebbe says something similar (Hasidus doesn't usually concern itself with defining non-Jewish spirituality for reasons of present utility) in his Messianic Maamarim about Jews, when he explains that Mitzvot-Divine Will-Sovev Kol Almin is a necessary preparation to transcend these levels ultimately in Atzmus.
From April8 - I got logged out. I'll re-edit my signature April8 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a long and serious post. I'll read it Sunday. I just spent a whole day touring Jerusalem with a group from Russia. Shabbat I am with them also. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Haifa

Tomorrow (Saturday) I will do my best to be at the entrace to Hecht House at 18:00, and we can take it from there. Does that suit you? Rich Farmbrough, 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC).

Unfortunately, I didn't have Internet access these days. It is mind-boggling that we actually stayed in the same hotel for three days, and didn't meet. I was there as the rabbi, accompanying a group of 40 youngsters from Russia on a tour of Israel. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So you were there? I missed Dovi also.Mzk1 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I was staying in the Har Carmel hotel with a group of Russian youngsters, visiting Israel on the birthright/taglit program. I spoke with Wikipedians, but was too busy to participate on Friday and obviously couldn't on Shabbes. Which Dovi? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor whose username is Dovi. Ironically, I had a long talk with a Croatian named "Speedy Gonzales", whom I then find on Dovi's page as having met him there. I live in Haifa, if you want to say hello.Mzk1 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be in the same hotel (Har Carmel) with another group from the Taglit program on September 2-3. Write me on my email, and we'll exchange cellular numbers. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I was (am still) at Technion, flying home tomorrow. Never mind, I hope to visit Israel again. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC).

I spoke with a few editors, whom I saw in the hotel lobby. All were positively impressed with Israel. I see, you too. I told quite a few people about the Shabbat I spend with this group in Haifa, and add about the Wikimania. And I have not yet failed to express my disappointment at not being able to meet with you ("one of the Wikipedia editors with whom I have worked a lot"). I'd be happy to meet you at a future date in Israel. Especially since I am not likely to leave Israel any time soon, unfortunately. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, at least I was able to make a stub for Reuben Hecht. Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

I've been told he was an interesting person. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP

You recently added this new wikipedia policy. It has big implications because the vast majority of wikipedia living persons have not "publicly self-identified with the belief in question". This will mean a major clean-up operation where we have to remove the religious affiliations from thousands of articles. I just realized about this issue during an edit dispute on Bashar al-Assad when a user told me about WP:BLPCAT. Hence, don't you think the criteria you added is a little too strict? Pass a Method talk 05:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't new. That was in WP:BLPCAT. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally would interpret this rule in the broadest possible way. And I wouldn't start removing any categories because of this, except where the religion or sexuality is already challenged. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, because of this nonsensical rule we now have editors enforcing illogical categories. (see here). Bashar al-Assad is known by almost every reliable source as an Alawi, but wikipedia says something else. What makes it worse is that there is currently a 2011 Syrian uprising with sectarian violence, meaning Bashar al-Assad's denomination is significant. I therefore think WP:BLPCAT needs to be re-written. Do you agree? If so, do you have any suggestions? Pass a Method talk 07:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look. The issue you raise is basically about the difference between a statement in an article and a category. This has been discussed some times on the WP:BLPCAT talkpage, see e.g. this 2007 archived discussion. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis

I won't be involving myself in this, but I thought I should tell you in case you weren't aware of it.—Biosketch (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel welcome to visit the Afd. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Erusin issues

I've written up the issues I have with the Erusin and Nisuin articles, matters in which you were involved. This has always been a sore point with me, because I put most of my work here into this, and a lot of it was deleted. I wrote a great deal, and I know you are busy, but perhaps you can find the time to read and commet from time to time. (I've waited a long time on this; I can wait longer.) Good luck with the Taglit; I had another editor over at my place for a few days, and edior who went on Birthright, and it had quite an effect on him.Mzk1 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw a few sections on the Erusin talkpage. Is there anywhere else I should look? Debresser (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the program affected the children in my group profoundly. And many of the Wikipedians I spoke with expressed that they were very much taken with Israel as well. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

I removed the categories that Isaac Asimov was in either because they overlapped with other categories, or in the case of the Belarusian ones because they are wrong. Asimov emigrated from Russia, not from some country that had barely come into existence at the time of his death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted again. See editsummary. Why are you on a spray of removing Jewish categories? Debresser (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• You have not at all explained what is wrong with my reasoning about him not being in both the parent and child cat in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Subcatting

Is it safe to assume that people in Category:Jewish American sportspeople do not need to also be in Category:American Jews or is this another case of non-diffusion?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a classical case of diffusion. Sportsmen are a separate group with distinguishing characteristics. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You did not even give a yes or no answer. I have no clue what you are saying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Meaning that we could have one person in both categories, yes. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to think so. If someone is an American Jewish sportsperson, they are obviously an American Jew. It is overcat to put them in both categories. The non-diffusing no where suggests that a parent cat should not be diffused to sub-cats by profession. The general consensus of the discussion is that such diffusion is acceptable, and you seem to be out of line in thinking that we should not diffuse the American Jew cat into its particular Jewish American x subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I might actually agree with you regarding "American Jews" and "Jewish American sportsmen". But "Jewish American sportsmen" and "American sportsmen" those are two non-diffusing categories. As WP:DUPCAT says specifically, that ethnicity is often a non-diffusing subcategory. And also "Jewish Major League Baseball players" and "Philadelphia Sphas players", which are already twice removed from "American Jews". Especially the latter, which doesn't even have the word "Jewish" in it. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Ellen of the Road's response to you on Wikipedia talk:ANI was completely out of line. Joe Chill (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Which one? I know her (or him) for almost as long as I have been on Wikipedia, and respect her immensely. We didn't understand each other at the beginning of this thread, but I think she now understands what I mean. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean Captain Screebo's response? [2] Debresser (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I misread her message. I have been so frustrated with ANI recently. I am going to take a long break (or forever break) from there. I can handle how frustrating AfD is, but ANI can be a whole different thing. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you see my post on the WP:ANI talkpage? I have found them completely inadequate on almost every occasion. This one included. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful judgements.

So I got greeted by a "helpful" sack of generic, patronising crap with your name on it, that ultumately boils down to you complaining about capitalisation in a comment to an editing tag. A comment you only get to see if you start editing. That's really helpful, in fact just about as helpful as that "test edit" you did on the same page you complained about but did not improve. While I'm returning the "being helpful" favour, let me point out that underneath every article editing box there are a couple of notes, one of which says: "If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead." Physician, heal thyself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.106.88 (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about that. But at least I reverted myself so as not to leave a mess. While you seem to be bent on purposely leaving a mess. That is called vandalism, and we do not take vandalism lightly. So you just make up your mind. Or you want to be part of a great project, or you want to be a vandal and be blocked in the near future. The choice is up to you, as with everything else in this life. Debresser (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking things as needing attention is vandalism now? Would be nice if you'd take the holier-than-thou attitude down a peg. But then, your comment sounds entirely too much like you're too full of it to notice, and instead feel a burning need to take it out on others, preferrably on those who can't do anything about it. I repeat: Physician, heal thyself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.106.88 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, using text that results in redlinks and unnecessary edits by bots, that is not helpfull. In this same vain, I'd appreciate it if you would sign your posts on my talkpage. If not, feel free not to write me. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reported you at ANI for removing the word Palestine

See here: [3]. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just comment on the post above that? Where I reported you for adding that very same word to articles about rabbis. :) Debresser (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Just letting you know I saw that conversation about User:Johnpacklambert on ANI and the remarks going on about your personal views. I wanted to let you know I support you fully--there's quite a bit of, erm... shitstorm going on in that whole conversation. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It feels nice to receive such a notice. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbis

Hello Debresser. I am somewhat worried about the project-wide disagreements between yourself and Chesdovi (talk · contribs), and that fact that we still seem to be miles away from any form of consensus. This is not going away until some form of discussion takes place, and I am increasingly of the view that an RFC would be the best step forward, rather than letting this explode and requiring intervention from the Arbcom.

Despite what Chesdovi suggested on my talkpage, I am actually unbiased on the issue. Still, I am not going to offer to mediate just yet, mainly because I am just a tad too busy. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with your assessment of the situation, and the need for a broad discussion. But we already had an Rfc, the conclusion of which seems quite clear to me. It can be undeleted from Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. But perhaps an even more general discussion is needed, perhaps at WP:CENTRAL. Debresser (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On personal attacks

I appreciate that it's not your first language, but snide comments like this are completely unacceptable, especially for something so trivial. I've got the better part of 20,000 edits to templatespace, and do not appreciate at all having my competence questioned so casually. if you have a bigger problem with my editing style then make it public properly, rather than through the quite cowardly forum of edit summaries. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, you may not like the medium I have chosen, but you'll agree that that is completely inconsequential, and definitely not a matter of cowardliness. I just didn't see any benefit in posting on your talkpage just because of a small mistake. Please don't get all blown up over such a small thing. As to the edit itself: you did the same thing twice, using the "cat" parameter of Ambox, and the DMCA template. Please admit that was a mistake and let's not get all hostile over this. You have been quite critical of me on the template talkpage, which I also found unnecessary. Let's just say that you made a mistake and got what was coming you. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been critical of your handling of an edit conflict. That is quite different from criticising your competence to edit. Making cheap attacks in edit summaries because you felt aggrieved by something I said is not appropriate, and I would hope that you refrained from doing so in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not be offended. I was not trying to score a cheap goal. I was sincerely surprised a week ago by your sharp reaction to my revert, which I made because it removed a category, and then this edit of yours with the double categorisation. I think that it was reasonable of me to think that you missed the intricacies of categorising via templates. Anyway, I call for peace. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, let me state again, that I compliment you on the changes you made to the text. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

חרדים עורכים בויקיפדיה???

הייתי בטוח שאסור לכם להשתמש באינטרנט? אתה באמת חרדי? (אני לא מתכוון להעליב או משהו)-- Someone35 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

כן, אני חב"דניק, ואף רב. נכון שיש הרבה חרדים שנגד האינטרנט, אבל לא כולם.

But let's stick to English here, ok? Good luck editing. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbis

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is rather bad taste, considering that I have already reported you at Wikipedia:AN3. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - it is better to get other editors opinions. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you mean. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want me to block you, just say so... [4], [5]. I'm not going to warn you again. You know better than this. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly not familiar with what that page is for. Not only 3rr reports. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Disruptive Editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought I was being generous with that warning. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Debresser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. I made my next edit before I received the warning. 2. Blocking editor is wrong about his ruling on Wikipedia:AN3, since he ruled "No violation" because there was no 3 reverts, but I specifically reported for edit-warring in a phase before getting to the 3rr, which is a specifically stated purpose of that noticeboard, apparently unbeknown to this admin. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The critical component missing from this unblock request is the part where you state you will cease the disruptive behavior; I must be missing that in the request and in the discussion below. Getting into a edit war on the edit war notice board seems a poor tactic; as does personal attacks in edit summaries. Kuru (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I should not have had to warn you about refactoring talk page comments. You've been around long enough to know that this is disruptive. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I was aware of that. On the other hand, an admin who does not know the purpose of a noticeboard should not have the right to make rulings there. Please address that subject. And I do mean this respectfully. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, please notice that in undoing my last edit to that noticeboard post, you also undid a legitimate reply to a question you asked. Debresser (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll have to sit this out then. But I would still like to know why an admin who doesn't know the purpose of a noticeboard is allowed to rule there. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And unless that question is answered satisfactorily, I shall have to open a request to revoke Fastily's admin privileges after my block expires. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's the excitable thing to do. It may be best to simply wait until the morning, when there's less passion, and start a discussion with him. Kuru (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your implication that I would seek the "excitable" is not appreciated. I started a discussion with him here, and have yet to receive his reply. You may have noticed that, and the fact that I posed my question respectfully. After all, this was the second time an admin made this mistake on WP:AN3, so there is precedent. Debresser (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Menahem Lonzano @ DRN

I have asked for some sage advice over at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Chesdovi (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replied there. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a short discussion. [6] Debresser (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 26#Ashkenazi intelligence

Yes, I am. I commented there. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Menahem Lonzano @ DRN (II)

Take 2. Chesdovi (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Please also respond to my questions on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What is consensus? Where is it?

[7]? Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You did not provide evidence of consensus to remove Palestinian

Since you continue to enforce your edits after consensus has been attained, I have no option but to report your behaviour: [8]. You are right, it makes no difference that this is at DRN. Chesdovi (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See my arguments in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Question_on_the_usage_of_.22Palestinian_rabbi.22 that you have an errant perception of what consensus is in this case, and what it is about precisely. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You still have not provided evidence of consensus for me. If you think consensus in this case means that a term has been left on a page for a certain amount of time, that just will not do. Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary. The burden of proof is on you, that you can use "Palestinian" even though this term has been heavily protested. That the article Palestinian rabbis exists does not prove you can use the term in categories or articles. Especially where there are non-contested alternatives. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Land of Israel is contested. The only "heavy protestor" is you! Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, my friend. Quite the contrary. Please do not misinterpret the fact. Anyway, this discussion here is moot. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Elazar Shach page - regarding "Al HaTorah V'al Hatemurah"

Hi,

Recently I started a discussion on the Elazar Shach talk page, entitled "Regarding quotes from the book "Al HaTorah V'al Ha'Temurah". Do you think Winchester2313 is correct that the book is not fit for Wikipedia? Yonoson3 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll have a look in another few minutes. But I doubt I have an opinion on this question. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What on Earth do you think you are doing?

Simeon the Yemenite: Why are you basing "some" or "many" on 3 primary sources? Are these the only three opinions on the matter in the whole wide world? J Emden is not "some" Rashi and OB do not account for "many". We don't support the use of such terms on how many times we know something exists in Jewish texts. We base it on the academic secondary sources. Get real. Chesdovi (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Incivility ("Get real") noticed. We should not use words like "some", "many", "others" in articles. If we see them, we should tag them with templates like {{Who}}, {{By whom}}, {{Which}}. So I said who. Added sources. You are not allowed to remove sources the way you do, and you will' be reported if you do that again. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If they should not be used, don't use them yourself. Don't use Primary sources as references. You can see from here that MV also has an opinon. You can't just misleadingly provide 2 or 3 as refs and not the others. Chesdovi (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are miotaken about one thing: Jewish commentators are considered secondary sources in this regard. They are talking not about themselves. There once was some discussion about this. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats up

Hi david; how do you feel about the recent edits to Impurity of the lands outside of Israel?--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Debresser (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. That was the 4th time. Nevertheless, the edit itself is the right thing to do. And there was discussion, in editsummaries and and Chesdovi's talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}}

But then again, what about Chesdovi? [9], [10],[11], [12]. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't post anywhere, so added the {{Adminhelp}} template here, to draw attention. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rm tag, the last thing to do when you are blocked from edit warring is to use help templates to try and get some more kicks in against your opponent. Please don't do that again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinon. I'd call it persuing justice. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, only two of User:Chesdovi's edits were reverts. You had four, as you admit, and there were actually five in 26 hours. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• FYI there is a brief discussion concerning this block here. –xeno^talk 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was definitely an interesting discussion. Thanks for pointing me to it. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Debresser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block was administered by the admin in spite of the fact that I asked him to explain which edit of mine he wanted me to revert. I have shown in the discussion that I am willing to consider my mistakes and undo them.

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry, in the space of time when I offered you a moment to correct your fourth revert, you extended an edit war at Serge Gainsbourg and professed confusion over what a revert is. I don't see any clarification on the original issue, or the new one. I see someone who is current intent on edit warring, making this a preventative block. Kuru (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't watching the page at all. When I visited it again after first commenting, and saw your suggestion I right away asked you to explain yourself. In addition, I have posted on the talkpage of Yadua the Babylonian, but Chesdovi hadn't replied there, nor is the reply he gave in the end to the point. As to Serge Gainsbourg, I think that restoring sourced information comes close to reverting vandalism, and I have not violated the 3RR rule there. I'd like to ask you to reconsider. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism. Nor does the vandalism claim you made in your first revert (here) during the other content dispute hold any water. Edit warring does not require a 3RR, but when you've been made aware of one, you should have immediately self-reverted your last two reverts. After reconsideration, I'm afraid I see nothing here that indicates you understand the problem, or that you will alter your approach in the future. Kuru (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "restoring sourced information comes close to reverting vandalism". Please do not start misunderstanding me. That is precisely what I need at the moment... And why would removal of the words "who was of the leading sages" not be vandalism? Especially when the editsummary referred only to the "Palestine"/"Land of Israel" issue. One just can't revert two things because one doesn't like one of them. But the main point is that you were giving me a chance to self-revert, and then took measures before explaining yourself. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, your block prevents me from defending myself in the WP:AN3 discussion, which is still continuing. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Debresser is clearly trying to pull the wool over someone eyes. He claims no reason was given for removal of “the leading sages”. This was provided here and is the subject of discussion here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Debresser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per additional arguments. I made three edits after the unblock reuqest was denied at 19:45. Admins are being too hasty in deciding while discussion is still ungoing. This is true both for the original block, as well as the denial of the unblock request.

Decline reason:

You just came off a block for edit warring, and you edit warred again. Looking in this request and the above conversation, it seems clear you did edit war, and for some reason you can't see it. Therefore the block is needed as a preventative measure to stop you from edit warring again. Since you've been repeatedly blocked for edit warring in the past, one would think you would understand what it is by now. Don't get all hung up on 3RR, which is just one point of the policy, but rather try to understand the underlying intent behind the policy, which is that edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. It never helps resolve anything and it will get you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes agree Maimonides is a footnote not a text bracket

In addition, it is common practice to bring Jewish sources as references. You should not try to singlehandedly change this without seeking prior consensus. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Maimonides got caught by accident in de-footnoting Bible/NT/Mishnah/Talmud/Quran refs from another one of Marecheth's articles. Generally if there's an author, then footnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know where in Wikipedia's guidelines this issue is mentioned? Debresser (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but it seems to be followed in religion articles generally. Ideally Primary Sources shouldn't be used at all, so I don't think there'll be a specific rule not to insert ref "[15]", and then have a Bible/NT/Quran/Talmud number in the footnote. Apart from anything Bible/Quran/Talmud/NT exist in x number of versions so can never be a proper WP:RS.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I'm British.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I could be wrong, it may be written down as policy somewhere, but either way it's what the best articles do - and I don't mean fill an article with ibid like priestly breastplate either. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We even have a template for that {{Ibid}}. Debresser (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, based on your support at Talk:tumah and taharah I have proposed that both that and the taharah article be moved to Ritual purity in Judaism and Ritual purity in Islam respectively. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery

Hello. As a Dutch-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the Dutch-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some Dutch-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.

If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=nl. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm interested. Don't have time for much editing of late. And I am mostly active on the English Wikipedia, after all. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

|alt=|link=

Re this revert, adding the empty parameters |alt=|link= to a image inclusion prevents it from being linked (which may, of course, only be done with public domain images) and prevents the standard alt text (the filename) from being added to the HTML img tag. Both of these changes are advantageous for users using screen readers, as it prevents them from having to hear useless recitation of the link target and alt text for the decorative icon. Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Links and attribution has a bit more information. Anomie⚔ 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If so, feel free to revert me. It isn't done on a wide scale though, is it? Any idea why? Debresser (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is or it isn't, really; I think it mostly depends on someone who cares noticing and editing the template. Anomie⚔ 19:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's done on templates such as {{ambox}}, so you may notice that the standard images are not clickable. It's not done on everything as it's only really possible to do on public domain images. Some of the images used in message boxes are Creative Commons licensed, so the click through is still needed on those so that the licensing info can be seen. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosh HaShana (not wiki-standard spelling :-))

Gam L'cha.

Gut Yontif!

Shanah Tovah vmikatev! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion banner at Talk:Judaism

But we already have WikiProject Judaism banner there. Adding Religion seems like overtagging, just like the Judaism article should not have a religion category (because Judaism category is a subcategory to Religion category). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This is different. Judaism is an article which is of interest to the religion WikiProject. And so should be tagged. There is no "double categorisation rule" in WikiProjects. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things

Hey. My knowledge of Yiddish is more or less limited to what's in Mel Brooks' movies. At List_of_ethnic_slurs#S the word schvartse is mentioned as a "derogatory term for someone of African descent." The source for the definition has rotted. Do you agree with that evaluation?

"Schvartze" definitely is a derogative term for somebody of African descent. Much like "Nigger" in English. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This weird interpretation of מצוות ישוב ארץ ישראל has crept into the Jewish land purchase in Palestine article. Do you know of a better – i.e. more recent, less misleadingly worded – source that can be used in place of the 1967 edition of Isaac Herzog's treatise?—Biosketch (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer "settling the Land of Israel". That is a better translation! Debresser (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Black Swan (film)‎, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop being biased.

This is a neutral website. Soldiers are captured. Not kidnapped. Whether you like it or not, Shalit was captured in a tank in a battle. He's not a civilian. --98.221.192.218 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC) --98.221.192.218 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me that this is an encyclopedia. The discussion is on the talkpage. And please, just apply the definitions of the words, to see that he was kidnapped. And it is sourced as well. So please, do not give me any more reminders here, or call me "biased". Debresser (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your cute sarcasm. And please, don't neglect to point out that neutral media outlets such as USA Today and BBC use the word "captured", not "kidnapped". And they are reliable sources as well. So please, don't be biased and don't tell me what to do. --98.221.192.218 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please state your arguments on the talkpage. And please be so kind not to post here any more. I don't like your attitude, and this is my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As promised months ago

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Note that your input to that thread can be placed here on this talkpage, with {{adminhelp}} tag used to ask for it to be copied over (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Debresser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Bwilkins wants to block both me and Chesdovi, but in a previous discussion all other most editors opposed this. See the discussion he himself refers to in his reply at the WP:ANI archive. In addition, he refers in a new WP:ANI thread to WP:AE, but that is incorrect, since all have ruled that the edits of Chesdovi are not under the WP:ARBPIA restrictions.

Also, there is simply no reason to block us on all of Wikipedia. The issue of contention is very specific. A two-week topic ban, or even a mutual promise not to edit pages related to this topic, would be enough.

In addition, I would like to point out, that I am not the aggressor in this whole story. And in that discussion some editors have shown sympathy for my position, trying to defend the project from Chesdovi's aggression, and being punished in "reward".

Decline reason:

I think BWilkins has summed it up pretty well below: "You have a pattern: you get your wrist slapped, things work fine for awhile. After a short period of time, you're back at each other." You say you'll stop your disruption, but you've said similar things in the past. I've seen indefinite blocks for far less. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Debresser (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful with lying: "all other editors opposed this" cannot be further from the truth. You also realize that unblocking you means that Chesdovi would need to be unblocked as well, for all due fairness. It's better to implement some form of article restriction and interaction ban, and unfortunately due to history, this is impossible with you both free to roam (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I realised myself that "all" was an exaggeration. I have changed it to "most". I see no problem here. If you tell me to avoid the problematic edits for two weeks, I would do so. And I am sure so would Chesdovi. Nothing more is needed here. Or a topic ban at most. I think a block is completely unnecessary here, and losing site of the overall purpose, which is to make this encyclopedia better. That purpose is not served best with a block for both of us.

No, I do not in all fairness agree that Chesdovi should be treated the same way as I. I see him as the aggressor in this story. Notice that as long as he didn't go back to his problematic editing, I was doing my own thing here on Wikipedia, fixing and editing at will. If you feel you have to treat me the same way as him, I find that unjust. I do not say he has to stay blocked and only I should be unblocked, but I do think there should be no connection. Each of us has his own merits. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Most"?? Consensus was for a topic ban and a block. It should have been enacted then. IIRC I even personally advised you to leave him alone. You have a pattern: you get your wrist slapped, things work fine for awhile. After a short period of time, you're back at each other. That cannot happen anymore on this project. You're both as bad as the other at times. I'm not saying that he doesn't push your buttons - but you take the bait. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I see another consensus there. I also disagree with you on another point, which is that I am not and have never been the aggressor in any of this. And that is something I am quite insulted is not being recognized by anybody here. If somebody beats me, why should I go to jail for defending myself? The same here, more or less. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has beaten you, you haven't been sent to jail. You and the other editor have been blocked from editing on a single website, for awhile, only to stop disruption, because disruption harms the building of an encyclopedia and the way you have handled a long-running dispute has stirred up even more (and needless) disruption. The answer here is, when having any kind of dispute with, or worry about another editor, to behave within the bounds outlined at WP:CIVIL and WP:DR, along with maybe asking for help and input, in a neutral way, from an experienced editor or admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Adminhelp

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years. into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've copied your comment across as requested. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked. into the discussion at WP:ANI.

 Done Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage). into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste For well over 24 hours nobody has looked into my unblock request. Where I think I make a strong case that my block is based upon a misunderstanding, unjust and overkill. I am quite unpleasantly surprised that nobody, including the blocking admin has yet replied to the arguments I mention> Just saying that the situation is problematic, is not a reason to block me. In reaction to Pablo: if you'd care to do some research, you'd find that I am indeed the defender. I have, with very rare exceptions done nothing but protect this project from the aggression of Chesdovi, who has been trying to push his opinion with hundreds of edits throughout all namespaces. Just check all those 349 pages that Bwilkins mentions, and see for yourself, who made the first edit on them. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jab7842 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste Yes, adding the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" or "Land of Israel" - in general not adding any ethnic or geographic description - to articles (main article namespace only, I mean) about Jewish sages - and more generally Jews - should do it. There simply is no reason for a broader ban, because Chesdovi is already topic banned under WP:ARBPIA, and I don't edit such articles, as my contributions show. The ban should last until centralized (really central, not like before) discussion has reached a consensus. I think that discussion should be opened by somebody other than us. Perhaps Malik Shabazz would agree to open it. In order to avoid that discussion turning into a debate between the two of us, I think we should be restricted to 1 edit a day in that discussion. In addition I'd ask for my (or our) block(s) to be lifted, because from that moment on the block(s) would be only punitive. (That is in addition to the arguments I have mentioned before. In all earnest, I would really like to know how editors like Bwilkins and Pablo think I should have acted to defend the project from Chesdovi's edits in a way that would not have lead to my being blocked here repeatedly. You are invited to write me on my talkpage about this.) into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste Pablo, please be a little less hostile and accusing. The accusations of WP:OWN are strange in view of the fact that I hadn't edited almost any of those articles before Chesdovi came along and made his usual (read tendentious) edits on them. Did you do your homework? I recommended you to check all those articles and see who of the two of us made the first edit. Perhaps after that, you'll change your tune. into the discussion at WP:ANI.

 Done Black Kite (t) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you did it after I did :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I noticed the edit-conflict; I pressed the button on ANI about 5 seconds after this page :) Black Kite (t) 13:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of us. To one of you for the edit, to the other for the intention. Both are appreciated equally. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste No, Bwilkins. I ran into his edits in various places. Some of them he posted triumphantly on WT:JUDAISM, until people told him in no fine language that they had enough of that. Other articles I had on my watchlist. His talkpage was (and is) on my watchlist as well, since I posted there a few times. Sometimes I would notice an edit in one article, and check his contributions to see whether he made any more such edits. But I would not regularly check his edits, no. I have a distinct feeling there is a lack of assuming good faith from a few editors here... And in view of your lack of good faith and the unjustified block (you have not replied to any of my arguments), let me add. When will you understand I was (and am) only trying to protect the status quo on this project from the onslaught of one disruptive editor who has made many attempts to push his tendentious edits, but never gained consensus for them? Have you checked that such is indeed the case? Please do. Never in all the discussions he started (and I won't even go into his behavior in those discussions) has he gained consensus for his point of view. Always a majority of editors have preferred other expressions. So why did WP:ANI admins allow him to go unpunished when I posted here all those times before now. So in a way you yourself (including a few of the other admins who have partaken in this thread) are responsible for this escalation. So please be so kind, and do not turn me into your scapegoat. I have posted a fair proposition above. Let's go with it, and move things from their present unfortunate state. into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be copying this one ... as much of a fan as I am of WP:ROPE, this one is digging yourself into too deep of a hole, full of untruth, and probably some of the most harmful-to-your-argument statements I have ever seen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that ... you've had an hour to fix it, and the above merely proves that the block is valid, just, and lets you dig your own hole. WP:ROPE you wanted, WP:ROPE it shall be. I have copied it over, as request. Please note, when you want admin help, you have remove the "tlp|" portion from the template. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't online, btw. Becausethere is nothing for me to do here, thanks to you. But in any case, I do not think there is anything to "fix" over here. And every letter of it is truth. You have yet to show otherwise. Argument by assertion is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste Have you checked what I asked you to check, or haven't you? Instead of asserting you did the right thing blocking me, perhaps you start looking into what happened. You have never defended your decision to block me, although I have been implored you to look into the facts, point you to the relevant places. After all, admins are supposed to give account of their actions as well, when asked to do so. Other admins are likewise invited to see the facts for themselves. Also I find it less than helpful that you do not reply to my proposal about how to get out of this mess. That is what I would expect an impartial and wise admin to have foremost among his priorities, rather than gloating about his blocks. into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste This post is very unfortunately belated because I made a typo in the adminhelp template. This is more or less what I proposed as well. With one exception. I see no reason to exclude us from talkpages. To the contrary, I think a centralized discussion about this subject should be started by some editor other than us. And after that discussion has come to a conclusion, the topic ban can be lifted. The only restriction I would think fair is that we should not be allowed to post more than one post a day in such a discussion, to avoid it becoming a discussion of two people only. into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} My previous post was added to the wrong section of that discussion, admittedly because I didn't specify to which section to add it. Please move it from the section it is in now to the correct one (which is just a little lower on that page). Debresser (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done (didn't need an admin) -- John of Reading (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on which you might have some insight

I thought you might have some insight on the discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for seeking my advice. Unfortunately I am blocked again, see the thread above. I agree with you that the sources of that IP-editor are less than reliable, and seem to have their own anti-Chabad agenda, which makes them even less reliable. I also do not think that the subject is presented in the correct way. In general, Judaism has always differentiated between Jews and non-Jews in various ways. This is not something specific to Chabad, as can be seen throughout the Shulchan Aruch. Nor is this something restricted to the Jewish belief alone. Another problematic point is bringing the words of rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburg as though he could speak for Chabad. These are just a few things I thought of when reading this editor's text [13]. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please post this {{Talkback|Debresser#Discussion_on_which_you_might_have_some_insight}} on Jayig's talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jab7842 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Leave for 2 weeks

Sorry, I had no idea you had been blocked, if so I would not have added [طهارة and טהרה and WP:naming conventions (use English)] re your Oct 1 edit on to the Judaism Project discussion. I came here to note, but then saw this, so will go back there and ask to postpone 2 weeks. Sorry, and best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Yes, this is rather unpleasant for me, and especially since I think I have been blocked unjustly. If there is anything urgent, please post, because I can always ask for somebody to copy my reply here to wherever necessary. But partaking in ongoing discussions is a little hard, yes. We'll be in touch. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. It will of course be difficult under the terms of below if both you and Chesdovi comment on the same question. But I guess you guys will deal with that if it happens. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask what we should do in such a case. :) Debresser (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To do after block expires

Add explanatory preface to Danel#Danel_and_the_Danel_of_Ezekiel. Note Yechezkel 14:14. 14:20, and 28:3.

 Done

Remove dead link from Joanne_Kelly#External_links.

 Done

Add http://www.catrunmovie.com/#/home to Cat Run.

 Done

Linguist

Your user page states you speak nine languages. Is this true? Im asking because it seems quite unlikely because it is extremely rare for someone to speak so many languages. Pass a Method talk 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The information on my userpage is true. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

... and it is quite clearly not "extremely rare" :-) ... it is an impressive talent, that's for sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is mostly a result of a good education. As well as of living in various countries. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking, with bans

Following the outcome of this ANI thread I am unblocking you under the following conditions, which are to be taken both as community sanctions and discretionary sanctions as put forth at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29.

• You are banned from any interaction with User:Chesdovi for six months.

• You are banned for six months from any naming issues concerning Palestine or Palestinian in both articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Moreover, for these six months you are banned from making edits having to do with any answer, also broadly construed, to the following question: What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?

• You are banned for six months from adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed. You are allowed to ask neutral questions of others as to the tagging of articles which they have created or meaningfully edited themselves. Otherwise, you must stay silent on this topic.

• You are indefinitely banned from making personal attacks of any kind, anywhere on this website. Comment only on editorial content and souces, do not comment on other editors. Furthermore, calling any editor or their edits anti-semitic for any reason whatsoever will be taken as a personal attack by you, even if other editors have done, or do later.

If you breach any of these bans you will be blocked for one month. The outcome of any later breaches will be longer blocks, swiftly lengthening to indefinite. These sanctions will be posted at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2011_2. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkpages

I think the ban on talkpages should be reconsidered. I see no reason Chesdovi and I should not partake in a centralized discussion about this subject. I ask you to reconsider this also in view of the fact that my post about excluding talkpages from the ban was posted belatedly after many editors had already commented, but perhaps they would revise their opinion in this regard. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional injunction

The fourth point seems unfair and rather anti-semitic, frankly speaking. You may construe this as you please, but such is my opinion. None of the proposals included this point. In addition (that is to say that this last argument does not take away from the previous), I don't think you have the right to insist on this specific point according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you preferred being blocked ... that's easy enough to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary. That is why I am contesting the decision. In addition, please take the following to heart: I have asked you to explain to me how I should have behaved in view of Chedovi's tendentious editing to resolve the problem in a way that would not have lead to me being blocked. I have also asked you to defend your initial decision to block me for two weeks in view of the inaccuracies in the reasons you stated for the block. You have not replied to these questions in an adequate matter. So please refrain from posting sarcastic posts on my talkpage, or I shall feel compelled to complain about your behavior towards me. If, however, you would still like to reply to the aforementioned issues, I'd be happy to continue productive conversation with you. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully explained the block, the rationale, the reasoning, and the requirements. I shall not do so again. The block was upheld, and your continuous claims otherwise has no effect on that. You are and were responsible for your actions leading to the block, and now topic/interaction ban. I have yet to be sarcastic (I can if you would like), so complain all you wish - that will not help you to move forward with this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I resumed my regular editing yesterday evening. I like to contribute to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for this violation of your interaction ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

• I've further commented here on why this block happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please paste I see. I would like to ask to lift this block on the ground that I had no idea this was part of the interaction ban. In my mind, I wasn't interacting ''with'' him, I was reporting ''about'' him. I had no idea that wasn't allowed under an interaction ban. I admit that the above is explicitly in WP:IBAN (as #3), but I hadn't read that, because I thought that since I understand the meaning of '''inter + action''' that would be clear enough. into the discucion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:IBAN was straightforwardly wlinked above when I posted the sanctions. I dare say you should have read it. You were blocked not because you reported the interaction, but because you then went further and made a comment about the editor which had nothing to do with the interaction as such (here's yet another link to my AN comment as to why you were blocked). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But I did not in fact read WP:IBAN till now, and I had no intention of violating it when I posted. So what I am saying basically is that there is no reason to block me, since now that I know about this #3 rule there (in addition to #1, 2 and 4 which I had understood by myself), this will not repeat itself. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I posted the interaction and other bans as discretionary arbcom sanctions (along with being community bans), there must be a strong consensus for any unblock (no admin can unblock you on their own). But then what? More careless bickering between you and Chesdovi? Followed by more blocks and claims of "I didn't read it, I didn't know"? See also WP:Boomerang. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there even really a current discussion about Chesdovi and Debresser, or was it simply added to an older one? No admin can lift this block ... claiming "I didn't know" starts to sound like a gigantic wikilawyering tactic, and you're far too smart to not read your restrictions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe he wants it pasted here. I think the waste of volunteer editor time on this has loomed long enough and both of them should ride out their blocks, taking the free time to think about shifting their outlooks on how to edit here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done There is not currently an active ANI/AN discussion for you to participate in. As per the notice, admins may not remove this block. You may contact ArbCom as noted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an active discussion about me, and I linked to it above. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:AE? Debresser (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Arbitration_enforcement_blocks. It's in the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I pressed that link, but it didn't work well, landing me somewhere in the middle of the page. I'll be about it tomorrow. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The section on appealing AE blocks is in the middle of the page, where the link leads. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it. Previously I didn't find it, with the link landing me somewhere in the middle of a section. But I tracked it down. Thanks again. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is to confirm that I have received your email. Your IRC message must have been lost when my computer automatically restarted from installing updates. Silly Windows....

I am considering it and will respond soon. T. Canens (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see in the section below, I have high hopes of returning to normal editing soon. This whole situation is unfortunate. Definitely a low in the almost five years I am active on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To do after block

- In the article Crime Spree, add brackets around the name of Depardieu, like this: Daniel Foray (Gérard Depardieu) is the leader etc. and remove the second time his name is mentioned, since that is superfluous.

 Done

- Archive this talkpage. First prepare for archiving.

 Half done Decided to leave from when the trouble with Chesdovi started, for the record. Will probably archive all of that in another month.

- Add a Fact tag to Relations_between_Catholicism_and_Judaism#Efforts_by_Pope_John_Paul_II, and move up the references section.

 Half done No need to tag with Fact template, because it is sourced in the linked article.

- Add Unsourced tag to Escape from Sobibor.

 Done Actually, it is called an Unreferenced tag.

- Remove capitals from headers and move down the further reading section in Nominative determinism.

 Done

- Fix capital in H._G._Wells#Other_Endeavours, and rephrase reference to Warehouse 13.

 Done

- Another capital in Peter_Lattimer#Skills_and_Abilities. And below in Episode 2 Season 3.

 Done

- Thank you for also processing the templates at Category:Items_to_be_merged. I took longer than a week to think of reminding you as you asked, and you were then "otherwise occupied" :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember there once were red warnings when an editor used a merge template in the wrong namespace. I have to do some research on that. Perhaps that will lower the number of instances where editors use the standard merge template instead of the specific ones, causing the pages to be added to Category:Items to be merged. Debresser (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

After checking with Gwen Gale, I'm reducing the block to time served. Note that this is the last time I'm going to reduce a block on you for this kind of reason - it is your responsibility to ensure that your edits conform to the term of the restrictions. If you violate the restrictions again, even simply because of carelessness, it's likely that you'll serve the entire duration of the block. T. Canens (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy you came to this decision. And your warning is taken to heart. I just hope I'll not make some careless mistake. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Touching animal

I saw your edit to Ritual washing in Judaism with the editsummary "I'm making this change in a line which seems to claim that touching *any* tamei item requires washing." Actually, it nowhere implied only tamei animals. Which leads me to the conclusion that the reason for this line would be related to something else. Perhaps this is analogous to having to wash your hands after scratching ones hair. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi User:Debresser. The line implied you must wash after touching anything tamei.

Here is a quote from the page: "after touching a tamei (ritually impure) object

"(such as one's private parts,

"leather shoes,

"or an animal[citation needed] or insect,

"or after paying a visit to a cemetery)."

It's the first line from that quote that implies you must wash after touching any tamei item.

If you reply, please move this conversation to back to my talk page. All the best, Unforgettableid (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on user's talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Welcome back :) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) How are you? Is baklava kosher? ;-)

Date format

I did check for myself. I have just closed a couple dozen TfDs and the date format given in the instructions does not work, it results in redlinks. SpinningSpark 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked and tested, and you are wrong. See e.g. this test. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange, there is still a problem. The first one I did was Template talk:Rk with the line {{Tfdend|date=2011 October 09|result=No consensus}} which definitely returns a redlink in preview and is in the specified yyyy Month dd format. Using {{Tfdend|date=09 October 2011|result=No consensus}} is bluelinked to the correct place. {{Tfdend|date=2011 October 9|result=No consensus}} as you have pointed out, also works, but is not strictly dd format. Strangely, dd Month yyyy seems to be more robust in that it will accept the day as both 9 or 09 whereas the yyyy Month dd format will not. So the instructions are inaccurate on two counts: dd is not exactly accurate, it is d or dd, and there is no "must" since the template accepts both date formats. SpinningSpark 08:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is because of the "0". The discussion pages also don't have it. And the template's code and documentation all say to use ymd, so let's stick to that. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though it doesn't work? You don't want to explain to the next person who might make the same mistake? SpinningSpark 11:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the template calls #dateformat to parse the date so a great variety of formats will be accepted and the one described in the documentation has no particularly priveleged position. Specifying that the day must be dd encourages the addition of leading zeroes which is the one thing that will not be accepted in the format specified. SpinningSpark 11:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So then just say nothing, not ymd and not dmy. Although it makes sense to use a uniform dateformat. Anyway, perhaps add a note, not to use a zero. Or, my personal favorite, leave things as they were. Most users who use this template know what to do, or understand it easily. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The page is for those who don't know. If it was only for those who knew already you may as well delete the page. Anyway, I have already been reverted twice and I am not going to edit war over it. I've highlighted the problem, please fix it. SpinningSpark 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll post about this on the talkpage and ask for some outside input. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Tachash

Hi Debresser, you helped an editor out on this article--problem is, they are restoring the article to an earlier, exceedingly problematic version. I have every reason to believe that the editor in question, LittleOldManRetired (talk · contribs), is none other than Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs). It's not socking, strictly speaking, since Heart hasn't edited in months. Nonetheless, Heart has a history of socking, and I think they are up to their old tricks, turning the article into a massive collection of trivia and OR. Please see Heart's talk page and the article talk page archive for details. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about the recent revert by Drmies (Tachash)

Have you seen the revert Drmies did at Tachash? He didn't give any reason, but he said he gave his reasons on the Tachash talk page (there weren't any). What do you think? --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the above from the top of your talk page, after clicking [New Section], so I hadn't seen Drmies comments above before submitting my comments. He hasn't actually identified what he thinks is trivia and OR. At this point, I have no idea what his motivation is. I just know from checking the sources cited in the material I sorted, sifted, retrieved and restored that none of it seems to be irrelevant or trivial. It sure isn't OR! It's apparently the very info that another editor said should be restored after the article was reverted. I checked it out. That kind of substantiating research was a part of my job, before I retired. I don't know what to think. Ideas? Suggestions? Best regards. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Extra, extra: see ANI, Wikipedia:Ani#The_return_of_Michael_Paul_Heart. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_22#Template:User_ry-1

Userbox deletion discussions go to WP:MFD, for future reference. So I've closed that TfD discussion. (I deleted this template anyway, under CSD T3 unused, redundant template.) ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi

I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to tackle this on the article's talkpages for the moment , but if he won't stop, I agree with you that a formal procedure might be advisable. Please notice, that at Talk:The status quo Kohen I have criticised your moving the page in the middle of the rename discussion, as well as your premature call to close that discussion. Debresser (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser,

Thanks for exercising common sense. We could go for a public lynching, and for example User Steven J. Anderson's first response to Lisa's call on Talk:Judaism seemed to be in that vein, but there wasn't any response when I asked for specific edits that contravened specific WP policies, and that really is the issue here, particularly content on Ma.HoE's wellmeaning page creations/translations (not? from he.wikipedia). People get extremely excited/sensitive about linguistic/naming issues where national/cultural/religious identity is deemed to be involved - witness the recent Alexander John Cuza RM - and as I've repeatedly said, where a move in WP:RS usage away from Encyclopedia Judaica and Jewish Encyclopedia can be documented, then it should be documented.

What do you have in mind by "if he won't stop"? Stop not reverting deletions of academic sources? Stop speaking on Talk pages?? Stop initiating Talk page discussions on WP:naming conventions (use English)??? WP policies which will all still be WP policies. As far as myself, once an RM has taken place there's little/no value in launching a second RM. That requires a new consensus, new editors. Also there are diminishing returns. Most of the Hebrew/Latin-word titled WP articles are legitimate: i.e. most refer to a rabbinical terminus technicus. It's still disproportionately the same old set of M.HoE's unilateral - and English language WP:RS lacking - original creations which are causing this. Surely you'd agree with Chesdovi on some of these? What's left when these are done (and in this case being 'done' means an RM, strong opposition not based on WP policy, and a "no consensus" closure by an admin) are very few articles, since most have already been WPized over the years, inevitably it'll be new article creations or dead ends. To be honest looking at the "thousands" (I think it's 70 or 80, but whatever) Hebrew-titled articles you linked to, almost all of them are immediately recognisable as being legitimate technical terms with good English WP:RS support. Which ones do you think might not be? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with Chesdovi is not something I can discuss, because of an interaction ban.

I agree with you that Ma.HoE, as you refer to him, uses too many Hebrew words in his edits, as I have said before.

What I mean by "if he won't stop" is if you won't stop your edits changing Hebrew terms to what you presume to be their English equivalents, unless you have previously obtained consensus for them. At the moment, in my opinion, that does more harm than good. Debresser (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'd forgotten about the IB, I guess that explains why he didn't vote on Tzoah Rotachat.

How would you feel about "if he won't stop" being amended to = if you won't stop your edits changing Hebrew terms to what you presume to be their English equivalents, unless you have previously obtained Lisa's permission for them being modified to unless you have previously obtained Lisa's permission for them, or where reliable English language sources added to references in footnotes such as the Encylopedia Judaica show that Lisa's opinion is not the only opinion..

I don't want to sound as if I feel I'm being hard done by but what you've said above actually goes against Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or perhaps Wikipedia:BOLD according to MOS and with WP:RS refs, revert deleting WP:RS and counter MOS, be personally attacked cycle.

I think also this tension keeps coming back to one significant point. Evidently Marecheth HoElohuth is a speaker of English as a second language, fine, en.wikipedia is an international project and good that it's so so, but several of the other users who are making calls on what is standard English usage in mainstream academic texts have evidently never looked in a standard English mainstream academic text. Not you, but there's even code-switching ongoing in the Talk. It's fine to note that we can all be wrong in identifying Hebrew/Latin/Arabic whatever terms to what we presume to be their English equivalents, but we can also be right. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that the repeated protests against your edits have made it clear that WP:BRD is not relevant any more. That guideline applies to uncontroversial edits only. I don't want to be the one to point this out to you, but I really think you should have come to that conclusion by now, including its on-Wikipedia ramifications. Debresser (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about W:BRD, to an extent that has become obvious, which is why you'll noticed that I desist from edits on an article and participate in Talk.

In terms of "on-Wikipedia ramifications" I wasn't notified of the below canvas, but don't have an enormous issue with it.

1. 01:00, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Zad68 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
2. 00:55, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:PiMaster3 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
3. 00:54, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Kauffner ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
4. 00:53, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:StAnselm ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
5. 00:53, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:IZAK ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
6. 00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
7. 00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Debresser ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section)
8. 00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jayjg ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section)
9. 00:51, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Musashiaharon ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
10. 00:50, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Mzk1 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)

However like other editors I decide what goes on my Talk page, so with all respect I have moved it back to Lisa's. 03:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Without going into the question whether that was canvassing, I usually don't like this type of notification myself. Which is one of the reasons I haven't commented on that discussion. Another one being that you are already aware of my point of view, and I see no reason to reiterate the same point of view on your or anybody's talkpage. Debresser (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries, for me too. I just thought I would preempt a lot of activity.. When it's you, or Mzk1, or Zad68, or indeed a couple of the other Users, I don't have a problem - if it can be proven from any WP:RS that the usage is according to WP:RS then great. It's less helpful to be stalked for avodah zarah or worse for attempting to use standard English, caps, sources. Particularly as Sunday is a working day for me, I have to be at the office soon. I'm quite happy to just get on with editing. I followed up on the Beth din shel kohanim refs on he.w, they weren't much use, but you might want to have a go yourself. See Talk. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

Would you be interested in accepting a nomination for adminship? It would be an honor to nominate you and I feel confident the RfA would go in your favour. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 01:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You are not the first to ask this question of me in the many years I am here an Wikipedia. But actually, I just a few months ago had a conflict which lead to a topic ban, and I have little patience with editors who think they know better than me how things have to be done. :) So I am pretty sure I wouldn't make it. Especially since, as people write, the nomination process has been getting harder. Even though it seems general interest in Wikipedia is waining. But that is a general sociological phenomenon, of the elite settling in at the expense of the masses. :) Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect your decision and, if it's any consolation about the topic ban, when you have 30,000+ edits to article namespace you're bound to eventually get into a conflict with someone. Anyways, have a nice night (or maybe day, I don't know what time zone you're in), Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I live in Jerusalem. Debresser (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Birthdeath

I just closed this discussion. It would be great if you could take care of the merger. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. But I'll need a day or two because of real-life taking more of my time lately. Same for the next one. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pitch Sets

And the same for this discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Frietjes was just a few minutes faster than I. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Move Protection - B'rov am hadrat melech

Debresser, thanks for asking. As a closing admin and having been following a fair number of related discussions over the last month, I was uncomfortable with the tenor of the discussion in this one and chose to invoke: RM Move Protect advice. The Move protection does no harm and I would remove it in a minute if the need arises in the next 30 days. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your reply. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bot edit

On SigmaWP (talk · contribs)s talk page, you were talking as if it was him who made the template. I have no problem with that, but I want to let you know that it is me whom manages the template most of the time. Just thought I'd let you know. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. How is that? What do you mean "manage the template"? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He "manages" to use it every now and then LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

/me throws dodgeballs at Bwilkins

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 01:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC),,,,

Talkback

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

After I posted on your talkpage, I put it on my watch list, of course. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Chanukah Debresser!

Such a nice surprise. Thank you very much, and the same to you of course. Debresser (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Lurianic kabbalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sefiroth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Will do. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk)

REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS Afd

Why did you create this template? It's not in use anywhere. (no transclusions) — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No transclusions (yet), but it is linked and likely will be used in the future alongside the other template. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If they're the same, why not redirect or move? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with a redirect. Although I'd be definitely happier with the other template redirecting to it. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Articles for Deletion is traditionally "AfD", so I'll redirect this version to the other one. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is precisely this "traditional" incorrect usage of the capital which inspired me to create the page in the first place. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

The fact that you consider that worthy of a personal message says quite a lot... Happy new year! -- Imladros (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I found it humorous, that's why I wrote you. And also to show my thanks for the fact that you (tried to) improve an article. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding this change, that is currently the only undated category using the prefix "All" as though it were part of a monthly cleanup category set. Osiris (temp) (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Even though that is not such an important distinction, I agree that that is a good reason for a rename. But this was not the way to do it. If you decide to open a rename discussion at WP:CFD, please let me know, and I'll support your proposal. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the kind of beaurocracy that made me move to simple! Given that it was generated by a single template and was fairly straightforward/non-controversial, I didn't really see the need for spending time on a CFD. If you're not going to object, would you mind if I listed under C2B? Osiris (temp) (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That is probably some speedy rename? Go ahead. It is not only bureaucracy, by the way, because renaming categories can be done only by admins. I sometimes wish I were one also. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was happy to see that cat speedily renamed. Thumbs up. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article for deletion

The article, Lawrence Troster, has been nominated for deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_15#Lawrence_Troster for more information. Soosim (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have commented there. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Treat

Tulipa butkovii 2	Best Jokey Dutch Poem
	You understand the Dutch way with, um, words! TheSchmerl123 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And if I knew English a little better, I'd understand what "the Dutch way" is referring to. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Halo

I'd love to get your help, the new article I wrote. Jewish views on marital relations. If you can help me, I'd love if you turn me to someone else, who looks as if he could help me. If you can correspond with them in Hebrew, it would be great, because my English is very weak. This sentence was translated by Google Translate. Yosichen (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a very clear view on this: this new article needs to be merged immediately into Jewish views on marriage. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. in Hebrew there are two articles: one about marriage in Judaism (In general), and second only to sex between a man and woman are married. I started to write an article in English about sex between a man and woman are married. Because it's a great subject. Maybe I should read the article "Tashmish Tamitah". What do you think? Thanks for your help. Yosichen (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talpiot

Shoeloum Dovid! A groyse skoyech voor je aanpassing van het onderschrift. Ik zie dat we dezelfde talen zo'n beetje spreken. Waar in ארץ ישראל woon je? Anyways, kol tuv en שבוע טוב! Metzujan (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ik woon in Jeruzalem. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Local meetings

There is an Israeli Wikipedia society, with pretty frequent meetings. Haven't gone to any yet. I'm not sure I want to support the Israeli wikipedia, given some of the things I've seen, including the Judaism and sexuality article and the Haredi article. At one time I thought they were quite better than us on Jewish subjects, and asked in the project about translating without rechecking sources. But now I'm questioning this.

I'm at work; I'll take a look at your comments later.Mzk1 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Any idea where to find this Israeli Wikipedia society? Debresser (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

http://blog.wikimedia.org.il/. P.S. I hope you will take a look at my short response to at Yosichen's.

Thanks for the link. I send them a letter. Hope to be informed about future events.

I noticed your short response, since I have that talkpage watched. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review...

Incidentally, Pope John Paul II is being peer reviewed - so it might be worth having a look how it fares in terms of Menachem Mendel Schneerson undergoing a similar process. Being completely neutral on an article can be useful in giving an impartial view. The biggest reason I got into pushing everything I did to GA or FA is that you get a "stable version" so instant recall when articles get eroded like sandcastles at the beach.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am too busy lately to spend a lot of energy on this. I am really sorry. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Joanne Kelly

It's not synthesis, but unsourced material. I intended to leave the edit summary "Removed unsourced material per WP:V/WP:NOR", which I typically do for such material, but because I got rid of synthesis from a few dozen articles on January 24 and 25, when I typed in the letters r-e-m in the summary, autocorrect brought up "Removed synthesis by 74.232.66.13 per WP:SYNTH" as the more commonly-used summary by me, which I didn't realize until after I saved it. This really frustrates me, because having the former brought up by autocorrect when typing in those three letters was very useful to me, since I used it so commonly, whereas the "synth" one was only for a bunch of articles I fixed a couple of days ago. I'm hoping it doesn't stay at the top of autocorrect's list of summaries.

Please do not add unsourced material to that or any other article. This includes dates of birth, which can be a point of contention for many BLP subjects, as I have discovered while photographing them for the Commons and Wikipedia. If you want to re-add that material, I ask that you please accompany it with a reliable source per WP:V, WP:CS and WP:IRS. (And remember, sites with user-generated content like imdb are not permitted under WP:USERG.) Thanks. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, unsourced sounds better. Although it is all over the web (just google "Joanne Kelly" and "1978"). Debresser (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great

This is a warning to both Dr. Persi and Debresser that you could be blocked and the page locked from editing if you continue as you are. Take all concerns to the article's talk page, and obtain consensus before proceeding with changes. Risker (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that this was getting out of hand. I physically did not have the chance to reply on the talkpage before being reverted again in the article. You may have noticed that I did post on Dr. Persi's talkpage, and now I have managed to get an additional explanation on the talkpage also. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that Dr. Persi reverts not only me. Debresser (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:In-universe

The use of {{DMCA}} that I removed, {{DMCA|||{{{category}}} articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction}}, caused {{In-universe}} to incorrectly place pages into Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template if someone used a bad value for |category=. If someone wants a tracking category for bad values of |category=, they can make one named correctly for that purpose.

The version you put back in, {{DMCA|{{{category}}} articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction}} (note it passes the category as parameter 1 instead of parameter 3) is basically equivalent to my version using {{main other}}, although yours uses a few more resources as measured by the NewPP limit report. And IMO, it's strange and confusing to use the "dated maintenance category" template to add non-dated categories. Anomie⚔ 23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake putting it as 1st instead of 3rd parameter. I hadn't thought about what you correctly noticed that a "bad" value for the category parameter would cause the invalid date parameetr category, which is indeed not appropriate. What I thought is that you were just removing the includeonly brackets. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To use DMCA in undated categories is done on almost all maintenance templates. Both in order not to change from dated categories, and also because undated categories often become dated at some point. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, because of the correct first argument, would you like me to restore your edit, or will you do it? Please notice that I made other minor changes, like using Ambox functionalities. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ho, wait a minute. See this edit, that your claim is not correct. No invalid date parameter added. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course that edit isn't adding the invalid data parameter category, {{In-universe}} is currently passing the category as parameter 1 instead of parameter 3, which I explained above doesn't cause that problem. If you want to see it, change {{In-universe}} back to the parameter-3 version.

As for reverting it, it's not really worth the hassle. But I am curious, how many templates are misusing {{DMCA}} in the way you claim? Anomie⚔ 01:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the removal of the <includeonly>...</includeonly> was just because it was useless: having it there caused {{DMCA}} to be called on the template page, but since DMCA does nothing when transcluded in the Template namespace it was additional complexity for zero purpose. Anomie⚔ 01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried it again, and you are right, as was to be expected. I'll restore your version. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I think this would be very rare. Not many categories use parameters. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Aguddah REDIRECT

Debresser I found the unexplained Aguddah in an article and created a redirect to Agaddah in good faith, you then left this personal attack in the edit summary:

(cur | prev) 13:23, 9 February 2012‎ Debresser (talk | contribs)‎ (30 bytes) (Make correct redirect to fix redirect created by user who doesn't know what he is talking about.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:13, 5 February 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ (20 bytes) (←Redirected page to Aggadah)

And left this second personal attack on my talk page:

The book "Aguddah" is not the same as Agaddah. Please do not make edits about things you evidently know nothing about. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you try to be less combative please? The legitimate problem I and other editors face in wikifying many articles where romanized Hebrew words occur without Hebrew alephbeth is the random and inconsistent romanizations used by editors for transcription of Hebrew in Wikipedia. Yes you're right that with unlimited time and energy I should have seen the English was a transliteration of אגודה not אגדה, but the article had no ref, no Hebrew (and you haven't added either), and agaddah you will admit is better known, so it doesn't require a personal attack does it? Or do you think it does need two personal attacks - one in the edit summary, one on my talk page? If you want to help, you yourself can add alephbeth and English in brackets to these terms and maybe we can all work towards a sensible standardised romanization system. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of bad faith. I am just saying that: 1. You just didn't know that Aggudah in not Aggadah, and that is precisely my point: if you know so little about Judaism, and specifically rabbinic literature, why stick your nose in it? 2. Oh, so now you are charged with solving the "problem" of romanization of Hebrew? Well, I'm sorry to let you know, but this "problem" has been dealt with before you came along. Please see WP:HEBREW. Which you do not seem to be familiar with. Again. 3. Don't become all righteous now. You have been made to understand clearly on WT:JUDAISM that your opinions on the matter of translation of Hebrew/Judaism terms, are not shared by the community. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, my time and energy is not limitless, yes I misread Aggudah as a mispelling of Aggadah which I would not have done if אגודה not אגדה had been in the text. Again you're being aggressive, again you're restorting to personal attacks. Why is it necessary to assume that I haven't seen WP:HEBREW? What is there in the above that leads you to (a) jump to this conclusion, and (b) make another personal attack? And just because you are not the only person to make personal attacks... whatever. What is the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

NB. That stick your nose in it? is really offensive. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)