User talk:Debresser/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Mass revelation

Maybe it belongs at WP:Revelation, I don't know, but the same editor added it there. Doug Weller (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh, what was this in regard to? Please remind me. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Box jellyfish

I had removed the "How to" tag on the article not merely because it was old, but because it did not seem to be an appropriate tag. The way I read the section, it included information about the nature of jellyfish stings, and debunking myths about treatment. I certainly do not see it as instructions on "How to treat a jellyfish sting." I do not believe it belongs. Thoughts? Scr★pIron^IV 12:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My thought were as follows. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Shalosh Regalim

Hi. Thanks for the thanks :) You seem to know your Torah etc. - maybe you know why they write that the Shalosh Regalim were meant for Israelites from the Kingdom of Judah only. What about those from the north/Israel? Were they only invited after the destruction of their kingdom? Don't think they worshipped at the Dan and - was it Shechem? - shrines only, but I'm not sure.

Do you know enough to add smth about the Hebrew meaning/etymology of "regalim"? Obviously derived from leg/foot, "regel", but does the word appear anywhere in the Bible with the meaning of "pilgrimage" [by foot or otherwise]?

What about some theories that one "went TO the foot" [of God?], thus explaining "aliyah l'regel" (ascent TO the foot), the correct name of the 3 pilgrimages, and not "aliyah b'regel" (ascent BY foot) as one might expect (see Adam Zertal's alleged discovery of Gilgal, a foot-shaped site near Jericho). Thanks, Arminden (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Arminden

See this article on the Academy of the Hebrew Language website, where it explains that "shlosha regalim" is "three times", as in "on three occasions". A nice illustration is Deut. 22:28, where the ass of Balaam asks him why he hit her three times.

In modern Hebrew "on the occasion of your birthday" will be "leregel yom hahuledet shelcha", so this second meaning of the word "regel" is kept even in modern Hebrew.

I am not convinced this word is from the same word as "foot".

By the way, there is the verb "r-g-l" which means "to spy", which I do believe to be connected to the word "foot", since spies would typically be send out on foot, as opposed to on horse, to be less conspicuous. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden Rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moral objectivism. 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) 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question, which of the two types of moral objectivism was intended. There are 2 sources there, but I don't have access to them. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Point Valid

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Point Valid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 20:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere (you know which I mean)

May I suggest you moving the last comment to here? It's your comment, so I don't want to move it.

I grant that your point is valid, but that complicates the problem a great deal. Note Dweller's comment of 17:00 UTC: once you allow for nissuin in this setting, arguing that point becomes much, much more complicated.

I'll leave whatever work should perhaps happen on that article to you; I can't possibly take that up now. It really does need to mention that (a) it was frequently betrothal, (b) where it was nissuin there were reasons for that, and (c) that in nissuin of a ketanah, bi'ah did not (was not supposed to) happen. My impression was most such cases were (a), and that (b) happened only when the father absolutely, positively had no hope of supporting the daughter at all. But I just don't know; you feel free to tackle that one. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was prodded. I am trying to unprod it. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Going too far

In a recent edit at WP:AN3, you undid an administrator's closure of your complaint. Please restore the original 'Declined' verdict. This is on the edge of disruptive editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? That is ridiculous. If an admin doesn't know what edit warring is, he has no business at that noticeboard. It is not the first time, that I have come to this noticeboard, and admins didn't make the distinction between a 3RR violation and edit warring. Usually, after some explaining, they understand their mistake, but this guy simply decided to dismiss the issue based on his incorrect understanding. That is not something I have to stand for. Admins are not infallible, and a non-admin is not less an editor that an admin, just has less privileges. Please be aware that I am perfectly willing to take this to WP:ANI or wherever else, but this was an incompetent closure. Also notice that I rephrased the closure in the correct way, not denying that the issue was closed. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not that admins are super-competent and never make a mistake, but you 'corrected' his closure. That's like changing another editor's talk page comment to make it appear they said something different. If you disagree with his closure, you can ask User:Slakr to reconsider his action, or appeal it to WP:ANI. While doing so, you should be careful to dodge the WP:BOOMERANG. Messing around with the closer's language on AN3 will just cause confusion and hurt your reputation for no benefit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I get your point. Okay, I'll undo that and contact the closing editor. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reputation is the last thing I care about. If others care more about reputation than about truth or fair process and the like, then that is their problem. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Since this is my talkpage, I shall speak my mind here freely. I just read Slark's reply to my post and request on his talkpage to review his closure of my edit war complaint here. He basically said that he is considering to block me for defending the consensus version. The hypocrisy of declining my request for intervention with the excuse that there was no 3RR violation, while at the same time considering to block me when I too have not violated this same rule, is staggering.

The truth of the matter is that for the last few years now I have noticed that reverts are becoming a large part of the edits on my watchlist. The reason is that Wikipedia has improved, and many edits are either POV or simply of inferior quality. But once in a while there is a an editor, usually a new editor, who thinks he can or should push through his point of view. In my experience, these editors, who turn up on my watchlist every few months, will not listen to reason. They simply will not. So now I have to simultaneously revert their disruptive edits in an edit war, explain their mistakes on the talkpage (with the help of other editors, because they never believe just one editor), and stay out of trouble myself.

It should be the duty of admins to show a low tolerance policy for such editors. Because they have to be taught that pushing hard enough against Wikipedia rules and guidelines will not get them where they want to, or they need to be blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether. However, every year or two there is this admin, who thinks they need to explain to me that I should not be edit warring. My comment to them: have a look what is going around on Wikipedia, as explained above, and say thank you that there are such editors as me, who are willing to make the effort to protect this project. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking with User:Slakr to find out his views. While some cases at AN3 are treated as long-term edit warring, this is not common and the submitter has to make a persuasive case. If you had filed a complaint of long-term warring at AN3 *before* making three reverts of User:Benjil yourself, the complaint would have been more credible. When you talk about 'making an effort to protect the project' it sounds like you are personally entitled to make these reverts. If this is going to be your usual practice it is unlikely to impress 3RR admins who have to judge a grey-area case like this one. Instead of using reverts to 'defend the consensus version' why not open an RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a talkpage discussion. Only he and me comment there, he in favor, I against. It is a waist of time, in all likelihood. But I'll consider it. Thank you for your advice. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Point Valid for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have posted there. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, it was obvious to me, but in these things its safer to explicitly spell out your position so as to avoid anyone misunderstanding which position you are advocating for. I want to make sure that you have every chance to make sure that people know where you stand on the matter, that it all. For what its worth, I do not think the article will survive an afd, but stranger things have been know to happen. Good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox department

Hi. I've been doing some cleanup work at Ladino Wikipedia and came across this. English is one of the very few Wikipedias without an explicit infobox for French départements. Instead, it handles them through {{Infobox settlement}}, with {{Infobox department}} as a redirect. That's fine; I have no problem with that. However, what I intended to do was to decouple the redirect briefly, then go to Wikidata and link {{Infobox department}} to d:Q5622711, and then reconnect the redirect. I can't do it, because the redirect is protected at template editor level. Would you mind terribly doing that little exercise for me? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but since this redirect is in use, we have to synchronize when you want to do this. So what do I need to do, replace the redirect by a dummy text for a few minutes? Debresser (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That's right. I usually use something like "Redirect disabled for five minutes to create Wikidata link." StevenJ81 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So tell me when. It will have to be tomorrow (for me in Israel). Debresser (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's try 5 pm your time/10 am my time. (If that doesn't work for you, propose an alternate. My only hard appointment is at 1:30 pm mine/8:30 pm yours.) At that hour, watch for me to come back here and say that I'm present. Then you respond here that you've changed that shortcut. Then I'll make the change at Wikidata, and come back here to let you know that I'm finished. Then you change the shortcut back. OK? Thanks very much. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

5pm it is. Try to be on time, please, or even a few minutes early. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm here. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when you finish. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Finished. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Have a nice day. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. כתיבה וחתימה טובה. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Placing maintenance categories in WP:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising

These categories are administrative categories (they are clearly marked as such with {{Wikipedia category}}), not content categories and absolutely do not belong in WP:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. These categories only exist to assist in combating user misbehavior and are not about the subject of Marketing or subject of Advertising. Furthermore WP:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising is not responsible for monitoring misbehaving users or maintaining lists of misbehaving accounts. If you don't understand the difference between an administrative and a content category, read WP:PROJCATS. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedia spam
• Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup used by {{External links}}
• Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for advertising used by {{uw-adblock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for link-spamming used by {{uw-sblock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names used by {{uw-spamublock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who have temporarily been blocked for advertising used by {{uw-adblock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who have temporarily been blocked for link-spamming used by {{uw-sblock}}

Oh, I understand WP:PROJCATS very well. Please notice that is says that "Article pages should be kept out of administrative categories if possible." It does not say that "Administrative categories should be kept out of WikiProject-related categories". Debresser (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

געפֿילטע פֿיש

I'm a bit confused by your edit with edit summary I take back my previous edit: the word is plural indeed, as the actual edit undid my last edit and reverted to your previous version (that is, after your first undo), thereby in effect undoing all my changes to the lead (except for the use of a minuscule g in gefüllte(r)). Did you mean to revert to the version of 09:06, September 1, 2015‎?  --Lambiam 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Fixed now. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Palestinian stone-throwing

Hi. I added the part about serious injuries because it says so in the source (Al Jazeera). I also thought it was weird to open a paragraph with "However..." when it is an update of the paragraph above. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We have had our differences, but I have never doubted you are a serious editor. It is always a pleasure to work together with you on improving articles. Together, we can provide balance and quality. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are a good editor too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How did you like my edit? [1] Debresser (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That sentence is better now but the one about injury is unchanged. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Which one do you mean, precisely, and what is the problem? Debresser (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera write "Currently, Israeli prosecutors usually seek sentences of no more than three months in jail for rock-throwing that does not result in serious injury". I added some words to cover the part about serious injury but that was reverted. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Israel

Hi Debresser, I suggest the "holy map link" by the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem better fits this page Geography_of_Israel which by the way only has an external link to an interactive map of Israel. You are right, although the landing page is mostly is in Hebrew the internal links are in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I meant, that the linking menu is in English.

The term "holy" is part of website's title, so there isn't much we can do about that, although I agree it isn't overly appropriate.

Let me think about your suggestion, okay? Debresser (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Malik

גמר חתימה טובה.

The Malik part of that Arbitration is long gone. Malik flat-out retired from WP. ArbCom basically dropped the issue of whether he should be re-sysoped as moot, for now. (If he ever comes back, Malik made it pretty clear that he would choose to stand for admin again, rather than simply being reflagged. But I'm not prepared to bet that he is ever coming back.)

At this point, the Arbitration is about seeing if we can make the Israel/Palestine topic area a more civilized one where experienced editors can actually try to work with each other to create reasonably crafted, neutral articles. I actually had to work fairly hard to make sure that neither the evidence phase nor the workshop phase actually ended on a yom tov. There was goodwill from the arbitrators on the case; they just don't know the calendar. And my point to them was not that those of us who would be off-wiki those days shouldn't contribute sooner. It was simply that it would not be right if people with interests adverse to ours had 48 final hours to contribute to phases of the arbitration, and then the phase would close without our having a chance to respond. They fully concurred, no problem.

At this point, the main case page is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no discussion about that on the page itself, only about Malik. Is it on the talkpage? Debresser (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "that" you're referring to. If you're referring to modifying the schedule to go around the chagim (and Hajj, as far as it goes), that's a little bit on the talk page of the main case page, and mostly on the talk page of the /Evidence subpage. If you're referring to the actual question currently on the table, it's not very well defined, but start with the first box (after the case schedule) on the evidence page. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the second, the discussion. That would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3/Evidence. Okay, I'll have a look later. Debresser (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Humanistic Judaism

You twice restored material which is not in the RS, and which is POV, which I pointed out. Yet you have now restored what I suggested in the first place. This https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=681449226 and this https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Judaism&diff=next&oldid=681490799 are the same. You accused me of being an edit warrior, and yet you have restored my change, after twice reverting it. I think you owe me an apology. Does this explain your foul mouthed rant on my talk page?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen the apology for the error but I see no apology for the edit warrior slur.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Because you are an edit warrior! As I said, being right (WP:TRUTH) does not give you the right to ignore Wikipedia's editing rules. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing POV non RS material is not edit warring, it is correct behaviour. You are simply a serial reverter who does not bother to look at what you are reverting, once you see certain names, as shown by your admitted error in removing the word Liberal twice!!! PS I don't see any removal of the threat to have me barred for reverting ANYTHING you put back. There is a 3 RR, and it applies to everyone.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is the right way of advising you of this

Parameters

• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -
• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -

You have been mentioned at this pageJohnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If I have done this wrong I will post the whole text here.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GAB^Hello! 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for the notification. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

1R

I asked you to revert a 1R violation at Temple Mount but waived a report given the New Year circumstances. The least you owe me is the courtesy of a reply. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the request after the New Year, and understood that after two days it was not relevant any more. I missed the fact that I was supposed to reply. I'll have a look soon. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Point Valid

moved here from editnotice I guess I'm allowed to comment here since my words, actions, or stupidity haven't offended you yet.  :-) Anyway, I just wanted to compliment you upon the nice little Point Valid article. It was fun to fix up, even though the improvements almost delayed the AfD verdict. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the note here, and your edits to this article. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Shalom

Originally the sources were part of the text which made it more easily understandable. However the Christian viewpoint, which is basically the same except for the bathroom rule, was not included. Since you felt the Christian addition should not be added or was unsourced, I attempted to revert it back to the original without success. I did, however do a manual revert. I hope this is OK. I am searching for a source which will show my previous addition was valid.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources are not supposed to be part of the text. That is what references are for. And per WP:REF we should use footnotes.

What precisely is the information you want to add to the present, improved version? Debresser (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The text now mentions the Talmud but not the Bible. It now seems to be saying this information is only from the Talmud. Yes, the information is in the references but the average person does not read references.CWatchman (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the Talmud is the source. The Biblical text can be understood in other ways as well. It is specifically the Talmud which proposes an interpretation in which the text comes to mean that Shalom is one of Gods names.

Secondly, even if the average person does not read all references, so what? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is to provide encyclodpedic information. References are to verify the sources of that information. I am presently working on a more acceptable entry to be included in the future. Wikipedia articles are not to reflect specific religious sectarian information. Thank you. CWatchman (talk)

1. The word "sectarian" hardly applies in the case of the Talmud. 2. On a more general note, this obviously doesn't hold for articles which are supposed to describe the religious point of view. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The article refers to Biblical references as the reason Christians regard Shalom as the name of God. You have removed the Biblical references. The reader now has no clue as to what those references are. CWatchman (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The references come to support the claim that the use of "Shalom" as a name of God is based on verses. That statement is made in the references that I left. The actual verses do not support that claim itself. They can be found in the references. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

1RR

You've violated the 1RR at Sur Baher, please self-revert. nableezy - 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That is the umpteenth time you've broken 1R , Dovid. This is getting to be persistently erratic and you didn't revert the last time I notified you of a breach.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I´ll give him one hour, and then I will report him, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dovid appears to have a point. A POINT A POINT A POINT User:Huldra. I would strongly suggest you take this to talk to reconsider the claimed (by Dovid) consensus. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Irondome: have you ever tried to discuss with Debresser? He never moves a mm. I just try to avoid him these days, but now he has started following me around. See Talk:Caesarea#Stalking and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Huldra. Frankly, I´, SICK, SICK, SICK to the bone of it. Huldra (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems a fairly rational discourse. Dovid's last point appears to have been unanswered. He may be dogged, but that does not amount to unacceptable behaviour imo. Shouting edit summaries does not help to calm an already highly strained atmosphere. You must all calm yourselves. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that was about another issue (Hebrew names). What is open here, is that he calls the post-Israeli time for "control", not occupation. And please read through that WP ANI link above: it is Debresser who does not answer when called out, (after reporting me to ANI) Huldra (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, Huldra. Which merely reinforces my point above. All must calm themselves, no matter what "camp" they are in. This febrile atmosphere and resorting to the boards by all parties must cease. Nobody gives an inch (I use imperial measures), and that is the issue. All must master their frustrations and anger. Dovid, think like a Palestinian when you edit. Huldra, think like an Israeli likewise. Dovid, I would strongly suggest you self revert and return to discussion. Do we want to merely mirror the reality on the ground of the subject, or do we want to go forward by being "better" in our mindsets and actions? Please everyone, as a beginning, attempt to de-toxify your discourse in interactions. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And I absolutely hear you, Irondome; I *hate* spending time on the "dramah"-boards; I much rather be editing articles (I think my edit-history can vouch for that.) Which is why I gave him an hour to do so (and now it has been nearly two hours....) But I don´t think Debresser will ever revert......(and I would *love* to be wrong).., yeah, so I´m going to report him, before I log out for today, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well he's had the opportunity, making several edits since being notified including another one at that page. nableezy - 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus Irondome? Its Debresser and a single comment by a user named AnotherNewAccount (aptly named im sure) arguing against everybody else. Consensus doesnt mean as long as Debresser keeps arguing he gets his way. nableezy - 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, you are very belligerent. I am seriously considering to take you to user review or ArbCom. Edits like [2], where you simply refuse to discuss with me like I am some kind of errand boy, or [3], where you get all emotional (see the repetition and the bolds) and ignore the consensus established in a long discussion on the talkpage, are simply unacceptable in the field of ARBPIA. You're behaving like a bomb about to go off, and you are damaging this project. So either you cool down and stop acting towards me like I am the enemy, or I am confident the community will put a stop to your behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A good night to everybody. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Huldra (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try and visit that discussion later today. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for 24 hours per the report on WP:AN3. Please take care to adhere to the 1RR rule on these articles in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

While I am aware of the danger in going back straight to the same article that led to me being blocked, in that it may give the impression I am too focused on it, I have made a few edits to it, and posted on the talkpage. I really think there have been some NPOV violations there recently, as well as some problematic IP editing. I hope my fellow editors there will refrain from using their numbers to gain the upper hand, and will instead engage in serious talking and consensus forming on the talkpage. I invite you to oversee this process. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Just take care and don't revert more than once in 24 hours and it should be fine ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I will. Still, I think these discussions needs some outside eyes, to make sure proper balance is present. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration

I noticed the discussion at ANI. Several editors commented that it is not acceptable to refer to a female editor as "he" in the circumstances described. In fact, Floquenbeam stated that a week-long block would be applied if it continues (20:39, 29 September 2015 ). You replied in that thread so it is reasonable to assume you read the warning. Nevertheless, this 12:15, 30 September 2015 comment includes "Huldra was ... his change...".

Would you please undertake to not repeat that mistake? Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind reminder. Believe me that I do this not on purpose. I simply forget the whole time. I do not think that such forgetfulness is reason to block a person, but I'll redouble my efforts to refer to Huldra as female. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how you think it is acceptable to edit in the WP:ARBPIA area, and to vigorously engage editors with whom you disagree, yet forget about a pertinent detail that has been repeatedly brought to your attention. What happens when a disputed edit is discussed? Do you forget what other editors have said, or what a source says?

This permalink shows the ANI discussion that you opened. Here are some extracts from different editors on the his/her issue:

• This is evidence of either failure to read and comprehend what is before your eyes, or rude indifference to an editor's self-identification and preferences.
• For Debresser to persist in using an incorrect pronoun shows a serious case of I didn't hear that.
• Continually referring to Huldra as male when they've been corrected by multiple editors is sliding into baiting, if not downright trolling, territory.
• and if you cannot extend such courtesy to Wikipedia you are either extremely lazy or deliberately provocative
• it is so obviously calculated to be insulting
• there is a basic requirement of all editors here which even you, despite your apparent opinions otherwise, are obliged to follow - WP:CIVILITY
• Your "custom" is basically a deliberate barb and quite frankly I find it to be a calculated one designed to incite anger.

Those comments were made in a reasonably short ANI section that you opened. After these seven comments, you repeated your custom/mistake. If you "simply forget", how can you remember other things that are said in discussions regarding the details of a disputed issue?

Do you have an explanation for how you could "forget" what was said at ANI yet be competent to participate in WP:ARBPIA topics where discussions often involve intricate details? Johnuniq (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq—despite enlightened equality I think the masculine reference remains somewhat ingrained in conversational speech. The individual has assured an effort to use feminine references where applicable. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I read those statements as well. The bad faith assumption behind some of them offends me, but I decided not to react to them, even though some of them went too far.

I repeat that I am used to using the masculine on Wikipedia with all editors, and only a few editors have ever mentioned the fact that they are actually female. Whether I have been as forgetful with them as with Huldra, I do not remember. I can tell you that no other editor has made an issue of this before.

I do think that Huldra has been playing this card more than necessary, bring it up at every occasion, and your edit above, suggesting that I might not be fit to edit articles in the WP:ARBPIA area, is ample indication of that, and approaches which-hunt proportions.

Just for the record, I think there is no connection whatsoever between the two subjects. Whether an editor is male or female does not have any effect on the reliability of their sources, the quality of their English, or other pertinent issues related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That may explain why I so easily forget to address Huldra by the correct gender noun, because I am focusing on the subject at hand. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. “WarKosign” 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Again? What for this time? Did I revert some bad edit of yours one time more than was allowed? Debresser (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was right in my prediction at WP:ANI that WarKosign's edit would not find support. It also turns out this editor has a fringe point of view, which he is trying to push. That was my impression from the beginning, and I am happy, that I seem not to have lost my edge yet. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks notifications

You wrote "Just receiving thanks is meaningless." I'll have to pay attention next time I get thanks; somehow that never was an issue for me. I think that the original message does have a link, although it strangely seems to vanish from the dropdown list later. I can still see it when I click on "All notifications" (Special:Notifications). — Sebastian 07:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my post to reflect your point. Debresser (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you toned it down, but it still doesn't reflect the fact that they are specified with a link. — Sebastian 06:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I toned it down to reflect what you said, which made it necessary to be more precise. I don't see the links. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed my thanks

[4].

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have missed it. His reaction ("I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.") was no more than look warm, but I hope he will improve. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? No

No, calling religions "cults" doesn't "comes close to vandalism". Considering how the word "cult" was initially used, and the word "culture" derives from it, a cult is, literally speaking, just the way a group operates and sees things. You can get off that idea that it comes close to vandalism. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, patriotism, nationalism, etc are all "cults". Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 09:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not the modern English definition of "cult", and most certainly not according to the sociological classifications of religious movements in English. According to those, your edit was "close to vandalism", and will not be accepted on this article, or any other on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I see that your edit was reverted on all religion articles. Apparently, I am not the only one to disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yea, well... :-) it seems that people are prideful and afraid of the association that goes with that word, what can I say? ;-) After all, it was the cult of the religious people, calling other, smaller religions "cults", which has caused the word "cult" to move from it's original, secular meaning, into a "dirty" word. Similarly, religious people have made the word "religion" into a bad word, since religions have such a nasty history, and instead, preferring the words "faith", "path", "relationship with god", or "deen/way". Religious people are to blame for the words "cult" and "religion" having received a negative connotation. That doesn't change the fact that it accurately describe them, however. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 13:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Religion" is still a neutral word, which is why I didn't revert your edits in that regard, but "cult" not. Not in modern English. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Email

Check your mail. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk)

Got it. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

See this and this edit, both straight from his book. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

These courtesy notifications are getting pointless

It appears you still insist on breaking 1R with impunity, notwithstanding repeated warnings not to do so. You just broke 1R at Jewish Israeli stone throwing.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted once. I checked this before you wrote here, and again after you wrote here, and I see no violation. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the evidence. I'll hold off, by all means get,as I do, a third party expert to make an informal judgement. In any normal practice, you would have been reported immediately, because this abuse is becoming a major characteristic of your style.

• Ist revert
• 2nd revert
• 12:56, 28 October 2015‎ 3rd revert
• 13:12, 28 October 2015 4th revert Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The first edit was not a revert. It was an original edit. The second edit was my only revert. The first edit was not a revert, but also an original edit, as others I made before that. The fourth edit was a change, not a revert (not even partial). Debresser (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not happy with this post of yours. It looks as though you are looking for excuses to pick on me. Which I do not want to believe. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you an hour or two to consult a neutral third party, who can make an objective all. I've bent over backwards for several months to try to get a workable relationship, aned refrained from reporting you several times for this reason. This has nothing to do with personal reasons, other than that I expect that the rules that apply to everyone, apply also to you.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am confident of the fact that I made no 1RR violation! I advice you to stop your witch-hunt of me, because I will report you for that, since your behavior has become intolerable. You are poisoning the well, by mentioning perceived 1RR violations in discussions. You are forumshopping on almost all subjects where people disagree with you, to be able to show later in the first discussion that others agree with you, even though the original editors never had a fair chance to participate in the other discussion. You create overly long posts to make your points, and never stop pushing your point of view, which is one of the signs of a tendentious editor, or worse. You complain a lot about people having problems with you personally and not addressing the issue. Which, by the way, is another sign of tendentious editors. No real breaking of the rules, but it makes it impossible to work with you. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it to AE.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Please post a link here afterwards. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I've asked for the third opinion you won't ask for. See here. Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, a revert is defined as "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions." First revert, Second revert. Please be more cautious when editing these types of articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, that first edit is not a revert. You interpret the definition incorrectly. According to your interpretation, any edit apart from an original addition is a revert. It has never been accepted to see any removal as a revert. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"undoes other editors' actions" is pretty clear. As this has been brought to your attention, I will be blocking if I'm asked to look at future instances. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN is correct and this has been tested at AE. Any removal is a revert (logically, because someone had to put it there in the first place). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not accept the claim that the guideline should be interpreted to mean that a removal is a revert. In that case any rewrite is also revert, per that same logic. Which means that anything but an original addition is a revert. This is not logical and per the reductio ad absurdum it follows that this is not correct. It would mean, for example, that it is impossible to change a paragraph on a 1RR page more than once, if another editor made an edit to the same paragraph in the mean time. This is something that is done all the time. In addition, this has never been practice, as far as I remember. In any case, it shouldn't. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVERT says: "Reverting means reversing a prior edit". From that definition it is clear that removal of a section or paragraph or sentence, that is the product of multiple edits by multiple editors, is not a revert It is simply an edit. Some edits add information, others remove information. The definition claimed by NeilN is not on that page.

I must remind NeilN that unsanctioned use of admin privileges is one of the few things on Wikipedia that can actually get an admin quickly desysopted. Especially after the issue has been brought to his or her attention. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVERT is

I have taken the advice to ask a veteran editor and admin for his opinion, and am awaiting his post here. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVERT is a help page. WP:EW is policy. I would advise you not to re-do any deletions you have made per WP:1RR or, as I have stated above, I will block if the situation calls for it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your advice sounds like a threat, and that is not appreciated. In any case, what does WP:EW have to do with this 1RR discussion? If I am right, then I am entitled to 1 revert, and there is no edit war. If I am not, then there still is no edit war, because I at last thought I am right. So, again, what does WP:EW have to do with anything? As you can see from my edit on that page before and after what you claim was a second revert, my only goal is to improve that article and reach a version which is both good and everybody can live with. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:1RR is part of WP:EW. And Nishidani disagreed with your first revert by reverting it. At that point, you should have stopped and gone to the talk page to discuss and waited for a response instead of re-reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That is already WP:BRD, which is one of the guidelines I respect most, and is mostly ignored. However, since I felt my argument was strong, and Nishidani has an obvious POV in this case, I felt fine with making the 1 revert I am entitled to (or thought I was entitled to in any case). I even checked before the second removal if none of my previous edits was a revert. According to your definition, all of my edits were reverts. This clearly can't be. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Admins use some common sense when looking for edit warring. Suppose an editor wants to remove all mention of Palestinians considering Jerusalem their capital. He removes it from the intro and gets reverted. He removes it from another section and gets reverted. He removes it from a third section. At this point he's likely to get blocked (if he already hasn't been) because his edits all have the same aim. Now suppose a second editor does some innocuous copy editing on the lead and gets reverted. She then fixes up a table by updating statistics and gets reverted. She then copy edits the Sports section. She is unlikely to get blocked because she's working on unrelated things. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. On the other hand, every time I have come to WP:3RR/N in the last 4 years or so, admins have refused to take any such action. Moreover, some of them even don't know what I am talking about when I say there is such a thing as a WP:EW violation without a 3RR violation. So I am really not happy that you are remembering this only where I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, it seems to me you're regarding this question from a very legalistic view. You mention several times that you believe you are entitled to certain actions. My father was a law professor; he taught us that the law is only a safety net; one who only goes by their entitlement is not someone others want to work with. In a project that depends as heavily on collaboration as Wikipedia does, editors are only welcome to the extent that they are team players. — Sebastian 01:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think 8 years of good editing make the point that I am a team player. However legalistic it may be, rules are there to be rules. And if anyone is being legalistic, it is NeilN. It is he who quoted policies first. I rely first of all on common practice, as I have seen it over the years while actively editing Wikipedia.

I have seen many times that people made 4 edits, were reported for 3RR, and the conclusion was that the 4 edits are counted as 1 edit + 3 reverts. And rightfully so. I stress that such is absolutely common practice. I have been there myself, and I have seen it with others. By the same token, 1RR is 1 edit + 1 revert.

If there is ambiguity in these rules, and from what NeilN quotes that seems to be the case (I have to agree with that), then the definition of "revert" must be adapted. Or the rules for 3RR changed. But both can't be true at the same time. I am more than willing to open a centralized discussion about this. But I am not wiling to be the victim of accusations based on interpretations that go against common practice. That goes against my feeling of fairness. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for eight years of contributions; that is a great volunteering commitment. I don't remember any previous interaction (other than the conversation which got your page on my watchlist), so I can't say anything about that. It needs to be said, though, that a long tenure here is not necessarily proof for good team work; you can probably think of some counterexamples yourself. My message here was not on the merits of your contributions, but on the tone and mindset of the discussion here, which I found inappropriately aggressive. I am someone who demands more of administrators, but I found NeilN's posts here appropriate; he is trying to deescalate a conflict (in which I presume he is not otherwise involved) according to the way administrators usually do that. (I would have done that differently. In the height of the Sri Lankan Civil War, we managed to deescalate conflicts by primarily focusing on content, on reliability of sources, and such, rather than revert count, which frankly, I find dull and unworthy of thinking people. But admittedly, that took a lot of effort and time, which I now don't have anymore. Neil's approach seems to be in line with the common practice here.) — Sebastian 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Chabad page

Hello Debresser, It's been a while :) I saw you reverted the part of my edit on the chabad page that removed some statistical text. I was not clear as why I removed it, so I will explain now and that may alter your judgement. This is the sentence I removed: "The movement is thought to number between 40,000 and 200,000 adherents." It may or may not have been true when it was originally written, but if you check the sources, you will see that some of these studies are more than 20 years old. They were done from 1995-2006. So, as I said, I am not disputing that this information was not correct then, I just don't see it making any sense for this to be in the lede when its based on a decade and two decade old info. Thanks. TM (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is better than no info at all. That was my reasoning. As a suggestion, you could add the {{As of}} template. Debresser (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Root of the word Shalom

I added to the article that the etymological analysis of the Hebrew roots and their derivatives reveal that 'Lom was the basic root word for Shalom. It was deleted with the comment "It's not important enough." Yet the repetitious definition of Shalom in this article is. It may not seem important, but for those who do not trace the ridiculous, non-mainstream etomology of shalom from a Canaanite god it may be an interesting piece of information. If we consistantly delete things we personally do not feel is important, we could delete three quarters of all Wikipedia. It is annoying to consistantly have correct and sourced information deleted while unsourced, original research plagues the article. A simple study will reveal that the information is theologically mainstream and correct.

Concerning the etomology of shalom please read the following:

“A thorough etymological analysis of the Hebrew roots and their derivatives reveal that 'Lom was the basic root word for Shalom and appears in other languages in similar forms.” ("Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament", by Botterweck, Ringgren, and Fabry, Volume XV, pg 13-49, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004) http://www.jewishdictionary.org/hebrew-words/shalom.html

"Articles of primary theological importance in Volume XV include these: ' lom ("peace"). https://www.bookdepository.com/Theological-Dictionary-Old-Testament-Pt-15-Helmer-Ringgren/9780802823397

“The prominence of the root-and-pattern system makes it relatively easy to determine both constituents of most Semitic words. This in turn allows the comparison of individual roots across languages. Thus, for example, Arabic salm, “peace, well-being” (English SALAAM), from the Arabic root s-l-m, is clearly cognate with Hebrew lôm, which has the same meaning (English SHALOM), from the Hebrew root -l-m.” (Proto-Semitic Language and Culture, John Huehnergard, Dr. Jamshid Abrahim) http://www.jamshid-ibrahim.net/148.0.html

CWatchman (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I just reverted, because this information was removed from the article in the past, and because it is sounded dubious. Could you please add those sources as well? Debresser (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

CWatchman (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you suggest these sources be part of the article? (In the lead section or in the etymology section?) Or should the quotes and sources simply be added to References? I respect your input. Thank you.

CWatchman (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources should generally be references in the appropriate section. That is in my opinion the best choice in this case as well. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Shalom article states, "Due to Biblical references many Christians teach that 'Shalom' is one of the sacred names of God." There are two subjects in this sentance: (1) Biblical references (2) What Christians teach.

I have referenced what Christians teach but I feel there needs to be references to the "Biblical references." It just seems so incomplete. Readers need to know what these references are. I would like to add these references, and since you are watching this article I wanted to consult with you first.

Also I am hesitant to use the name of G-d but due to the content of the article it is unavoidable and necessary.

Awaiting your response. Thank you.

CWatchman (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to await. I have removed such sentences already a few times. Please stop hammering on the same bad ideas. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. But I am not saying the 'sentences' should be added to the article. Where to find the Biblical references should be below in the Reference section. As it stands the reader has no clue, unless he purchases the books referenced. And I am not 'hammering,' I'm trying to be polite :) CWatchman (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I just went back to the article and checked the reference which was added to the Talmud sentence and saw the scripture had been added. I do not remember it being there before. Sorry. CWatchman (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sabbath mode. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please discuss changes on the talk page before reverting content FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you have reverted me as well, you should warn yourself too! Add to that the fact, that you have not replied anything substantial to my explanations. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adam and Eve

Thanks for paying attention to the use of Template:Adam and Eve. As a non-theologan, creating this new template was no small endeavor and I would appreciate any further feedback you might have on its content or use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is an impressive template. In how far it is relevant to various pages, I don't know. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One could add Garden of Eden and then, if that, Cave of the Patriarchs I guess....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I did. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You can consider joining the TAFI project. Each week you get a new article that can be improved.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'll pass on that proposal, worthy as it may be. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I should point out I think you're a great user, one of the better we have, and I very much regret this situation, but I'm afraid you overstepped it for once. Reporting just the other user would not have been fair. Jeppiz (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I am not even aware of the problem, but will look it up at WP:3RR. Debresser (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that I saw the "issue", let me say that I think that was completely unfounded, as I explained there. A stretch of your imagination, and I have no idea how you justify reporting two experienced editors at WP:3RR based on that far-fetched interpretation. Debresser (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Who gives a damn about source quality anyway?

So you think that an essay by an undergraduate student is a reliable source, I see. How wonderful. As for this propaganda, you are now responsible for it being in the article, reducing it to coloring book standard. Shame, shame, shame. Zero^talk 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

First things first:

1. The essay is well sourced, but I was aware from the beginning that it is not the best source possible. Even so, what he writes seems completely logical, so I am willing to be a tad less strict on the sourcing. Especially since there is another good source there.
2. As I wrote in my revert, my problem is with the removal of information from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. I strongly protest your general claim that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a reliable source regarding the history of Israel. By the way, we have been there before.
4. Why would you call this propaganda?

Debresser (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) Student essays are not reliable sources, end of argument. (2) Where can I read a case that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is an authority on medieval history? Why should anyone imagine that they are? What qualifications do they have on the subject? Was the text written by someone qualified (to save you the trouble: no author is stated). Even if it looked like a good document it would not be acceptable. Reliability is something to be established, not something that exists by default. But this document (did you look at it before reverting?) doesn't even superficially look like a good source. It is clear what sort of document it is even from the chapter titles: BIBLICAL TIMES | SECOND TEMPLE | FOREIGN DOMINATION | STATE OF ISRAEL | PEACE PROCESS | ISRAEL IN MAPS. The Jews were there, then there was foreign domination, then the Jews were there again. During the "foreign domination" things got worse and worse until the Jews came back and saved the country. It is an example of the very worst sort of pseudohistory. Having it in Wikipedia is embarrassing. I don't blame MFA for this; it is their role to distribute the historical narrative that best suits Israel's modern needs as they see them. The question is why we should be their servants and distribute their material when there are libraries full of excellent writings of real scholars.

Incidentally, your edit summary "there is no consensus that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source on historical facts about Israel, and no consensus otherwise" is an argument for removal, not an argument for insertion. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Zero^talk 23:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot the word "no". Debresser (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I left out the word "no". :) Although you could object to me adding un

Some authors claim

I would modify the claim that "The region of Palestine has a special significance for Muslims" by clarifying that this is claimed by some authors, rather than leaving it as an absolute statement of fact. Other authors have claimed that such "significance" has been recently inflated to bolster a political claim. What do you think? Council2 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What article is this about? Debresser (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Rabbi

Instead of edit warring and asking for page protection, why don't you do the right thing and explain on the article's Talk page why you want to change language that's been in the article for (at least) 3-1/2 years? 107.10.236.42 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you take you own advice? And while you are at it, how about logging in to your registered account? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This IP has a registered account? Then who is he? Debresser (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

E-mail me, and I'll give you the details. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, since you (and my stalker here) want to change the long-standing language, you should be discussing your proposed change on the article's Talk page. Instead of trying to be a bully, follow WP:BRD and discuss your proposed change. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_or_hounding.3F about the thing going on between you, with my personal sympathies at the side of When Other Legends Are Forgotten. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

107.10.236.42

Dear Debresser,

See this closed Talk Page incident for context. After fixing this urgent puppetry case, I have trawled the 107.10.236.42's reverts/incidents history and found your page and your admin report. The issue has also been promoted off wiki, maybe for canvassing. I see it mentioned also on Other Legends Are Forgotten's page and above.

After linguistic and timestamp analysis, I have discovered that I also been hounded and reverted across unrelated subjects and articles by this very IP. By now I concur with yous that this IP is a sock for an experienced named account, who probably uses yet another IP(s) for such harassment and name calling of many named bona-fide editors.

You can thus add my voice to this or future ANI notification that you may further instigate about this abusive WP contributor. Zezen (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. I have also looked now at this edit history: judging by the range of the subjects/reverts and the tone of his contributions, I do suspect to be yet another sock of the editor above. Zezen (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-revert please

You've just broken 3R at Israelites.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This edit was not a revert, as you can clearly see from the edit summary and from examining the edit itself. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A deletion discussion you may be interested in

An RfC you were recently involved in (RfC: Filmography navboxes) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (TfD Template:Anthony Marinelli). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding WP:CANVAS, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.

• User:SNUGGUMS Closing editor
• User:Robsinden Proposing editor
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:Betty Logan
• User:MarnetteD
• User:Lady Lotus
• User:NinjaRobotPirate
• User:Lugnuts
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:BattleshipMan
• User:Dimadick
• User:Rlendog
• User:Frietjes
• User:Debresser
• User:Wikipedical
• User:Jusdafax
• User:Mamyles

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have commented there. I very much appreciate the reminder here. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Many (but not all)

I'm well aware, but wanted to make it clear. Is there a problem with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 Sorry for not responding any earlier.

Sometimes it is best to let the text speak for itself, without our help. I think this is such a case. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have added it if I thought that. An awful lot of Orthodox Jews are not aware that many authorities allow such in the context of a marital relationship, provided only that it's a "change of pace," if you will, and not the usual and ordinary contact between partners. Shabbat Shalom. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yossimgim (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Thank you for showing this discussion to me. Yossimgim behaves like the proverbial Indian on the warrior path. Indeed, there was no 3RR violation from my side, but still, I am at a loss how to deal with such aggressive editors. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see he was blocked for a week. Good call! Debresser (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Posek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masorti. 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) 10:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Will fix. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism

Hi. I thought you may be interested in knowing that an editor moved the content of the page Haredi Judaism to Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. The move was done in a technically incorrect way by copying-and-pasting without attribution, so I reverted it, but it was performed again. There is now a request for administrators to merge the page histories to fix the error. LjL (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that editor is now blocked. (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they went crazy on me and started insulting me and calling me anti-Semitic and racist in front of admins, and you know how that goes... expect sockpuppets, though. LjL (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Just that I hardly recognized any of the names of the candidates. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rabbi

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Rabbi. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I suppose you are a sock. 2. No need to use warning template with experienced editors like me. You could have used your own words. 3. I try to stay close to the source on the one hand and to paraphrase it in such a way that best reflects the context of the rest of the article. 4. The fact that I disagree with alternative expressions, is not a reason to say I am trying to "own" this article. I have the right to disagree and edit accordingly, especially when faced with the possibility of repeated IP socks. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Settlement

Debresser: ik werk momenteel vanaf mijn mobiel dus mijn bewerking was aardig haastig, maar zie je niet ook iets partijdigs aan dat artikel? Ik wilde voornaamelijk het was professioneler en minder omstreden laten klinken. De woorden kwamen van de krant "The Hindu", maar het noemen van de PA mijn gokfout. Er stond onder andere dat Israel "disputeert" dat de vestiging illegaal is, maar dit staat niet in de bron. Ik vraag mij dan af waar we dit uit op kunnen maken. De bron vertelt dat Israel die bepaalde wetgeving niet erkend. Hoe zie jij deze punten, als ik vragen mag? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ben jij Prinsgezinde? En dan heb je het waarschijnlijk over de Gush Etzion pagina? Als ik mij goed herinner, is de zin dat de internationale gemeenschap en Israël dit anders zien een standaard zin, vastgesteld in een proces van consensus vorming dat al lang geleden plaats vond (zonder mij), die op alle toepasselijke pagina's herhaald wordt. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ja, inderdaad. En ik was die paginanaam even kwijt. Waar kan ik deze consensus vinden? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Dat is een goede vraag. Ik zie dat dit besproken was op de talkpage in de sectie Talk:Gush_Etzion#NPOV:_Settlement_is_illegal (ook Talk:Gush_Etzion#Opening_sentence_should_reflect_current_status, maar alleen maar een post, zonder verder commentaar). De enige post die een standaard noemt is deze. Dit was besproken en besloten op Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikilink

Hello fellow editor. Thank you for your input and attention to my recent edit on the Josiah article. It seems that the wikilink "Passover" covers it more widely, that's true. I was making the point about "celebration" aspect, but it's correct what you said. The wikilink "Passover" deals with all of it, not just the "Seder" aspect. Thanks. Redzemp (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to have been of help. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beitar Illit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Beitar Illit, {lit. Upper Beitar) is named after the ancient Jewish city of [[Betar (fortress)|Betar]], whose ruins lie {{convert|1|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

West Bank edit

That seems like a reasonable compromise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurunui99 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that all are happy with my edit. That is all too rare in this area. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Schneerson and education

Please address the facts relating to the point in the talk page of Schneerson and do not merely tut tut the issue with edit wars. Merely saying others are too excited does not mean does not do that. You need to focus on the facts of the sentence. It is not a minor issue to claim falsely that the person in question is being honored by the US Congress and Presidency for a role in reorganizing the role a department in the US government. Schneerson may have had many honors in his life. He was not honored for this by the US government. Facts are stubborn and irritating, but they are what we work towards in an encyclopedia. Please address the issue.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rococo1700, please stop telling others what they need to do ("You need to focus on...", "Please address the issue"). That is the issue I am worried about more than the relatively minor content issue. You really have to calm down. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what to do, when it is you who revert my well-sourced facts. If it is a minor issue then I will make the change now.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That it is a minor issue means you should take it easy. Not that you should make inferior edits. :) Debresser (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Palestinian stone-throwing". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted there that I will be happy to participate. @Johnmcintyre1959 well done for turning to mediation. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Noahide Laws

I know you have an interest in this so see this proposal to remove repeated material. See the new section on the Talk Page.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Seven_Laws_of_Noah Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed it, since the page is on my watchlist, but thanks for the post. I agree there is room for improvement. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Have replied there with a proposal for two edits. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 December

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

• On the Seven Laws of Noah page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sepphoris

User:Debresser, the guy had deleted the photo of the mosaic (from Sepphoris), and replaced it with a photo of a statue of the "virgin Mary," saying that simply because she was allegedly born in Sepphoris her photo (statue) should replace the photo of the mosaic. That is pure nonsense!Davidbena (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And I think it makes perfect sense. Not that I mind having the mosaic as well. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that the photo of a statue belongs in the article, at least it should not be put in the lead, as if it were important.Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am fine with it being moved elsewhere in the article. That seems more appropriate, yes. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Palestinian stone-throwing, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian stone-throwing, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Really?

This edit-summary is an insult, a weak one, but an insult none-the-less. It's not likely to get the kindest response from me or anyone. Essentially calling me an idiot is likely to get your ass crawled in. But being 4 days (3 in Australia) from Christmas, I'll take the high road.

Your original edit switched templates, but what is on the page remained the same. Both templates generate "This list is complete and up-to-date as of [date]". All you did was remove the day because it was "too vague". You haven't changed anything on the page but the removal of the day. The change is unnecessary and the lack of the day is itself vague. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The difference is not in the text that the template generates, but in the categories. Adding a day, ruins the categorization. That is the fact that you apparently are not aware of regarding maintenance templates. If you want to see that as an insult, or read into that that I consider you an idiot, then be my guest. Debresser (talk)

If a day ruins the categorization, then fix the categorization. Don't mess with thousands of pages because of one categorization code. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There are over 100 maintenance templates, and all that use dated categorization use only month and year, no day. Those templates tag millions or articles. And you complain about the around 450 articles that used this template with a date?! See what I mean, you don't know how the maintenance templates work! Debresser (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Again with the insult. But still, you are doing this the hard way. Instead of fixing the code on those 100 or so maintenance templates, you are changing the templates on millions of articles. See the problem here? You fix millions instead of fixing 100+. Fix the date code and give your mouse a break. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you really stupid, or just pretending? All those millions of transclusions work with month and year only, no day. The only ones that had a day parameter are the 450 I fixed. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop the personal attacks, right now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you? You didn't "fix" 450 of them, only 52. Of those 52, they had remained that way for several years with no issue. So why the change now?

Since MSGJ said it, I'm going to as well but with more force, violate NPA again, and I'll report you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I foxed about 480 of them, you can check this in my contributions, which, it seems, you also don't know how to use.

As to your threat of persuing the WP:NPA issue. Please note that you posted on my talkpage, with statements that clearly show your ignorance regarding Wikipedia workings. Stating so much is 1. not an attack 2. within the leeway an editor has on their talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't know how to stop yourself, do you? You apparently have been so caught up in insulting me, you have forgotten what we are talking about. We are talking about the "List of radio stations in [State]" pages. I could care less about the others. Of those, you "fixed" 52. Get it now? From now on, please stay with the conversation instead of thinking of new and interesting ways to insult people. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to get the templates to ignore the day in a date if given. And it might be one edit to the meta-template rather than having to edit 100s of individual templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess you want to open a theoretical discussion, MSGJ? Are you still stalking my talkpage? :)

That is correct, however, none of the templates I know (doesn't include updates implemented after switching to LUA) does that. Nor do instructions on maintenance templates documentation pages say to use a day parameter, just month and year. The only exception, and that for a reason, is {{As of}}, as far as I can remember. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, not sure how easy it would be. In any case, I don't think it is a good idea to ignore code. Better not have it. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think if an editor adds a parameter which is correct (even if unnecessarily specific) then ideally the template should function properly and not produce an error. Even if it is a rare occurrence, if we can fix it we probably should. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a fundamental change to all maintenance templates, which should be discussed at a broad forum. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting tags

Someone can't leave well enough alone. See this, repeated 50 times. I've taken the liberty of restoring the tags. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Calton, remember, you were ordered to stay away from me just as I was ordered to stay away from you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, your efforts to get out from under this tag, will get you blocked. let me warn you that your edits are becoming disruptive. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have the same problem with this edit. Please notice that that as well, is a completely normal edit, and you are disrupting the works of this project. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

One, don't threaten me. Two, myself and another user have tried to work with you on this matter and you are stonewalling, verging on OWN'ing. You believe that reverting and insults are going to get you anywhere, it isn't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not threatening you. Again, this is your attitude, to see everything as an insult or thread. I was giving you a legitimate warning.

If I am stonewalling you, it is because there is a way things are done, and your refusal to go that way, not because of any personal motives. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

When an admin says you are are being "assholish", perhaps it's you. You are also stonewalling Rich Farmbrough as well. So, maybe it's your attitude and not mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Then let it be our first agreement, to agree to disagree. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, please notice, that I am replying to both you and Rich with arguments. Unlike you. Also note, that Anomie has agreed with some of my arguments. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I thought (as did Mlaffs) that removing the template (which only dated the pages) was a good move. It kept the same information on the page and made everyone happy. Made Mlaffs happy, made me happy, apparently didn't make you (or Calton) happy. So it wasn't a template, who cares. It was the same info. So, why is that a problem? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil

I am very surprised that a man of your intelligence and superb work has made the reversions you have made. I will list my rebuttal:

1. CALAMUS. This article has been stalked by a cult of drug heads for over a decade. There is a group called the THC Ministry (http://www.thc-ministry.org/). They zealously promote the teaching that the calamus in the Holy Anointing Oil was cannabis/marijuana (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040815.htm). They continue to make changes to the article concerning calamus. On other sites they claim Moshe, Aaron and the priests were stoned, that Christ and his disciples were stoners, etc. One of them made a recent edit which was removed. It said, “The identification with Cannabis is the most possible explanation from a pharmacological perspective, as it is the only plant of the three usually mentioned canditates (sic) for 'kaneh bosem', that could also scientifically account for all the biblical healing wonders without any need for spiritual explantations (Placebo) for the claimed healings.”

I first discovered this article while researching for a book I was writing on the Holy Anointing Oil. This article was a stub which focused on the marijuana factor. I made changes and had to battle these guys for a long time. I suggest you look back in the History and read the Talk section. That marijuana was in the oil is a fringe theory. The mainstream is calamus. Most all of the Bible translations translate וּקְנֵה־ בֹ֖שֶׂם as “sweet calamus,” “sweet cane,” or “sweet reed.” Sula Bennet suggested cannabis which the fringe group grabbed hold of and ran.

The introductory ingredients list of the HaMishchah features the most widely accepted translations of those ingredients as “Myrrh, cassia, kaneh bosem and cinnamon.” Do you notice anything peculiar about this list? Only ONE has the untranslated name while all the others are in English. This is NOT consistent. Only ONE redirects to an alternate theory section. All the others redirect to an article bearing the English name.

Of the ingredients listed only ONE provides alternative theories. For example Myrrh is simply listed as "myrrh" and not as every substance every translator believes may have been the myrrh referred to here. Myrrh is believed by some to have been labdanum, some believe it was a musk from living deer, others believe it to oppobalsamum, some believe it to was commiphora myrrha while others believe it was oppoponax. If we were to include every substance thought to be the myrrh, cassia, etc. there would be no room in the beginning of this article and much confusion. There is room in the rest of the article to discuss alternate theories. In all fairness I added the Cannabis section for all the THC enthusiasts who feel calamus is cannabis.

2. CONTINUITY. I wrote 95% of this article. I added the Continuity section for those who believe in the continuity factor of the anointing oil. WHY would the “Christianity” addition concerning healing and having NOTHING to do whatsoever with continuity be in that section? It is stupid and out of place. Thats what this section is all about—continuity. If there needs to be a Rabbinical section and a Christian section, then it should be created. DON'T put it in the Continuity section if it does not specifically deal with continuity.

3. WHO. The first sentence in that sections says, “Some[who?] believe in the continuity factor relative to the holy anointing oil. The last sentence tells you WHO believes this and provides references: “The continuity factor relative to the holy anointing oil can be found in rabbinical judaism,[12][13] in the Armenian Church,[14] in the Assyrian Church of the East[15][16] in the Coptic Church,[17][18] in the Nazrani and Saint Thomas churches,[19] and others.” So why was “who” put in there in the first place? Why was it deleted when I pointed to “who” by inserting “(see below).”

I hate to see this article overtaken by potheads but I am not going to quibble. I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Please give me a day to look into this carefully. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this article before I was too Wiki-wise about encyclopedic-type articles. After the holidays I am going to overhaul this article and trim it down significantly. I will keep in touch with you before making major changes. The continuity section NEEDS to be there, but as is it is overpowering the article. That section needs to be reduced and the other section expanded. Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the article again, and don't understand why you want to add the word "Continuity" to the section headers. Could you please explain that for me? Debresser (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

People don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "continuity." I think they get it mixed up with "incontinence" or something. They keep adding material that has nothing to do with continuity and it makes the article completely incomprehensible. They seem to think it means "The Holy Oil in Rabbinical Judaism" instead of the "continuity of the Holy Oil in Rabbinical Judaism" or "The Holy Oil in Christianity" instead of the "continuity of the Holy Oil in Christianity," etc. I wrote this a long time ago when still relatively new to Wikipedia and evidently did not make the point clear enough. It was too wordy and too detailed. There was not enough scholarly references and too many references to 'pop' theories. I think if this section is radically trimmed down and the rest of the article is expanded then it will be more understandable. The calamus debate is quite problematic and simply irritating. The ingredient list has kaneh bosm listed and it's translation beside it as "kaneh bosm" which is repetitive and redundant compared with the listing of the other ingredients. I overdid the section about stench in the section "In the Middle East." After the first of the year I will make an outline of changes and share them before making changes to the article. Shalom. CWatchman (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Looking forward. Debresser (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

As promised above, due to your continued insults, I have addressed your behavior at ANI. You can find that thread here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.

The speed with which your complaint was closed, should be an indication of how much you are taking things out of proportion. I do not think I insulted you at all, just told you things you deserve to hear, in the hope that you will understand that you should be careful in areas you are not competent in. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just between us

Reb Dovid, shalom. You have been around Wikipedia far longer than me, and for that reason alone you are entitled to the respect coming to you. I have noticed, too, that most of your edits here, on Wikipedia, are very constructive, and you seem to have a natural knack for detecting things that might be wrong and improper. For that, I say, yeshar koach! While we have had our disagreements, here and there, mostly, after explaining myself, you have allowed my edits to stand. However, in this recent case, where I posted a new article on the "Yom Tov," I was taken aback and surprised by your objection to the article, since we are both frum. I know that you know these laws, just as much as any one of us. So... I am here, my friend, to appeal to your good senses and to cordially ask of you to reconsider allowing the current article to stand. Of course, I would appreciate it if you could also help bring the article up-to-par, so that it will meet Wikipedia's standards. I think that, in essence, this is what we're here to do. I might add, by way of jest, that your name, Dovid, in gematria is 14; and my name, Dowid (note the Yemenite accent) has also the numerical value of 14. Together, they equal 28, which, in Hebrew, spells כח = "power." So, let us take our concerted power and make things work for the better here. Wishing you all the best, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Davidbena, first of all there is no "Just Between Us" on the wiki; if you really want private correspondence you have to go off-wiki. Second, I am also frum, and so are some of the other people who have responded on the subject of this article. The issue for us is not whether the content of the page you created is appropriate—it certainly is—but simply whether this subject needs a separate article in this encyclopedia. That is where we disagree. Understand the following general points:

• Nobody, but nobody, will look this up under "festival-days". That phrase is really limited to the older Mishnah and Gemara translations. That possibly makes the phrase worthy of a redirect, but not of an article itself.
• You could possibly justify this article under "Yom Tov", moving the other page to "Yom Tov (disambiguation)." If the article survives, it has to go under that name.
• Really, the content of the article can be included within Jewish holidays and Melacha without any problem. We do not necessarily see the need for an entire independent article on the topic.
• That said, if two other people support your point of view without your having canvassed them, I will personally change my !vote from delete to neutral. I really don't think you need a separate article, but I don't think it's a terrible thing to do, either, provided the name is a useful one. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81, shalom. Your words are well-taken. So, if there's a problem with "style" or "language" (i.e. "Festival-day"), then let us change the title to "Yom-Tov." As for including the content of the article within Jewish holidays and Melacha, this would, in my humble opinion, seriously distract from the topic, and limit its scope. It's like saying delete the article, Muktzeh, and incorporate it within the Sabbath day article. It seriously takes away from both. As for the people that I personally wrote, asking for their opinion, so-far only one person has answered, and her vote was negative. Would you like me to give a list of the names of the people whom I asked to make a statement? If so, I'll gladly give those names to you.Davidbena (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Dowid, shalom alekha. You need not do that at present; I'm aware of which respondent that was. If you garner more support, I may ask later.

I've made some edits to Jewish holidays to try to incorporate your ideas. Understand that in that context, one must acknowledge that Yom Kippur is colloquially described as a Yom Tov. In that article, I would not concede that point. And if your article survives, you must include somewhere that people refer to Yom Kippur as Yom Tov, even though that may not be precisely correct.

Right now, consensus is strongly against your point of view. I would encourage you to consider how you would disperse the information to other pages should the result be delete. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there much to be dispersed? Debresser (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mostly some items of detail related to the melachot that are permissible on Yom Tov, which probably can go in the article melacha. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Just got back from the shul. Yes, I know where the consensus stands, but "if there's a will, there's a way" (as they say in English). I have a copy of my page, if all should come to worse, and, yes, I could incorporate them into the other articles. Good night.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is for your information: Page from Oxford edition of the Mishnah (Tractate Betzah), showing the English word used for "Yom Tov." See: File:Page_from_Mishnah_Betza_(Oxford_edition).jpg. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Reform Judaism

Well, I tried to tag you. There were no further responses. What shall I do now? AddMore der Zweite (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there is no such thing as tagging on Wikipedia. I replied there. Thanks for dropping me a line here. That is always the best way to get my attention. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OTD and List of OTD

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that I think I'm out, so it's all yours, if you want it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want out? Please don't leave me alone with that mess. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, did I know you under your previous name here on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

as it stands now, he's going to report me for deleting a list of books. It's just not worth it. I can try but explaining why Begin wasn't OTD or Spinoza wasn't to someone who doesn't want to listen is not good for my nerves. Just look at the talk pages. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) most likely, I changed my name only recently, I think we fought under my old name, not sure if it was under my new name, but the old name is just my Hebrew name. I took a break for a few years though. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you to disclose me your old name, please? If you want you can use my email (listed on my userpage). Debresser (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the list of books is not proper, and have undone it. Why should he report that? It is a Wikipedia guideline, and common sense. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why I told him to feel free to report me.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yossiea was my username, feel free to revert or undo.

Yeah, we interacted. I think we disagreed a little. But lately we have been agreeing, so let's stick with that. :) Debresser (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You Have Been Reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokshin kugel (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

See? Well, at least we're in it together. I see he deleted your edit war tag from his talk page so that the admins won't see it on his talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The ANI post was summarily closed. :) That should make some point to this Kugel. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, he is lucky it was closed, because WP:BOOMERANG would have easily lead to his block for a day or two. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI Report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Midas02 (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I expect this discussion will lead to your block, as per WP:BOOMERANG, since you are indeed, as you mention in your post there, the source of the problem. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Another WP:ANI discussion summarily closed. Are people on a drunk, or something? :) I am referring more to the posting editors than to the closing admins, although the latter can't be disregarded off-hand as well. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that Midas02 was clearly warned that he acted without taking into account the previous discussion, with an explicit mention of WP:BOOMERANG to his address. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Anybody else want to report me in 2015?

You still have a few minutes, and your edit warring clearly proves that you are right, so take your chances now! Debresser (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I was going to put a blocked template for the fun of it, but by the looks of things, you might actually get a threepeat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

After editing for over 7 years, and having reached some very nice compromises on difficult issues, I have not much respect for reverters. In addition, I absolutely refuse to be intimidated by them, which is the reason conflicts often escalate. Still, I think that is preferable to giving in to the brute-force attempts of reverters to push through their incorrect or non-consensus opinions. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw or not, but you were just reported to Editor Request, which is one of the noticeboards. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I didn't see that. One can't follow all those noticeboards just in case. Apart from the fact, that any normal editor believes he couldn't have done anything wrong. :)

That's why reporting editors are kindly requested, and sometimes obligated, to notify the ones they are reporting. Where is this noticeboard? Debresser (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests I think it's meant for article assistance or something. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. How do you keep up with all that mischief? :) I posted there also. Now let's see what other editors will advice him. I won't go back there unless invited. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My little notification lit up otherwise I would never had known. I told him on the talk page to go to DR, otherwise perhaps it's best for you to boomerang him. A SPA who only has one article is not worth the fight. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

One could argue that the second paragraph of this edit is inviting a third WP:ANI post. What do you say, should I remove it? Debresser (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we fix ten thousand pages where intitle and looksfrom templates show up in print?

Dear Debresser, please help fix the tangled issue of {{intitle}} on dab pages. I've tried. It's gone from the template talk page to wp:elno talk page, and now to wp:not talk page, and currently started afresh at wp:dab talk page. Please give some light on the matter. The latest productive incarnation is here. — CpiralCpiral 21:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not just on disambiguation pages. I think search templates should not be used at all on articles, including on disambiguation pages. If we can easily remove them, and if we should replace them by something else, I don't know. I personally feel like removing them and that's it. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 December

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. In any case, I have posted there. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Lokshin kugel (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you have to like an edit which adds 770 characters to an article if you're a Lubavitcher, no? Debresser (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Friendly note: Returned to sender

Well if you want to pursue this you'd better do it on your own talk page. returned to sender from my talk page. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you would have mentioned the merger discussion in the edit summary of this edit, I wouldn't have reverted. Debresser (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So, your failure to check whether the merge discussion (which has been advertized for the last six months) had actually taken place is somehow my fault? And "Friendly"? Really? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this before. When I was still friendly. :) And I don't hold grudges. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Or apologize either, it seems... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I was wrong. A discussion which opened half a year ago, which hardly had any participants at all, and in which I haven't participated? I have seen thousands of pages and tons of drama since then. Why should I remember such a discussion, and a halfhearted one at that? You should have mentioned the merge discussion in the edit summary. Yes, and I should have checked for one as well. Still no need for either of us to apologize. If anything, your post on my talkpage using "WTF" was unacceptable, as in uncivil, and your apologies will be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want to pursue this?

Do you honestly think WTF (a common enough expression of anger/frustration/surprise, with an implied expletive) is uncivil? Or that your response was any less so? If I had said (for example)“what are you playing, at you fucking idiot” that would have been uncivil.

Do you really think I had no reason to be angry, frustrated or surprised because, after spending a couple of hours sorting the merger mess out, you wander along and undo it in 30 seconds with your bull-in-a-china-shop edit.

You were hardly unaware of the merger, seeing as you put a merge tag there in October nor were you unaware of the merge discussion, as you sent a friendly note/veiled threat to Setareh in June. So if you objected to the merge, why the hell didn't you register your objection at any time over the last six months? And if you didn't object to the merger, WTF was the problem?

And you weren't expected to remember it, you were expected to assume that if a page is slated for a merger, sooner or later people will offer an opinion and eventually someone is going to come along and resolve it. And you are also expected to assume if a merger takes place that someone had a good reason to do so, unless you know otherwise.

And, when you realized you'd made a mistake, you could have simply acknowledged the fact, or (if you are the type of person who finds it impossible to admit you are wrong) you could have just walked away, and deleted my message with an acerbic comment (Oh, hang on....). Instead you try and pass off your failures as being my fault: Mention the merge discussion? It's axiomatic!. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I want to pursue this.

Yes, I honestly think so. That posting WTF on my talkpage was uncivil.

Please have a look at the continuation of WP:MERGECLOSE: WP:PROMERGE where the text of the edit summary of a merge is given Merged content to [[<destination page>#<destination section, if applicable>]]. See [[Talk:<merger discussion talk page section>]]. Did you follow that instruction, or did you omit the latter part? Yes, let me hear you admit it... :) Debresser (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And in reply to your latest comment (complete with your little smirk symbol :), again)

I don't have any qualms about admitting I failed to mention the merge discussion, what I am a long way from admitting is that my omission had any bearing on, or provides any excuse for your, manifold failures in this matter, viz:

Your failure to assume (or even consider) the merger was done in good faith

Your failure to carry out even the simplest checks if you thought it wasn't (or even to send me a message asking WTF I was playing at)

Failure to mention any objection to a merger any time in the last six months prior to it being carried out

Failure to acknowledge any fault of yours in this, but instead manufacturing some fatuous objection to try and shift the blame

(and, you could add, a failure to recognize rhetorical question/s when presented with them)

If and when you are prepared to admit to all (or even any) of these failures you can ping me. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: And I suggest any incivility assumed from my WTF comment is more than outweighed by the incivility of your reply, so we are even on that, too). Moonraker12 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no imperative reason to do this on my talkpage, apart from your obvious reluctance to have this on yours. Still, I object to the dumping of an ongoing discussion on my talkpage.

I do not think my expletive in the edit summary on my talkpage, not yours, outweighs your expletive in a post on my talkpage. Especially since mine was only in reaction to yours.

I am not unwilling to acknowledge my faults. I would have done so right away, had you been able to give a hint of being capable of the same regarding your post, which, again, came before my reaction, timewise.

I am under no obligation to comment on the merger process.

I never assumed the merger was done in bad faith. Your claim above that I did, is in itself a bad faith assumption. An edit can be reverted even when it was done in good faith.

I agree that I should have checked more scrupulously. The obvious reason I didn't do so is your failure to mention any form of preceding discussion in your edit summary. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well first, the reason we are doing this here is because you are the one who wants to pursue it. For my part we can jack this in any time you like.

Second, you still reckon the term WTF is an expletive; I don't. OTOH you don't reckon telling me “Fuck yourself” is an expletive because it was only in an edit summary, and on your own talk page; I do. So we are at an impasse on that one.

Third, your suggestion that my claim that your assumption the merger was done in bad faith was a bad faith claim, is also itself a bad faith suggestion; and we could go on for a long time in that vein. And I'm well aware that good faith edits can be reverted, but you generally need a good reason, or be acting within the current consensus, to do so. Did you? Were you? But if you look at what I said, I suggested you reverted the merge either because you thought it was done in bad faith, or because you knew it was in good faith but reverted it anyway; to my mind the former is the more charitable explanation.

Fourth, you were “under no obligation to comment...” well of course you were! If you objected to the merge you should have said so. The merger was proposed, discussed (after a fashion) over a six month period, closed and carried out, all without a peep out of you; then once it was done, you wandered up and undid a couple of hours worth of work: Do you expect me not to be annoyed about that? Even if you had commented, then reverted against the closure, that would have been bad enough; but if you reverted because you objected without even having tried to contribute to the discussion, that is borderline disruptive: And to revert when you didn't object, but just felt like doing so, is borderline vandalism. So what the (insert your own expression here) were you playing at?

And “I should have checked more scrupulously” is a little short of the truth; it's blatantly obvious you never checked at all, otherwise you would have seen the closure notice as plain as day.

Oh, and this (@Debresser:) is a ping, BTW. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Whatever.
2. Okay.
3. I stick with my point of view.
4. You are wrong.
5. I know what a ping is, but it is not as though that ping will show up on my alerts or anything, so it doesn't really have a function.

You ignored WP:PROMERGE, and still ignore my argument referring to it. It is really simple, you know: you made an edit that ignored a Wikipedia guideline, so in any disagreement that arises as a result, you are the one who is in the wrong. That's all there is to this, and no reason to waist more words. Debresser (talk)

Actually it's even simpler than that: you made a high-handed edit, and when challenged over it, chose (rather than acknowledging the fault) to resort to bluster and legalistic nit-picking.

If ignoring guidelines is the issue, maybe you should take the plank out of your own eye before looking for the speck in mine; if I offended the letter of one part of WP:Promerge (which I have already dealt with twice, now, incidentally), you offended the spirit and the letter of WP:Merge in general, as well as WP:AGF and WP:Consensus; and, depending on why you carried out the edit (which you still haven't explained), offended against either WP:DISRUPT or WP:VANDALISM. Or, if you are now saying you reverted because I “ignored” ProMerge, then you were editing to make point.

And yes, this is a waste of time and words (and may even be a "waist", for all I know) but as you insist on prolonging it, the argument's waistline continues to expand, doesn't it? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This last post was a lousy attempt to have the last word, rather than acknowledge your mistake. Please feel free to post a reply at your convenience, if it is so important to you to have the last word. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

An attempt to have the last word? What are you on about? This is your argument, on your talk page; if you don't want to pursue it, stop arguing! Specifically, stop saying stuff that requires an answer. To be clear, I have acknowledged the mistake, twice; what I haven't acknowledged is that it offers any excuse for your action (which you still haven't explained, BTW)

If you want to agree to differ, fine ("Whatever", "Okay", "I stick with my point of view") If you are going to throw out a challenge ("You are wrong"), or lie ("rather than acknowledge...") you'll end up with a reply. Over to you... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ottoman Palestine. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
and 2. failing to WP:LISTEN / attempt to reach consensus for non-standard dab page i.e. 3. WP:OWN. Two reverts in 24hr, and reverts either side of that making 4 reverts (or more). Although there's discussion on the talk since, continuing to push despite consensus and without gaining consensus and general OWN means this is a disruptive edit warning (but with the ew template, and yes templating a regular). It is your burden to familiarise yourself with MOSDAB before editing dab pages, and taking an aggressive line towards dab project editors who all agree this dab has issues goes against consensus of MOSDAB and editors. Looking at your talk/block history, stop this disruption now. Widefox; talk 14:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You come bulldozing in from some WikiProject, and ignore existing consensus with your edit. You should not be surprised that you are being reverted then. Nominating that page for deletion in the middle of an active discussion on what needs to be improved, is also a faux pas. In addition, your post on the talkpage are inflammatory. I think it is you who should be warned for disruptive behavior in view of these three things. Debresser (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Responding to another editor who's described the situation as an "aggressive editor", I'm not sure exactly who they mean. You were lucky to not be blocked already as your edit summary indicated you're aware this is covered by discretionary sanctions, so you may be blocked for going over the 1RR repeatedly at any time. Added to WP:CIVIL at AfD and talk, plus general WP:OWN / burden of reaching consensus. Widefox; talk 15:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 16:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that discussion will probably lead to your block, per WP:BOOMERANG, since you violated 3RR. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In reality, because that accusation is false and seen as such and dismissed, this is another location I'm asking you to strike, or provide diffs for thank you. Widefox; talk 20:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
When knowing that it is a contested refactor which should not be repeated, this is pure disruption - I've already edit summaried that a contested refactor should never be repeated per WP:REFACTOR etc. This is more akin to disruption , whereas the previous also removed my content. Widefox; talk 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from painting my talkpage with these undeserved tags. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The only good thing coming out of these tags, is that since you are the one who is edit warring with me, they prove that you are aware of the problem in your own edits as well, which save me the trouble to have to warn you. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I general, it is considered bad taste to tag experienced editors with standard warning templates. But it seems WP:CIVIL is not much of a guideline for you. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

At ANI, you've been asked by two editors to strike your 3RR allegation, but have yet to do that there, and at all places mentioned (afDs, above etc). Widefox; talk 12:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Which one, the one with 4 edits or the one with 5 edits? Debresser (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI post closed with a warning to both editors to stop the edit war. I am not happy that Widefox wasn't blocked for his 3RR violation and general disruptive attitude. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No original research includes original translations.

On wikipedia, quotes must be sourced. Translations need to be cited. You cannot provide your own translation, even if it is superior. That's original research. If you want to go around re-translating things, you are going to need a reliable source. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) That's actually not correct. See WP:TRANSCRIPTION. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, says the person who replaced a long-standing good translation with one that is easily proven to be inferior, if not outright incorrect.[5] Debresser (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the present translation is sourced! The only difference between the source and the translation in the article is the word "And", which is very much in the Hebrew. The new proposed translation was far off from both the source, and the original Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon this intrusion by a talk page stalker. While StevenJ81 is right (of course) that an editor's translation is okay -- it's something I've done myself -- I think you ought to mention it in the footnote instead of giving the reader the impression that we're quoting the English-language source. Just a thought. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to have such talkpage stalkers as the two of you. :) We are using the source, just adding the word "and", which should be trivial enough to leave unmentioned. You disagree? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked at the article again and I see the source of my confusion: footnote 4 is being used twice for two different translations of Avot, one of which looks like it hews close to the source and the other not so much. Take a look at the "Golden Rule" section. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am looking only at the "And if not now when?" part of the translation, which is the part the editor changed, and it looks the same to me in both sections. Am I missing something? Debresser (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the article's lead section, the famous saying is given as "If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"[4] but in the section titled "Golden Rule", a paragraph that starts "In Avot, Hillel stated "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am "I"? And if not now, when?"[4]" Footnote 4 links to this page, which translates the saying as quoted in the lead. So the middle portion of the saying is translated differently in the two parts of the article, but both cite the same source for the translation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. I indeed only looked at the third part, which is the part that was recently edited. So perhaps change the second part in the lead. Although I personally like the other translation better, but it is probably easier to stick to the source. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone has a severe case of I hate Israel

Palestinian_wine Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been at it for years. Like in Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian minhag and others. It is awful that someone should good good academic sources to make a political statement based on a choice of words as opposed to the intention of those sources. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate were also informative and significant contributions. Chesdovi (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your rebbe must be beaming with pride. Why don't you give me your information so I can let him know where to send a gift basket? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Genuine rebbes and their Hasidim boycott the internet. (Jewish boycott of the Internet?) But a well deserved barnstar from you would give me a real ego boost. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I remember those articles as well. We haven't intersected for a while, and I felt the better for it. Nevertheless, on a personal level, since that is where this user talkpage discussion is going, I would really like to understand where you come from. Because I find it hard to understand why you are pushing the term "Palestinian" so much. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I come from the East but my rebbe is from the West. Chesdovi (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean geographically, I meant ideologically. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Restoring a dead link

Hey Debresser, I saw that you here undid my edit and thereby returned "alternative" terms for Targeted Killing, which are sourced to a dead link what may be an online dictionary and to globalresearch.org. In your revert you explained, "Restore sourced information. In addition, I am not sure terms need much sourcing." You didn't leave a note on the talk page, that might have explained how the dead link isn't one, how globalresearch is a valid source, or why sources aren't needed in this case.

We've all (mostly) been guilty of hitting the undo button to bring back unsourced content without actually checking it out, so I just wanted to leave a note here to see if you actually followed that link you restored? If you want to maintain these more partisan phrases (both pro and against Targeted Killing) you'll want to find sources. -Darouet (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether they are "more partisan" or not, which is a question I think can be be disputed, these are terms that are in use. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Better source added. I dislike people disputing facts on technical grounds. It is called "wikilawyering". Debresser (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And I dislike people removing information without having at least the most minor look whether they can provide a better source themselves. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep you likes, and dislikes, in mind next time you decide to revert for milon.walla.co.il or globalresearch. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC) striking snark. -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's annoying when people remove content they don't like on technical grounds and without replacing with better sources. In this case I removed the terms not only because they were poorly sourced, but also because many of them don't appear elsewhere in the article, making their relevance dubious. Thanks for finding more sources. I've also found a few and might add those as well. -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Always happy to see an article improving. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Halakha

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:100.15.134.190 reported by User:Debresser (Result: ). There may still be time for you to reply at the noticeboard to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR needs to be on the same day, not 30 days or so apart. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently he has general edit warring in mind. Debresser (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert

"Palestinian wine" means "wine made in Palestine". I thought you had better English skills than that. It even says Palestine on the label. Kindly stop this nonsense. Zero^talk 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you now. Sorry that it took me a while. I do disagree with other things, though, which is why I added a few tags to the article. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That template is well know among template editors

"That template is well know among template editors to do this, and is used in many such case" Such as ? -- PBS (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit War on a topic you are too close to

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are simply too close to topics related to orthodox Judaism to be objective and use third party references that are respected outside of orthodox Judaism. You are attempting to delete them, even though the banner is specifically asking for them on the Mikveh page. Time for you to work on topics you are less POV about. VanEman (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so childish. I tag you, you tag me. And accusing me of POV on pages about Judaism is large, coming from you. Debresser (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi

I think it's time to report him as a SPI or edit warrior and have him blocked. It's extremely difficult to have to babysit every article. The WW article is littered with his insertions. He basically googles every anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist source he can find and inserts it. I think you are better at this, so do you think this is something whose time has come? Take a look at the article and the talk page. Look at all the sections he has created.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The page is not "littered" with my insertions. Half the page is my insertion. It seems there is consensus to re-add Leibowitz, but has Sir Joseph done so? Chesdovi (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

See my commentary at Talk:Western Wall, to the effect that I propose to not discuss people, and try to edit together productively. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You try to do so. All he does is revert information without discussing, inserting POV FRINGE, how about I leave the page alone for a while? Are you willing to let the western wall become part of the PA? Have you seen his most recent proposal to insert into the article? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss this civilly and after Shabbes, on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ref New Haven Power

Template:Ref New Haven Power has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WuhWuzDat 04:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Posted there. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve it! :-) Marek.69 talk 00:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. If you say so. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What good are WP:RS and WP:V if administrators ignore them?. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have replied there now. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Was this ever modified?

I couldn't find this appeal and it appears this TBAN is still in effect. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the notification he received on January 15, 2012.[6] It is a WP:ARBPIA ban. I see no reason to say it is expired, but on the other hand, four years is a long time. Then again, he has a huge POV, and his edits are cherrypicking and misleading under a veil of reliable sources. A very smart and dangerous editor, who has been disturbing and influencing Wikipedia for many years now. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I also had my clashes with him, see e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive88#Debresser, and still think he was disruptive and terribly POV'ed then as well. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If a ban is never lifted, then it remains in place and you may revert without restriction. I think you should ask to see if it was ever lifted. If it wasn't, I'm sure an appeal will be filed.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not all of his problematic edits are in the ARBPIA field. Like his edits to Western Wall, for example. Although, if broadly constructed...? Perhaps you would care to post an inquiry at ARBPIA, if the sanctions against Chesdovi are still in force? Debresser (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's best if you do it. They don't like me. I've opened too many clarification requests lately. Plus, I just came off a block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Done at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles. Note, that you are not invited to comment there. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not? If the TBAN was rescinded, then it was rescinded, but if it wasn't then it wasn't. It's as simple as that. ARBCOM rulings need to be enforced. That is my statements in all my clarification requests to ARBCOM whether it's their stupid 500/30 or other unenforceable or pointless, or admins who get away with NPA violations. If it wasn't rescinded and he does want it rescinded because it's been 4 years, then that's another story and an AE appeal can be filed. But my big thing is following the law, in here and in real life. In this case, we have a TBAN but we don't have a lifting of a TBAN, QED. If you don't want me to edit, you should at least clarify why you are posting a clarification request to ARBCOM. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am asking ARBCOM to clarify. I would have preferred nobody else answer, if possible. I would even have preferred Chesdovi not to know about it, but the instructions said I must notify him. In your case I would add, that if you claim you are not popular there, then why come there? Debresser (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You may have noticed that ArbCom seems to think unanimously that the topicban is still in place. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

to paraphrase someone, it's just the sitra achra. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see below, my request for clarification was [7]. The unanimous opinion of seven editors was, that the topic ban is still in place. When I asked why then did he create Palestinian wine, they said that any violation should be reported through WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of discussion that might interest you

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Zero0000#Western_Wall_2Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

All over it. :) Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

The clarification request regarding the Palestine-Israel articles" arbitration case, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Esther

Thanks for message. You are quite right, my talk was not necessary. I'll delete it now! If I shouldn't do that, pls advise. Thx. --Observer6 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if it was a big deal. It just seemed a little overkill to me. Perhaps, if after a month or so nobody supplies a source, then post on the talkpage. By the way, I made a short search, and couldn't find a clear and reliable source. I did see in one place that Esther was among those who were exiled from Jerusalem, but that is not precisely the same as that she was born there. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It was overkill, you are quite right. I appreciate your suggestion about waiting a month, and then taking it from there. My intention was, in the absence of proof, to open up the subject for discussion. If Esther was indeed among those who were exiles from Jerusalem (during the reign of Judean King Jeconiah?) this would make Esther about 100 tears old when she was made (Queen of Persia?) by King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I?)! An interesting concept!
I suspect that the editor who added 'Jerusalem' acted in in haste but in good faith. The article itself says "She had spent her life among the Jewish exiles in Persia, where she lived under the protection of her cousin Mordecai."
It is also interesting to note that the Google page which shows the results of a Google search for esther, says she was born in Susa!--Observer6 (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember that according to tradition she was indeed some 80 years old, so that seems to fit with the idea that she was exiled from Jerusalem. However, I'll have to look into this. I'll try to do so within the foreseeable future, before Purim. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Most Jewish sources I have been able to find say that she was 75 years old at the time of the story of Purim, while some of them bring other opinions as well, namely: 40, 70 and 80. In English I found this article, that mentions 40, 75 and 80. However, I had no luck so far in finding anything connecting Esther to Jerusalem or the exile. Debresser (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to come to the conclusion, that there is no such opinion. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reference to this article. Yes, it gives us a lot of information from rabbinical sources re her name, age and marital situation etc. But, as you say, there is nothing that verifies 'Jerusalem' as her place of birth. The onus is always on editors to provide 'reliable source' that directly supports the material they have added. (Ref WP:VERIFY) --Observer6 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear

I thought it implicit that you were not included in my ref. to a 'usual majority'. We have and no doubt will often disagree strongly, but we have managed at times to work well together. I would in any case hope you give, without the need to be hasty, some consideration to the Cisjordan option vs Land of Israel. The Cisjordan (including Galilee) is really what the Torah is about (the land as actually settled by the Israelites at Joshua 11:22, see also here. It is one of the anomalies in Joshua, for example that the Land of Israel does includes the Transjordan, but at the same time it is stepping over the Jordan which marks the seminal step for entry into the Promised Land (the article map is completely inaccurate), creating a conceptual tension between the very vague eretz Israel and the more precise ha'aretz ha-muvtahat,whereas modern discourse on origins (well illustrated by the original Zionist insistence that Transjordan be included within the Jewish state) ignores that, and focuses on Cisjordan (Deuteronomy 12:10) as the centre of the Land of Israel, privileging a narrower view of the Jewish heartland. Do modern Jews really think they originate from Jordan? In any case, I'd appreciate it if you mulled this option for a while. As I said, I am not allowed to edit there but I think it a shame that the page is not seriously worked to at least rid it of the numerous errors, sources that fail verification, use of clichés, etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue I am still not decided about as a rabbi, so I can't give an opinion on it yet. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. As I said, it is something that implies some time to study. I wasn't of course asking for a rabbinical view. The question is, whether modern Jews identify themselves as descending from all of the land from the Red Sea to the Euphrates (one of the readings of eretz Israel) or basically eretz kna'an. I've never encountered the former view in a lifetime of reading, but if one writes, as you do, that the ethnogenesis occurred in the 'the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel', you are selecting eretz kna'an, not the eretz israel that can embrace a far larger area, extending to the Euphrates. No hurry, as I said.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would add (without prejudice to an answer) that one possible definition could include an area of the "near transjordan", which may be included in "the territory settled in the generation of Joshua", without the boundary being fully extended to the maximum "Egypt-to-Euphrates" boundary. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven. An interesting suggestion.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't expect to have time for this till Pesach. :) Debresser (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(sigh) I don't even have time for Pesach till Pesach. :) StevenJ81 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Karl Kraus, I have mentioned more than once, said violence occurs because no one pays attention to the precise meaning of words, the close construal of sentences and correct punctuation. That may explain why 2 millennia of rabbinical learning was accompanied by an irenic worldview. There is much to be said for this. I'm sure we can negotiate some medium time length between the scales alluded to in 'To His Coy Mistress' and the nanoseconds of quantum mechanics.:)Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Asimov

Hi, I reverted your edit restoring his middle name for the reasons discussed at Talk:Isaac Asimov#Unsourced middle name: a hoax?. Richard75 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Significance of numbers in Judaism

Just in case it's not on your watch list, I trimmed it heavily. There must be loads of sources for real significance other than this. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not. Thanks for the note. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Levantine. 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) 10:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add it, I undid another edit. Maybe that link is indeed best removed. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I think it might be best to work together on the plague (disease) article as it benefits the reader the most, I have left comment on talk page, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have commented there. Perhaps next time you refrain from reverting in defiance of WP:BRD, if you really want discussion... Debresser (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bibleprobe.com

Sorry but that is a seriously bad site. Bible code, UFOs, etc. We shouldn't use sources like those websites, especially when we can use the original.[8] Doug Weller talk 04:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. My point was about the information itself, but the source is not good. So I added a few other sources, now you can make your pick. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove all three sources? A mistake? Debresser (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, because we have the actual source, not second-hand ones? I thought you might want to enhance the statement using what he actually wrote. I've posted to the talk page now. Why do you think Baseinstitute is a reliable source for this? Doug Weller talk 08:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't. I just found a few sources and added them. Why didn't you simply post the original source there? Debresser (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hi, is there a reason you reverted my edits at Template:Cleanup red links without any summary? I merely included a link to a script which removes redlinks (obviously necessary for pages the template is used on), which I created myself and have used multiple times to clean out Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup. The edit was only to help other editors; I've also included the link in the template documentation, and have had no disagreements with that. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

In the documentation - no problem, but if you want to add your personal script to the template, please get consensus first. Debresser (talk)

No problem. Can I get a policy that states that this is what I need to do? Just out of curiousity. And perhaps next time, you should use the edit summary to explain this. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You could try WP:COMMONSENSE. In general, before you make any edit to a maintenance template, you should keep in mind that they are build along certain general lines, and that they are potentially used on hundreds, sometimes hundreds of thousands of articles. That means that you should preferably get consensus before changing them. They are build to be concise, and anything making them longer is likely to be received less than enthusiastically.

Sorry for not adding an editsummary. I usually do. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

includeonly

Aside from your rather dogged revertwarring over |reason= parameters, which can be resolved elsewhere, you should be aware that your "reverts" are actually introducing other changes that do not appear to be intentional. I've seen it at least twice today. Example: [9]. I have other things to do that test what the effects of that might be, but the code you're clobbering appears to have been introduced specifically to separate the subst: part from what follows it, in a particular stage of parsing, and I'm pretty sure that was done this way intentionally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I will of course appreciate any real fixes to unintentional mistakes of mine. If I were aware of them, I'd do it myself right away. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing the includeonly tags is a trivial thing, and I have made that edit on many templates, after checking with other editors that it is not necessary. Please note that these includeonly tags have also been removed from the documentation of Fix and Ambox. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good enough, unless someone points out it's breaking something. My point was just that it appeared to be being changed unintentionally in the course of a revert, as if a technical problem of some kind were causing it to revert and remove something else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balady citron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. 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) 10:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Debresser (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please do not delete cited text. Chesdovi (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chesdovi: a warning of that sort doesn't mean anything, especially when the edit summary provides a good reason for the edit, by explaining that the "cited text" wasn't actually found in the source. If you disagree with that assessment, you certainly have a right to and to discuss it, but not really sending a STOP warning like that. LjL (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The cited text is in the citation. This is a quote from the Telegraph article,

"In fact, the Charedi community is one of the fastest-growing sections of the population and is expected to become the biggest Jewish group in Britain within the next three decades. A study by the Board of Deputies and Jews found that membership of ultra-Orthodox synagogues has doubled since 1990, spurred by a soaring birth rate — Charedi families have an average of 5.9 children, significantly more than the national average of 2.4."

I am not sure of the Economist article or why that is used. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chesdovi The text was not in the source immediately following it, so I was justified in deleting it. I am glad that you solved the problem, but if you insult me again my putting a warning sign on my page for a valid edit, I will report you for WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Undo POV vandalism"

Please can you explain why you term this edit "POV vandalism" as opposed to: Mordechai HaKohen of Safed, Moshe Alshich, Hayyim ben Jacob Abulafia, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Yadua the Babylonian, Hanan the Egyptian, Simeon the Yemenite etc, etc... // Chesdovi (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason seems apparent: the first edit listed was unexplained and unconstructive, the subsequent edits are explained and constructive. LjL (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There are people who try to remove all mention of "Palestine" and replace it by "Israel". That is POV vandalism, so I reverted.

Regarding the second part of that edit, it may be that in 5000 BCE the term "Land of Israel" is more correct than "Palestine", but since it is sourced, I suppose that the source used "Palestine", which as a name for the region is technically correct. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Goodreads template discussion

Goodreads, which is related to a template you worked on, is being discussed here. – S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be canvassing. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Who is "navin035"?

I'd just like some clarification on your reason for reverting my change to the article Book of Esther. The author had been given as "navin035". In reformatting the reference, I deleted the "navin035" as there is no evidence that anyone named navin035 wrote the article. The URL that I used for the IMDb website that refers to that film is the URL that had originally appeared in the article. For some reason you'd also changed the URL to go specifically to a review. You commented that I had deleted more than the name. What information was removed besides "navin035"? Thank you for your attention.--Akhooha (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As you can see here, you edit also removted the date and removed the usage of the {{Cite web}} template.

P.S. It just became clear to me who "navin035" is: he's a reviewer whose name shows up on the new URL you included in the reference. I have a question: How important and relevant is navin035's opinion of the movie to referencing the existence of that movie? It seems to me that the older URL linked to an IMDb page that actually gave a synopsis of the movie....Again, thanks for your attention.--Akhooha (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that 1. there is no reason to link to this specific user review 2. it is better to link to the general article. Therefore, also, the author name should be removed. Debresser (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and considered action on removing the author name. Just out of curiosity, is there any particular advantage to using the {{Cite web}} template? It seems to me that many editors use it incorrectly which generates a lot citation errors. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I prefer to use the old style of citation without a template. Thank you for your replies. --Akhooha (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don’t think IMDB is considered appropriate to cite in general, for the same reason as WP: being crowd-sourced. See WP:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb and WP:Citing IMDb; from the latter essay I gather that using it to support basic facts about released films is in a grey area. So without a better source the item may be vulnerable to ‘trivia scrubbing’.—Odysseus1479 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that IMDb can safely be used to assert the fact of the assistance of the film and who the main actors are. Especially since that information is so easy to verify. In addition, most other entries in that list don't have any source at all. The simple reason is that we don't usually add sources to prove the existence of something on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)