This is an archive of past discussions about User:Debresser. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Need your help:
I'm new at Wikipedia but I noticed that the links to Martin Wagner's articles on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page are all broken. I am loathe to begin my Wikipedia career by getting into trouble removing them on such a page. I don't even know if it's the correct thing to do. It certainly seems to be what is necessary according to this, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."
What do you think? Can you do something about it? Thanks!238-Gdn (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
To editor 238-Gdn: I can only see one link to Wagner's work. Can you see more? Regarding the correct course of action, a dead link is not a reason to delete a source since there is no rule that sources have to be on the internet. A newspaper name and date is perfectly adequate without a url. But in any case the best thing to do with a dead link is to replace it by a working link. I just put the title into google and a direct link to the newspaper article was the first hit. Zerotalk01:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
In each case Category:Hebrew Bible places is a super-category category of an existing category, and WP:SUBCAT is quite clear that "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". If you disagree with WP:SUBCAT please raise the matter on WT:CAT. (There seem to be a few editors who are explicitly or ignoring or contradicting SUBCAT, so you might even get some support.) If you think that one or more categories should be non-diffusing, then please place the appropriate template on the relevant categories so that editors know that the duplication is intended. Otherwise, please just follow the existing clear and generally-accepted guidelines for categorization. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
In each of those cases I found the connection between the parent and child category not clear, so i restored the category. In addition, and as I have pointed out to you before on your talkpage, the placement of templates on non-diffusing categories has never been perfect, so my advice to you would be to stop implementing the rules indiscriminately and start using common sense. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
the placement of templates on non-diffusing categories has never been perfect - That's true, but you could improve things a little by placing the appropriate templates ({{Non-diffusing subcategory}}, {{Non-diffusing parent category}}) on the categories where necessary - that's why they exist.
"Common sense" says that the categories would be a lot easier to understand if we all followed the same system - ie the unambiguous guidelines in WP:SUBCAT - rather than individuals making ad hoc decisions. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with you. There are two problems: 1. the imperfectness of the system shouldn't stop us from making the right decision in any individual case. 2. I often thought to tag categories with those templates, but (almost) never did it, because who am I to decide whether a category should be considered diffusing or non-diffusing. Not to mention that I am perfectly fine - on the theoretical level of Wikipedia guidelines - with categories being both, i.e. partially diffusing and partially non-diffusing, somewhat like the situation which exists in many cases today. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about stepping on each other's toes. I just discovered this film and wanted to add some details. It is a rarity now and while released on DVD, it never was issued as a VHS so, for years, the only time it popped up was as a late-night feature. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this edit violates 1RR ("Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."), wherefore I suggest you self-revert it. You have also not provided any reasons, why that would be the stable version and not the text that has been in the article for several years, indicating you perhaps do not understand what the concept of stable version means. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"when in doubt, assume it is related" as the sanction itself provides. The way the diaspora came about has been a bone of contention as some people feel it relates to the strength of the Zionist case/ideology, which is probably why the "myth of exile" is bandied about to begin with, IMO. Anyway this isn't a huge procedural issue, since the source interpretation question itself is so bleedingly obvious. --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
That article is not under any WP:ARBPIA restriction. No room for doubt here. All I see here is an editor trying to game the system. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I turned it into a subsection, as I am sure such was the original intent and in any case, that seems to be the appropriate status of that paragraph. I don't have any more commentary on the paragraph at this stage. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jews - Origin section". 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 24 March 2017.
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. 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Jews - Origin section, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy Land, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qatada. 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.
In this case I reverted to a previous version. A bit not useful to warn editors who didn't introduce the link, just reverted to it. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Strict reading
Why do you think excising this qualification is more correct than what the source tells us? I'm not very familiar with this subject, but we're later noting that this point of interpretation has been a subject of debate, and by deviating from the source on this point we seem to be taking sides in this debate. Eperoton (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see it that way, because there was no indication in the article the debate had anything to do with a strict or non-strict interpretation. Neither did I notice such a correlation in any of the sources, although I admit I didn't read them in their entirety. Please point me to it, if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Non-strict interpretation of rabbinical law is what was used historically to justify application of capital punishment by later Jewish courts, e.g.: [4]. We don't want to suggest that Jewish courts purposely violated Jewish law. Eperoton (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It says "they were going beyond the biblical warrant for the death penalty". That is something different from the text I removed: "According to a strict reading of rabbinical law". Debresser (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, but the rabbis discussed in this book believed that capital punishment "could be justified by other considerations of Jewish law". So, by removing the qualification, we're taking initiative to state that these rabbis were wrong. There could be other ways to formulate a properly qualified statement, but we would need different sources for that. What's your objection to the phrasing used in the available source?
I'd like to use this occasion to arrive at a summary that can also be used as lead in the main (mainly unsourced) article, which currently has none, and in Capital punishment#Judaism, which overuses primary sources. Eperoton (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Elon's entry in the same Judaica article, it looks like the expression "strict law" may have a technical sense in Halakhic jurisprudence, based on how he glosses a responsum: "You know that the law applicable to criminal cases in these times when the government has granted criminal jurisdiction to Jewish courts is not the strict law [i.e., biblical], for jurisdiction over criminal cases [under the law of the Torah] has been abrogated." I'm guessing it means something like Talmudic law derived from the Torah, though I'm not sure. Actually, I would propose that we simply replace "rabbinical" with "Talmudic" in the sentence under discussion. The entry is called "Talmudic Law", the sentence simply says "strict law", and "rabbinical" was my own word choice. Eperoton (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"Strict law" carries the meaning of "according to the letter but not its spirit". Usually applied in cases where a person is pushed to be more giving towards another person than the letter of the law requires, as a good deed, so to say. I don't think that would apply here. Debresser (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"Strict law" sounds like din, which is usually contrasted to peshara (equity?), which is usually found in descriptions of civil cases. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that you reverted the page page for Template talk:Empty category. Why did you do this? I find your objection that there had been "insufficient discussion" lacking. There had been sufficient time for discussion and nobody cared. As the page had already been moved and there had been no objection for a week, all you did was create a bit of a tangle by doing a partial move. Since you only reverted the talk page and not also the template, I can now point out it has been three more weeks without objection to the new template name. If you have a real reason why the template should stay at the old name, please detail it on the talk page. If not, please undo the incomplete move by moving the talk page back to its new name. As the move has already been performed and no objections had arose, I think moving it back should have required a new discussion; or at the very least you should have announced your intent to revert so we could have discussed it. Contacting me would have also been appreciated. Now do we really want to go through a bureaucratic RFC with no underlying motivating reason? As one of the very few Wikipedians who does discuss changes and waits for user input related to category changes, often for months, I find it ironic how the act of proposing change is frequently self-defeating and generates more pushback than simply doing the change unannounced. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I had no intention of moving only the talkpage. I'll move the template back also. For the same reason: not sufficient discussion. Nobody supported your proposal. You don't just rename things, if nobody agrees. The fact that nobody disagreed is not enough reason. E.g. perhaps nobody saw the proposal, or didn't like it but not enough to reply. You need clear support for a rename. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Not true. Wikipedia:Be bold is one of our guidelines. This may be in template namespace but I know the consequences of the rename and the guideline applies here. Further, although written with articles in mind, I see no reason why "[if] no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit" wouldn't apply as part of the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Think about it: If our norms were otherwise, progress on fringe or obscure topics would grind to a halt because very often nobody responds to comments on those talk pages. I believe you are reverting because you are confusing our standards for changes to our policies and guidelines (which do lean towards requiring consensus and where no response is not justification for action so as to avoid instruction creep) with our "be bold" standard for the encyclopedia itself.
I have asked you once directly and you have had two opportunities to state a non-procedural reason to oppose this move. I would have been a very open ear to such a move. but it is fair for me to assume you currently have no substantial reason for the revert and are merely reverting for unjustified (as per above) procedural reasons. In other words, it's just being kinda obstructionist.
PS I'm also pretty sure this is not the first time I've proposed this move and I proposed it somewhere else that I thought would be more visible. In fact, I was under the impression I had posted before on the template's talk page but apparently not and it was elsewhere. I spent a couple minutes now looking for my previous comment but so far didn't find it. Vaguely I remember waiting like a year or more for a reply. I mention this to point out that this discussion may not be nearly as new as it presently looks. If I find it I will link to it too. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, for purposes of keeping page history, you might want to do the move back in a more proper fashion than I as a non-admin can do. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Being bold is a good thing. Being reckless is another. This was a case of the latter. Maintenance templates are well-structured, and normally no changes should be made without first establishing consensus. Please also note that WP:TFD exists for rename discussions of template. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If you had actually read the pages you are citing, the second sentence at WP:TFD says, "To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves" while the second paragraph at Wikipedia:Requested moves says, "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." So I would have been well within my bounds to make move the template even without starting a discussion. If you weren't persuaded that WP:BOLD was sufficient for the move before, it is now established again using the pages you reference. But I did not just perform the move. I started a discussion. Given that I did not need to start a discussion but I did anyway, your assertion that the move was "reckless" is not supported by the facts. If "reckless" can be applied here, it would apply to the editor who made an incomplete move and failed to notice/address the problem. I also do not appreciate you taking further action during this discussion in a way that tries to lock in your position. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to appreciate it. You made an unilateral step that was then challenged and undone by me. You are hardly in a position to complain here. If you want a template renamed, take it to WP:TFD (and if that refers to WP:RM then take it there), but I don't want any more of your whining on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand the reason for the block, however, I can't say I am much repenting. I have been blocked before for trying to protect this project from inferior edits. I am a bit disappointed that till today's post by User:Warshy other experienced editors, including El C, have not taken a clearer stance on the underlying issue. All of this could have been avoided if even one uninvolved editor would have explained to Dailycare that contested statements are best mentioned with inline attribution. Just saying "let's not edit war", without addressing the reasons for that edit war, is not overly helpful. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, seriously contested statements should be attributed, but as I've repeatedly explained to you, you have not produced any evidence this would be a seriously contested statement. To the contrary, we have sources explaining this is the consensus view among historians. We do not attribute consensus views of scientists. --Dailycare (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to be completely honest, your evidence didn't even mention what reasons historians attach to the Diaspora. So, no, you didn't provide any evidence beyond your repeated say-so. --Dailycare (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
[5] ** Definitely. ~~~~
[6] * Oppose per Ansh666: the criteria are very different. In addition, at Afd they relist a lot of articles. That is a way of hiding the backlog. Also keep in mind that categories are the backbone of the project, and oftentimes the arguments are quite abstruse. ~~~~
[7] : Ha, Nomoskedasticity. I like this guys style. But he does have a point with the WP:OWN accusation. ~~~~
[8] Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:238-Gdn&diff=773872130&oldid=768914765 this edit]. Was yesterday your 60th birthday? :) ~~~~
Request for help with filed arbitration request
Shalom, Nomoskedasticity has filed a request for arbitration regarding what he sees as violation of a 1RR rule on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page. If you see fit, I invite you to post your opinion there. Thank you.238-Gdn (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I won't be able to do so for another few hours, but I see that things are going well for you there. Just follow their advice, make some general edits to various articles, to gain some more experience, and come back to this article later. I understand that this article is your goal, and I agree that the restrictions are unfortunate, but that is your best option at this moment. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you help correct the problem with the infobox on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page?
I don't know why the word "created" appears in the infobox. I've tried various solutions to correct the problem but none has worked. Even if we put the Rebbe's name in the "Rabbi" space, it still comes up as "created Rabbi." I thought it might have something to do with a built-in bug that happens when the Rebbe's name appears in the box, but I've tried it with a neutral name and it still happens. Wierd. 238-Gdn (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I was using the section edit buttons to make the two edits and didn't use the full page edit button at the top of the page which could have made it so I could have made both edits at once. JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jews shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You are removing content that was agreed upon by 4 editors. You can not do that, however much you believe you are right. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You should wait a second to let people finish. Also, you can not restore what I removed (especially if it wasn't responded to yet), and you can definitely not remove a post of mine. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You might wanna write to my talk page first before beginning a mass-revert crusade. We already have a existing and more accurate category for that. The one I removed is basically a incorrect duplicate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits somewhere before you make mass edits: redirecting a category and deleting it from articles. Please point me to such a discussion, or start one, but repeating your edits will be met with swift administrative action. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You have recently been blocked due to edit-warring, I would advise you to not make the same mistake. Take a look at my contributions to this site - as you can see, I know my stuff and I don't need to justify everything before making simple edits like a little child. If you have questions, then come to me on my talk page, instead of mass-reverting. Again, I am going to repeat myself; We already have a existing and more accurate category for that [9]. The one I removed is basically a incorrect duplicate [10]. Also, some of my edits were quite logical, dunno why you would revert that. It's definitely not constructive, lemme tell you that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Netzach and hod should really be above yesod, but I haven't been successful in getting them there. Can you help tidy this up? (Any other suggestions for improvements there would also be appreciated). Thanks. 238-Gdn (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Shlomo. After giving it some consideration, I expected this reply. Which in essence is correct. I still have a problem with it though, and more than one. As has been pointed out on the category talkpage, the English terms are "commandments" and "prohibitions", while these categories use "Positive/Negative Mitzvot". The usage of non-standard terms, partially in Hebrew, makes it less than evident what the category is about and that it logically is part of the "Jewish laws and rituals" grandparent category. A second argument is that the articles are often about more than the mitzvah aspect of the subject. E.g. the payot article is not only about the mitzvah, but also about various customs surrounding it, which is more fit for "Jewish laws and rituals". In addition, I think that WP:DUPCAT applies. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
Yo, I wasn't going for condescending here, and certainly didn't want to cause you distress. I didn't look at when you joined when formulating that reply, my only inputs were the cited guideline and that talk page section. To answer you, though, IMHO a 3:1 majority isn't obviously consensus. In this case, the 3 !votes included yourself, who seemed on the fence and who was the only editor that even attempted to discuss in the context of the relevant guideline. So it was 3 weakish !votes vs one guideline-based reasoning, making a claim of consensus not very strong. Thanks, and kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I can agree with that. For the record, I really believe that the category should be on the page, as relevant neutral and sourced. For the rest, no worries. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Heard. I posted another reply with a bit more discussion just now, but Kingsindian's recent advice there about discussion progress is also sound. BTW, I was thoroughly entertained at the fact that I missed my own !vote, too. Peace! VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
That would be neither helpful, nor polite. Your question implies your answer to it, and it is for this reason that I have accused you of being prejudiced. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You can not ask me to not post warning on your talkpage that per standing policies I have to post on your talkpage. FYI. No problem with not posting on your talkpage otherwise. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Jewish Bible Versus Religious Texts
I changed "Bible" to "Religious Texts" because Bible presents a more Christian-slant on a page solely about Judaism. Are we specifically talking about the Torah, the religious texts universal among the Jewish faith, or the Talmud, which is basically the Jewish version of the Christian Old Testament that is not uniformly accepted among all branches of Jewish faith (the page in question is Halakha)? --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You claim the existence of a consensus that states that we shouldn't go into too much detail into Christian sexuality because it is not an article on a Christian topic. The only consensus I see are :a.) The statements of Jewish rabbis can be used, b.) "Christianity" is superior to "Catholicism". Could you point me to the consensus you speak of? 112.211.214.39 (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Seraphim System wrote that opinion here, and I agreed with him. It also stands to reason, if you ask me. It would probably even violate WP:UNDUE, albeit mildly. Debresser (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Israeli Prime Ministers
Howdy Debresser. Israel numbers its Prime Ministers via individual. This means that PMs who've served non-consecutive tenures are 'still' numbered only once. Most parliamentary form governments practice this. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I posted on your talkpage before I saw this post, and then added something. If you are okay with that, we can keep the discussion there. I have your talkpage watched. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, are you still doing this?? All the citations for the fact that Ramat HaNadiv was formerly Um al-’Alaq are in the Ramat HaNadiv article. And when are you ...or anyone else.....going to provide any citations for the depopulated Jewish villages? I think I am going to remove every single unreferenced one there soon....Huldra (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra If they are in the article, then you should have no problem to add one of them to that statement in the list article. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not about me being able to add a reference or not, this is about your blatant double standard. You place a "citation needed" tag on Ramat HaNadiv...(...even when the info is clearly given in the Ramat HaNadiv article), while you do NOT place similar "citation needed" tags on the depopulated Israeli location....where there is no info what so ever. There is no other (unbanned) editor I have met here on Wikipedia who is equally obviously and unashamedly biased, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Take it easy, please. There is a simple explanation, and no need to accuse me of anything. Ever heard of WP:AGF? Because you just trampled it under both feet. The simple explanation is that I only restored a tag that you removed without good reason. I noticed this, because the article is on my watchlist. I just want to stress that your previous post here shows a clear WP:AGF violation, and I recommend you to cool down quickly, before you make any more mistakes that will get you reported. Debresser (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean, precisely? I see that my opinion here is the same as my opinion there, so I don't understand what it is you are referring to specifically. Debresser (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Our current discussion
Dovid, you don't always have to win. Really. If there is really a place to make a case about this, it's Religion and sexuality, not here. Since this page is not the place for fully characterizing Christianity's view, you absolutely do not need to make the whole fall/Original sin/etc. issue point on this page. So let's please move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand. I completely agree with that. That is why I proposed to stick with version 1, or another short version like the one you proposed. What then is it you disagree with me about? Debresser (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess it feels to me like you feel you need to win the argument, even if we go with a version like mine. While you've said in the discussion thread that you'd accept that version, you then go on with the argument, and with the idea that the word "negative" or "unfavorable" or something like that needs to appear. I'm thinking WP:DEADHORSE here. Just back away, say you're willing to accept my version, and end the argument. If you stop arguing, so will SS. שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Please do not try to push me into something I do not believe in. I prefer version 1. I can also live with your version, but with a small change, nl. that it should say clearly "negative" or at least "less favorable". And I sincerely believe that is supported by sources. You fail WP:AGF or if you want הוה דן את חברך לכף זכות.
As a matter of fact, I sincerely dislike these discussions. The only reason I continue them, is because I feel the sources and the issue are being misinterpreted by SS along his POV. I am no problem with editors having a POV, but I do have a problem with them editing accordingly. In any case, please rest assured that I am sincere here. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I never, ever, doubted your sincerity. I've seen you accused of arguing for the sake of argument, but I've personally never seen that. In your case, if I may, it's always מחלוקת לשם שמים.
But sometimes it's still better to compromise. After all, we have a principle that it's generally preferable for a Beit Din to seek p'sharah rather than to pursue strict din. In this case, I think you lose very little to allow "restricted" or "restrained" instead of "less favorable", and we can move past the point. I think if you're not willing to go there it will be difficult to leave anything in on this comparison at all, and the article would be poorer for that. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I posted a notification about the Rfc on WT:JUDAISM, in the hope that other editors would comment. I think that outside comments would be helpful to help me and SS get past this impasse. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
IR
You modified the text at Jordan valley twice. The second revert is absolutely farcical. There is no policy to justify it. I added new text, without touching the existing wording of the rest, B'tselem is not a POV source (and policy does not allow one to remove a text from a commonly cited RS on those grounds). Thirdly, if you actually read what I added, it is in the beginning because the demolition section begins with the Oslo Accords in 1992-3 whereas the history of demolitions goes back to 1967. So, revert yourself or I will make a formal complaint. If you are going to revert lastly reads the fucking edit source, which speaks of 'Palestinian Bedouin communities' while you in your edit summary accuse me (not the source) of mixing up Bedouins with Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I modified the text at Jordan valley twice. Is there a problem with that? I will look at what you say in the evening, after work, and if I was too hasty in removing that information, I'll undo my edit. In any case, BeTselem is a radically leftist source, accused of having fabricated news on more than one occasion. I will look into their WP:RS status as well. Debresser (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I have restored it rather than bickering at A/I. Technically many admins would take your two interventions as reverts. Others are less strict. The next time you mechanically revert some addition I make, try to read the source, check RSN to see if you have any justification for making the (absurd) claimn B'tselem is a POV-pushing 'leftist' (read Human Rights NGO) unreliable source. It is used everywhere on these pages, and is rarely challenged except by POV pushers. You absolutely must not remove a source like B'tselem when no RSN board has every endorsed your idea of its 'radical' unreliability. Lastly as I said, housing demolitions did not begin in 1993, but decades earlier. This is therefore required for the section.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I never mechanically revert your edits, and I find the suggestion insulting.
In addition, although technically I could have reported you for violating WP:ARBPIA3, I have posted a detailed and final warning on your talkpage. Please heed it.
Feel free to discuss this issue on the talkpage of Jordan Valley, with the purpose of establishing consensus there, as you should have done, and I shall be happy to join the conversation. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The proof that you mechanically reverted me lies in the fact that you charged me with confusing Palestinians with Bedouins, without checking the source I added, which refers to 'Palestinian bedouins'. You didn't check, you reverted blindly, and that constituted 2 changes to restored text in one day ('I modified the text at Jordan valley twice.'). That was one of 3 errors in your edit summary, and you simply ignored replying to my clarifications as to why you es was incorrect. Saying ('I will look at what you say in the evening, after work,'(...silence, no follow up) is not an adequate response to precise comments objecting to what you wrote.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Not reading a source is not the same as mechanically reverting. Also, you may remember that I had two other reasons for reverting, as I explained in that same edit summary. You are trying my patience with increasingly illogical arguments. Please refrain from trying to make me look bad on my own talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nishidani and Debresser: It's a bit sad to see fighting and bad blood continuing. Unfortunately, there are plenty of accusations from all sides of "POV-pushing" and the like. A bit of heat and irritation is unavoidable in this area, especially as the discussion becomes very long and hard to follow. As long as the dispute is, overall, focused on the content, with sources presented, it should be good. We finally got a consensus on the scope of the article. There is also an interesting discussion on the estimates of Palestinian population in the Jordan Valley, with various sources presented. Let us build on that foundation, instead of carrying about bad blood. This is just a suggestion; rest is up to you. Kingsindian♝♚12:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course. But if Debresser wants to be a productive editor in this area, he should restrain the instinct to revert, and should try to bring quality sources to his arguments. Just saying no or yes is voting for a majority: consensus is based on intelligent input from all parties.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I think I explained already that I do not have such an instinct. As far as intelligent input goes, I try my best to provide such, based on my personal knowledge, sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I would appreciate Nishidani doing the same, especially regarding politeness and courtesy as per WP:CIVIL. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Careful about that 1RR rule
I believe your two reverts at the BTselem article yesterday violated the 1RR. I encourage you to undue one of them and then take it up in the talk page. Respectfully, [[PPX]] (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:REVERT any number of separate edits is still considered one revert. In simple words, I can revert five separate edits made by another editor in one big revert or in five small reverts, but it would still count as only one revert. Only if the same edit would be reverted more than once would that be counted as more than one revert. But thanks for the reminder. Enjoy editing, and I'll be happy to discuss why I reverted your edits, if you would like to discuss that. In general, I nticed you make good quality edits, and I appreciate your message here. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I've always understood 1RR differently. But it's fine. I'm not looking to trip you up. Just a friendly concern. I look forward to the substantive discussion. [[PPX]] (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Debresser. I'm in the process of removing ethnicelebs.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with you that it is not a good source, but for this type of trivial information, especially where there is another source, even though that second source is also not really good, I think it should be enough. Would you disagree? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Utilizing Your Rollback Rights on the English Wikipedia
User:Debresser, Shalom! I have turned to you because of your special "Rollback rights" on the English Wikipedia. In the Wiki article, Modern Hebrew, an editor has been working against the consensus that claims that Hebrew is a Semitic language, and has tried to assert in the main article that Hebrew is a Canaanite language, of Hamitic origin. Meanwhile, I reverted his edit, but can you please keep a watch over his edits, as he has been working against consensus.Davidbena (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dovid. I agree that Rav Shach was a polarizing figure, however, to have so many parts of the page refer to an opinion piece article is not something you would expect in an Encyclopedia.
For example "In Haaretz, Shahar Ilan described him as "an ideologue" and "a zealot who repeatedly led his followers into ideological battles" is opinion.
I understand that being Lubavitch you have certain issues with Rav Shach, however this is not a website which should include personal biases.
(It would be the equivalent of someone finding an option peace on the Rebbe by someone who had issues with the Rebbe and using that piece as a reference to issues they had with him. As I'm sure you are aware, there are many sites and articles which are anti-Chabad and I would be dismayed to see any of those used as a reference on one of Lubavitcher Rebbe's pages.)
On separate note, Rav Shach did have an issue with some of the Rebbe's opinions, such as learning Rambam every day, and did say that Lubavitch would find itself on the fringes of Judaism.
The Rebbe did then revisit some of these options.
Good vog, Daniel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.181.229.115 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're comfortable with this Loshen Horah, then go ahead. Be careful about justifying this to yourself. One day you'll have to answer for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.76.98 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously you have let your personal animosity get in the way of your being objective on the page. I am going to request mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.52.60.68 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You repeat your bad-faith WP:POV accusation. But feel free to ask for mediation. I am all in favor, since I do understand your point, at least in part. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Since you have failed to self-revert, you are banned from Jewish diaspora for 72 hours—this will permit you to still use the talk page or wage your appeal. El_C00:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion you have no right to do so based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will therefore ignore this so-called ban. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@El C: That doesn't appear to be either a policy or guideline (I take "Explanatory supplements" with the grain of salt this one at least appears to deserve). Can you point to the specific lines in either policy or guideline granting you power to ban specific users from editing specific articles? My read of CRP is that either the community (which you are not) or the Arbitration Committee (as a part of GS or DS) must place an article in the scope of 1RR. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Four days ago I moved the talkpage of Talk:Tafasta meruba lo tafasta to Talk:Tafasta merube lo tafasta, with an "e", per a talkpage post. Today I saw on my watchlist that some overly hasty admin had deleted that talkpage per CDS8. I then understood that four days earlier I had moved only the talkpage without the article, and right away moved the article as well. Now, since moving an article moves the talkpage as well, that means that he old talkpage is now overwritten by the new one. Can somebody please restore the old talkpage? Debresser (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The source states that the understanding that Hadrian ordered the renaming is based on circumstantial evidence. The wording in the article, however, states that "it is commonly held that this was done as an insult to the Jews and as a means of erasing the land's Jewish identity" is "based on circumstantial evidence", which is not supported by the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
"circumstantial evidence would seem to point to Hadrian himself, since he is, it would seem, responsible for a number of decrees that sought to crush the national and religious spirit of the Jews" I think that both statements follow from this phrase, just that the first is in it explicitly, while the second only implicitly. . Debresser (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm the editor who added this category a couple of days ago. I'm confused as to why there's multiple IP addresses whose sole purpose seems to be to revert these changes when it's out of bounds as per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30... anyway, the only decision which I can see on the topic is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 1#Category:Israeli settlements - and if so, I can't actually see a consensus decision that contradicts what I've been there... maybe I'm not reading closely enough, it's very long. TrickyH (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That discussion was very old and long, and never reached a clear conclusion. I think we could go by the general rule that categorization should be as specific as possible. @TrickyH, wouldn't you agree?
I don't know why there would be IPs interested in this subject. Even though technically these articles fall under WP:ARBPIA, but I personally would not revert based on that alone, since the issue in question is IMHO not really related to that. @TrickyH, can you agree with that?
Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, what did you expect? A month and a day later, he's back with some ridiculous self-indulgent story trying to justify what we all knew would happen. Don't forget to link to the diff where he said my prediction that he'll return was false [12]. Amusing, although not surprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani has admitted he communicates with Nableezy by email, so that whole thing is just for show. The public offer to meatpuppet was an amusing touch. "You let me know and I'll take care of them" - what a tough guy lol. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting way to put it. It was more of a instead of losing your temper on some hypocritical or otherwise poor editor to tell me where the problems are. So that the hypocritical or otherwise poor editor can be reported and hopefully banned, and not the other way around. nableezy - 19:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is still not okay, in my understanding of how Wikipedia should work. Everybody should make their own mistakes, and editors should not team up. By the way, welcome back to my talkpage, Nableezy. You have always been an esteemed guest here. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? Nishidani is back only two days, and already he has managed to escalate things? Or is somebody trying to take revenge for his month-long ban? Debresser (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I filed this report, contrary to what Nishidani advised me to do. And you still insist on blaming him? Huldra (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It is clear that he was the polarizing editor in this case. No personal issues with you for reporting me, of course. Debresser (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
1RR
The page Israel is under 1RR restriction, if Im not mistaken this is one revert to one page within 24 hours. I suggest you self-revert since you already have an open case at ARBCOM. The correct thing to do would have been to start a discussion on talk instead of edit warring. Seraphim System(talk) 02:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System(talk)02:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason to use more careful language here is because a lot of people will not realize that this area has been inhabited a long time before the term "Israel" appeared in literary traditions, so it is for emphasis and clarity. Expert sources like the Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society do not use the term "Israel" at all, they call it the Levant. It is a pre-history periodization issue, and we should obviously follow the expert source here, because they are considered "Levantine Neanderthals" or "Levantine homo sapiens" [15] Im not sure the neanderthals are discussed, but a brief mention of them could be added as well. Either way, it would be better to also be specific that this area is called "the Levant" when discussing this period, it would probably be less awkward to not mention Israel at all (obvious we can't say the Levant, now modern Israel, because the Levant describes a much larger geographic area.) Seraphim System(talk)02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right, self-reverted. Although content-wise you are wrong, and if you do not fix it, I will definitely revert you after 24 hours. The article says clearly, and more than once, "Israel", so there is no reason to say "considered Israel". Debresser (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thinking back early this year....
I saw the AE request against you. After seeing statements about you, I am a little worried about what will happen to you, but... I won't comment at AE yet. I think you are a very valuable contributor to the topics that you have been interested in. Thinking back at Talk:Yitzhak Rabin#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2017, you seemed cooperative, even when you and I disagreed. Now I'm uncertain, but I hope things will be okay, and I hope you can get along with others, right? --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for posting here. As you can see, even while this WP:AE post was opened, the article and talkpage discussion are developing. I think that I am a positively contributing editor rather than not. Which does not mean that I agree with the way some editors behave and push their personal points of view on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I read the results. Sorry about the t-ban. I think some wikibreak during the time span would benefit you unless you like to seek other unrelated topics. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As you can see, I have edits in other areas as well. On my watchlist, the IP-area is only about a quarter-third of my daily entries. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction - old
The following sanction now applies to you:
Debresser is banned from all edits and articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for two months
You have been sanctioned for personalising disputes, personal attacks and battleground behaviour
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Seeking input from a wider group of editors is good; classifying the input of those already involved based on their perceived politics or ethnicity is not. Don't do it. GoldenRing (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
By all means seek input from other WikiProjects. Editors do that all the time. When you do so, don't tell those who have already commented that you think they all belong to an anti-Israeli faction and their opinion needs balancing out; that is personalising a dispute and battleground behavior. If you can see why that's battleground behavior (as you say at AE that you can) then I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to. Appealing is absolutely your right and I won't discourage you; but when your appeal essentially admits the facts and my interpretation of them and only adds that others were bad too and you think I was hasty, what do you think you're going to achieve? AE action is unilateral; would you have preferred I leave it open for another admin to hand out an indefinite ban? It was certainly on the cards (and may still be, thanks to your appeal). GoldenRing (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Basically we both think we are right. That happens.
Any ban of me from this area is a loss for Wikipedia. I make valuable contributions, the net results of which far outweigh any minor perceived violations. But whatever admins will decide. I have never been too impressed with Wikipedia justice.
I personally like contributing to Wikipedia, making all this knowledge available and in the correct way, for almost ten years now. But I do have other things to do in real life, so if my contributions are not appreciated, I will be just as happy to do something else with my life. Debresser (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This edit not simply replaces one source by another, but replaces a clear statement from the official website of the subject of the article, with an opposite statement by some POV academic of ill repute. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
D. I don't think it wise to comment on I/P edits like this, publicly challenging edits you disagree with in a topic area you are supposed to stay clear of.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Nishidani. That is an interesting suggestion. I was acting on the assumption that the restriction does not apply to my talkpage. Much like blocked editors can still (usually) edit their talkpage. Like I did here as well. Do you have any idea if this question has been asked before? Debresser (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Dovid. I am not a technical expert, so you should ask an arb. But I did drop the note because I was involved in the issue that led to your sanction, and feel under a moral obligation to alert you. The note was preemptive, in the sense that I wished to nip in the bud forseeable temptations by any other editor to take such talk page I/P comments to AE. Nothing stops you from compiling notes in a file you can upload when the 2 months have expired. I would assume however that 'commenting' on edits made and expression your view as to why they should be reverted, could be read as signaling to editors to act as meatpuppets. That is surely an unintended possible consequence of using your wiki page to kibitz I/P edits, wholly unintended no doubt, but it's in your best interests not to 'feed the beast', as they used to say.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It really all depends on the admin viewing your page or the AE complaint against you. But in general, a TBAN covers the whole of Wikipedia, including talk pages and you may also be seen as trying to get proxy editors, which is also bad. But you should get clarification from GoldenRing since his ban comments are not clear as most other admins use. Sir Joseph(talk)15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Sir Joseph on this, Dovid. (The one possible on-wiki work-around might be that you could create a "notes" subpage, not have any links to it, and not tell anyone else about it, so that it really remains functionally equivalent to the file Nishidani described above. But I'd get advice on that, too.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what was unclear in my wording - "all edits and articles" means all edits and articles. There is no exception for your talk page. You should avoid the topic altogether for the duration of your ban, not watch it from the sidelines. So yes, the edits above are a violation of your ban. You can find the relevant policy here; it specifically mentions user talk pages. I'm not going to do anything about it right now, though any other admin who happens by could well take another view and they shouldn't regard this comment as an AE action that they can't undo. Thank you for asking for clarification, but leave the topic alone, please. GoldenRing (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, @GoldenRing for your reply. I will not add to this section. I can watch from the sidelines, but should not mention it here. Will do. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Yes, you can watch from the sidelines. Please don't. Take a break. Read a good book. Binge something on netflix. Go on a walking holiday. Whatever floats your boat. Take this as an opportunity to wind down a bit and come back refreshed and level-headed. I can't make you, but that's my advice. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, but I am in real life a relaxed person, who likes to enjoy the things he does, and the same is true on Wikipedia. ARBPIA-related articles are make up less than a quarter of the entries on my daily watchlist, and I feel comfortable with that. I like following, editing and taking part in discussions. Please also notice that I don't agree with my topic ban, just abide by it of necessity, and do not feel the need to take a break. I could add that a person living in Israel, can not take a break from the real-life conflicts going on in this country, and keeping up to date, including on Wikipedia, is simply part of life. I have enough activities in life, including my dear family, to keep me busy and balanced, and your "Sigh" was a bit judgemental in this regard. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Dovid, thank your lucky stars only I notice these things. That is your 4th topic ban infraction, and comes straight after User:GoldenRing's explicit advice above, which you accepted and appear now not to. I think it would be wise to strike out the edits above, just as a token recognition of their inappropriateness. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop removing valid good faith edits on the Kosher foods article. This isn't your personal encyclopedia. Both trichinosis and pigbel (CNE) are diseases which affect Kosher foods. Links to these other pages could *literally* save someone's life. Wikipedia is based on the concept that anyone can add good faith content. Except that isn't true with guys like you around, is it? Stop being an over-protective asshole and let the process work. If someone is initiating and edit war, it is you. WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:POINT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk • contribs)
(talk page stalker) That comment was absurd. If you had added those links to a dozen other food articles at the same time as "Kosher foods", you might have been able to make a case—although I suspect that you'd always violate WP:WEIGHT. But to put it only in that article displays a clear agenda that is simply inappropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Can we please talk about your massive reversal of a ton of work I put into expanding this stub page (and without any discussion)? I'm sure we can come to some amicable agreement in which the majority of my edits are not simply obliterated. Thank you! -Aharon (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure. That will be in another 26 hours, though, as I keep the Shabbat. To start in the mean time: 1. moving this article from its proper name is unacceptable 2. per WP:UNDUE you should not give so much weight to a modern revival (which, by the way, I had never heard of yet). Debresser (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. A gut shabbes and if you are reading this motsei shabbes, a gut vokh. re: 1) I will concede on this point even though in the Mishna, it's Rosh Hashana L'Maaser Behema, and that those who actively observe this festival today are calling it a number of names including RH LaBehemot, RH L'Baalei Chayyim, and Alef b'Elul. Suggestions to how to best articulate the diversity of alias names is welcome. Rosh Hashana L'Maaser Behema is certainly not the only Jewish holiday/festival to be known by different names. re: 2) respectfully, this modern revival is a matter of public, published record, thus the references to articles from the JTA, Forward, etc., making this revival notable per notability guidelines. I'm not saying my edits can't be improved - shgiyot mi yavin ministarot nakeni. Please help to improve them (rather than delete them outright). Thank you. -Aharon (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that Rosh Chodesh Elul redirects to Rosh Hashanah LaBehema. That might not have been obvious when you removed mention of the shofar blowing on Rosh Chodesh Elul from the page, along with other related details relevant to Rosh Chodesh Elul. It seems to me that those details are relevant. (In any case, thank you for your work on this page! Chodesh Av Tov!) -Aharon (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Aharon: I have to admit that I didn't fully understand why you included the items around heshbon hanefesh and shofar blowing in the earlier draft that Debresser substantially reverted. Obviously, that all does happen on Rosh Hodesh Elul. But in order for that to relevant to this article, you'd need to make a tie between those items and the specific issues around Rosh Hashana LaBehema (or whatever we're going to call it). For what it's worth, it's a nice idea to picture a parallel between the process of tithing animals and the idea of everyone passing before HKB"H like sheep on Rosh Hashanah. But to include that in this article, I think you'd need a pretty specific source to suggest that the reasonheshbon hanefesh and shofar and selihot in the Sefardi world start on RH Elul is because of Rosh Hashanah LaBehema on that date. I'm inclined to think that it's a congruence of timing, no more. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
In my studies of Masekhet Rosh Hashanah and Bekhorot, I think the connection is there and fairly clear, if obscure. But that is not the point. As Debresser has correctly shown, the danger is in presenting these insights without transgressing the Wikipedia's original research policy. It's a very easy line to cross, especially when providing details on obscure topics. I really take that to heart. I think probably the elegant solution would just be to create a new section on Rosh Chodesh Elul to include the Rosh Chodesh Elul content. -Aharon (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we're saying something similar, and that's especially true if you start introducing a statement of (or even a suggestion of) related causality, which is a relatively strong thing to say. If you had a section on "Rosh Hodesh Elul", and then have a source to support a comment like "Rabbi So-and-so notes some parallels between [the RH LaBehema stuff] and [the Hodesh Elul stuff]", then you don't have a problem, because nobody's trying to claim a causal source, only a parallelism. But you're wise to avoid OR like the plague on something like this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. That sounds like we're reaching consensus on a new section, "Rosh Chodesh Elul" with the content StevenJ81 and I suggest. A meta-issue: I think we should consider moving this conversation to the article's Talk page. -Aharon (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notice
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
@BU Rob13 And this is related to which edit(s) of mine? Quite useless to refer me to some general guideline and not inform me why you do so. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed on this article that you've been repeatedly reverting a content change involving the article subject's name. Please take caution and note that the reference used may not be a reliable source; a "family search" cannot be verified nor can we know for sure that the result is of the same person. I also see that other editors have objected to this change. Please do not repeatedly revert this article and change the person's name without discussing the dispute on the article's talk page first. There looks to be a talk page discussion involving this very matter; I highly recommend that you participate. Thanks for understanding :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I am already so confused on that article, that I may have reverted editors for being IPv6 editors rather than because of content. Yes, I remember the talkpage discussion, which says to keep it on the safe side, which is Jussie. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
But did you or him check if this was 'behasgachah' before eating it? Or is everything kosher anyhow on WP?
Hello Debresser, Warshy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I had indeed found it, and it is in my collection (I added a link to the collection in the section at the start of this talkpage). But thanks for taking the trouble. I much appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violation of your topic ban on the page User talk:Debresser, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 11:46 am, Today (UTC+3)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Congratulations to User:GoldenRing, who has single-highhandedly ended a career of 9 years, 3 months, 5 days and 97,966 edits. First deciding to topic-ban me for trying to balance edits from a certain group of POV editors by seeking input from editors with the opposite POV, then not allowing me to use my talkpage as my personal notebook. I am not interested to contribute to a project that has from the beginning almost never granted me justice in its courts, and is now doing me this injustice. It was fun while it lasted. Debresser (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit"I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.
If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! And to those who will say that these kinds of "arguments" do not help, or even may be detrimental to my main argument, I say: I will say the truth as I see it. I see no reason why your opinion about Wikipedia is more true than mine, just because you are an admin. I have edited here almost ten years and have almost 100,000 edits on my name, and am entitled to my opinion, and to express it. Now you do whatever you think is right. At most you will disappoint me once more. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by GoldenRing
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser
Result of the appeal by Debresser
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@BU Rob13 I am not aware of these specific admin procedures, and whether it is preferable to post this request here or elsewhere. If you think the correct thing to do would be to post this request elsewhere, then I would be grateful if you would be so kind to do so. I have used the correct template now, as you probably noticed already. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I've moved your appeal to AE. As you've already appealed the ban, unsuccessfully, and then asked if such actions are allowed while banned, which was answered in the negative, do you really think it is going to do you any good?GoldenRing (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It's been gently pointed out to me that that comment comes across as unnecessarily hostile. It wasn't meant like that. GoldenRing (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No offense taken. The question is whether I think it should do me any good, as a matter of justice/mending injustice. Debresser (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. For me, Wikipedia is an on-Wikipedia thing. I am not leading a double life. Debresser (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. A shame you are so helpful, only to recommend on WP:AE to keep the sanction. :) No offense taken, of course. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nableezy I never said you are anti-Semitic, and it is neither fair nor nice, to claim I did. I wrote the words "anti-Jewish", and later clarified by the addition "/Israeli" that I meant this in a political way only to be understood in the light of the IP-conflict. And frankly, even if I wouldn't have made that change, the fact that there are dictionaries that claim that "anti-Jewish" is the same as "anti-Semitic" is not even relevant, because it is obvious that those dictionaries did not have the IP-conflict in mind while my edit had only that in mind. If I had wanted to call you anti-Semitic, I would have done so, and not used the combination "anti-Jewish". You must stop twisting my words immediately. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Im sorry, what? I have no earthly idea what this is even in reference to. But for the record, the fact that dictionaries say, not claim, that anti-Jewish and antisemitic are equivalent does actually matter. Words have meanings, like it or not, they are not idiosyncratic devices that change based on the intention of the person uttering them. When you call somebody anti-Jewish you are in fact calling them antisemitic. As in opposed to Jews and/or Judaism. And if you call somebody anti-Israel or anti-Israeli you are violating WP:NPA anyway, so that makes it a bit of a moot point. But again, I have no idea what you are talking about with the claim I have twisted your words. The words Jewish, semitic, or even anti appear nowhere in my statement. nableezy - 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This is in reference to your comment on WP:AE. You continue to misrepresent my words. You also refer in your last commentary to something I removed, so you continue to willfully misrepresent my words and opinions. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no clue what you are talking about. What comment of mine (diff please) misrepresented what you wrote? And no, referring to material you wrote and later removed is not willfully misrepresenting [your] words. That is unless you are under the impression that you did not write what you wrote. That you later thought it imprudent to have that material publicly displayed while appealing a block is interesting, but it does not magically transform your words in to something other than your words. nableezy - 15:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
In view of my almost entirely negative experience with WP:ANI over 10 years (!), I will be happy to explain why I think so in this survey. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Good to see you're still looking around here. All the Judaism articles and the Judaic area in WP miss you. You used to do a good job on this area, and WP is less good in it without you. Hope with time you come back to contribute again. Cheers! warshy(¥¥)21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@warshy I check my account every day, and make a minor edit or two a week, but I am so disappointed in the arbitrary sticking to rules on the one hand, combined with abandoning all rules of logic and fairness on the other, that I am not even thinking of a comeback at this stage. Perhaps after some serious revision of the system. Which is why I am willing to participate in this survey. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, yes WP is guided by many rules and as far as I understand it tries to stick to them, so I don't think you can argue that the sticking to rules is arbitrary. You can argue some rules are not good or correct and you can try to change them, but the sticking to rules is one of the basic principles of WP, it seems to me. As for rules of logic and fairness, there are some very controversial areas in WP where the passions are so strong that the rules of battle and war end up having the upper hand over rules of logic and fairness. One of these impossible controversial areas is, of course, the IP conflict area. What goes on in this area on WP is just a continuation of the real conflict and war in the real world. That is why I won't ever even touch anything in this area with a ten foot pole. I think that unfortunately you decided to drift from the overall Judaic area into this impossible zone of conflict. On the other hand, given where you live, it would be very hard for you to keep completely away from it as I do, I guess. Now, certainly the whole system has its flaws and areas where it can be improved. So I wish you much luck in your attempts to improve the system by having the rules of logic and fairness have the upper hand everywhere again, always. chazak ve'ematz. warshy(¥¥)00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@warshy I have been active in many areas for many years before even entering the IP-conflict area, and what I wrote above was based on my overall experience. Debresser (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@NeilN:, I am trying to AGF about Mhossein's edits but it is very hard and approaching the line. Please look at this recent edits and try to explain to me how you justify his recent edits. I think they are now going into cite overkill, and also, as someone who is more knowledgeable of policy, please tell me how I'm supposed to reference a person's name. I think he has an agenda of ruining this holiday's article and he is just going into overdrive putting tags up. As I'm sure you know, not everything needs a tag. Sir Joseph(talk)16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN Because it was a good edit. I gave the editor the option to tag specific statements which he finds problematic, knowing that there can't be that many of them. As you can see for yourself, when he tagged one statement a day before, I sourced it. Now he tagged a few more, and I will do my best to source those as well. It is me who is trying to push this article forwards, while it is you who is being overly aggressive in threatening with blocks for something that is hardly worth the name of "edit war". Debresser (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
My watchlist
I am removing entries from my watchlist, in preparation for a possible comeback. I had more than 1,500 entries on it. So far I removed 46 entries, just from articles beginning with the letter A or B. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Removed another 80 or so (again too many to count) from S-t, and finished the article mainspace. I now have less than 1,000 pages on my watchlist. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Removed all user pages, except my own, 133 in total. Am now below 500 pages on my watchlist, and finished for the time being. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Your edit of 13:35, Jan 5 was reverted at 21:45, Jan 5 but redone by you at 15:42, Jan 6. According to the
new ARBPIA rules your edit was a violation of the sentence "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Accordingly, I invite you to self-revert.
As an aside, it gets really tiresome when you keep using the phrase "consensus version" as a code for "Debresser's preferred version". Nobody, absolutely nobody, takes your euphemism seriously. Zerotalk01:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That edit of Jan 5 was not the "first revert" to my edit, so if I understand the new rule correctly, I made no violation. As usual, I guess it will take some time till it becomes clear what the rule precisely is meant to prevent and accomplish. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you were edit warring with the rationale along the lines of "restoring consensus version" with the consensus you refer to being the "stable version" or the "standing version". Restoring a stable version simply because it was not previously contested is quite simply not a valid justification by itself, and should certainly never be used as a justification to edit war. The "consensus" that you're referring to is silent consensus, which is quite simply the doctrine that if no one disagrees, consensus can be presumed to exist. This is the weakest possible interpretation of consensus, and is inherently no longer applicable once a disagreement is voiced. Rather than edit warring because a silent consensus previously existed, you should strictly pursue dispute resolution and attempt to reach a consensus. Edit warring to enforce a silent consensus is literally oxymoronic. This project encourages editors to be bold, so discouraging changes due to a silent consensus is also oxymoronic. Mind you, this casts no judgment as to the merits of the wording dispute itself, but the rationale you're giving regarding the existing consensus is a misrepresentation of the policy. Regards, Swarm♠08:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia guidelines and practice say you're wrong: a standing version implies consensus.
Please also notice that at least one neutral editor has said precisely that on the talkpage of one of the two articles where certain editors are trying to forcefully push their opinion through. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Did you even read what I said? The concept of "implied consensus" that you're referring to is WP:SILENCE. You might want to actually read it, because it's purpose is the opposite of what you're trying to argue. The doctrine is that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, but most changes can be made without formal consensus-building discussions—a lack of objection constitutes consensus. In other words, as long as no one objects, any changes can be presumed to be supported by consensus. It has nothing to do with your incorrect notion that stable versions should not be changed without a formal consensus. Stable versions are supported by silent consensus, but once the silence is broken, even by a single editor, that is no longer the case. It is a level playing field. There is never any default bias to preserve stable versions. There is no policy or guideline to preserve stable versions. You will not find even one. There is none. Sometimes admins restore a stable version in particularly severe disputes prior to full protection, but even this practice is not mandated or encouraged by any policy. You don't get to claim you're right in a dispute simply because you're supporting a stable version. That's not how it works. How it works is discussion, and dispute resolution. And you can argue with me, if that helps your ego. Whatever. But I'm literally warning you, as an administrator, that if you're edit warring to restore a stable version, you will be blocked. No admin looks at that situation and says, "oh, the silent consensus is on his side". Because if there's a content dispute, there is no silent consensus. Swarm♠19:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand that guideline, and not to be familiar with discussions on Wikipedia. Sorry mister, but I have been here 10 years, and I know how it works. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
How many editors have to tell you that you're mistaken before you reconsider? If you really want to engage in a pissing match, I've been here for eleven years, so I must understand this better than you do. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk13:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't present at the original disagreement, of course. But to some extent, Debresser, part of the problem is your "tone of voice", and to some extent your implied assumption that consensus by silence has staying power. Personally, I (fairly) frequently revert based on stability. But unless my "opponent" is a known long-term vandal, I always immediately invite the editor to discuss on the talk page. I don't assume the stability is forever, but do assume the stable version can stay during a discussion. Then either we have a discussion or the editor doesn't bother. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, Steven, there is' a discussion. My problem is with those who insist on their version which has no consensus, not on the talkpage and not from before. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, even if your interpretation of SILENCE is correct, which is an opinion that nobody except you holds, you are trying to use it in order to violate one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, namely NPOV. It doesn't matter if an NPOV violation has been there since the 7th day of creation; as soon as it is drawn to our attention we are obliged to correct it. Zerotalk01:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is a NPOV violation to correctly reflect that fact that some organizations are less popular than others. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from editing B'Tselem for two weeks. You may use the talk page.
You have been sanctioned for continued disruptive use of WP:SILENCE to edit war, despite previous warnings.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. NeilNtalk to me16:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I had actually planned to open an Rfc today, so I am glad I can use the talkpage. Not that I think you made the right call, by the way. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that comment. I'd encourage you to engage at the talk page, and I would support shortening the block to allow you to return to editing the page. We will disagree on many aspects of this article, but I do think we can find common ground to improve it. Jd2718 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, for what it's worth, I found a policy on how to Romanize Hebrew: MOS:HE. I'm not suggesting you read it necessarily -- it seems pretty much in line with how you edit, as far as I can tell. I'm just saying that, should you come across oddities of transliteration in the future, and people are insisting on those oddities, there is a policy page you can reference. Alephb (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
If you could please point me to the statement in the article that should be altered, I shall be happy to have a go at it. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Debresser, I noticed your revert and comment. It was not, as you name it Undo exremely unhelpful edit, well on the contrary,... you came by and were able to fix the problem the bot had created. Thank you for that. :)Lotje (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Debresser, only me again, since you are hanging around, would you be willing to take a look at these files, you might be able to help!. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lotje I had a look. What is the issue? One of the titles is wrong, as far as I understand, but I doubt that is the issue you had in mind. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to get the titles correct, because incorrect information on commons images means confusion. Thank you for your help. :) Lotje (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lotje The titles are correct. Pictures 2 is a close-up of the plaque, while picture 3 is apparently from the other side. The description of the pictures is strange, because it mentions another person than the titles do. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hebrew acronyms
Hi. I have no intention to start a big argument, it's just that for the common WP user the Hebrew acronyms are not familiar. They are mainly used in Jewish religious contexts. Maimonides is for almost all non-Jews or Judaism scholars just that, not (the) Rambam, same with Nachmanides, same with Isaac Luria, etc., etc. It's a statistical (and quite logical) fact, nothing more. Those who constantly deal with their work appreciate an abbreviation, and understand the Hebrew meaning of an acronym like Ari - ariyeh; others don't. So please, let's stick to what serves the WP user best. Thanks and all the best, Arminden (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Even if you right and you apparently not because you removed text that was recently added in the first diff. Just say that you will self revert because you could be blocked pretty quickly--Shrike (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC).
I'll think about that. In general, I am working at the moment, just checking information for my work, so I am not really available at the moment. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
For what it's worth, I had no idea I was violating 1RR, and I would have reverted myself if the page was not protected. Just another case of injustice at Wikipedia. You guys are good at this, GoldenRing especially. Debresser (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Two halves of the equation
Please do not restore unsourced content to articles without adding a source, the reason for removing an unsourced statement should not be hard for an experienced editor to figure out, but it was clearly indicated in my edit summary "cleanup unsourced" so maybe you should actually read the edit summary before saying I removed something without giving a reason. Seraphim System(talk)05:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
My reply to the first half of your post is that the statement you removed seems like a reasonable statement, so perhaps an experienced editor like yourself had better try and find a source, or at least tag it for a while, rather than remove it right away. Such is also customary on Wikipedia.
Debresser, I wouldn't have removed it if I believed it could easily be sourced. First of all, you are not going to find a source that says "international courts" - at best it will be only the ECHR. ECHR decisions are not a precedent for any other court are they? The chances of finding a reliable secondary source describing it as an important precedent for the ECHR regarding the Cyprus dispute is slim to none. If it is an important precedent, it is not a precedent for the "Cyprus dispute" but for Article I of the Protocol. Seraphim System(talk)13:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That said, I removed it with the intention of continuing to work on the article, since this sentence needs to be completely rewritten anyway, there is no need to go out of your way to try to source this. You can still try if you want, but most likely I will have edited over it by next week using whatever secondary sources are available.Seraphim System(talk)13:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your taking the time to look at some of the revisions I made. In the future, it would be helpful if you could further improve the work of others rather than completely reverting it when it does not exactly match your expectations, to prevent useful aspects of edits from being lost. Please also be careful about using the word 'vandalism' to describe something that is not an act of deliberate defacement, as that is unnecessarily incendiary, and makes your thoughtful actions appear to be in error. AndrewNJ (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I certainly don't revert anything that isn't precisely what I want it to be. And I remain of the opinion that your edit came close to vandalism. In any case, your last edit was a lot better, and I wish you lots of pleasure in improving this encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Primo Levi
In article about Primo Levi I have changed "Communism" into "gulags" in the title of a section, because that section doesn't mention views on communism (which is also not to be capitalized like in the title of that section) but only on gulags (which are only a feature of Stalinism and nowhere near of being a defining, key or generic feature of communism, in fact they are not even mentioned in the article about communism) and tried to provide this explanation in my edit summary.
I see that you have reverted my edit, without providing any explanations.
Would you kindly explain the reasoning behind your revert and perhaps consider the possibility that your revert might have been unjustified? Thank you in advance. :) 193.198.162.14 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The section in question mentions "the system depicted in The Gulag Archipelago", not just the Gulachs. That means communist Soviet Union. It explicitly compares that regime with the Nazi regime. It is therefore clear that the section is about Levi's attitude towards Soviet Union rather than about communism, and I would be fine with that change, but not with the change to the very limited term Gulachs.
Thank you for your quick and kind answer! I am willing to consider I am wrong and, in light of new information, I think that the title of the section should be changed to "Views on Nazism, Soviet Union and antisemitism", as you proposed. Would you like to make that change? 193.198.162.14 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Debresser, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this passover. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a happy passover or easter, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Happy editing, ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss14:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
That was in reply to the previous editors' "Don't be silly". That editor continues his bullying unreprimanded for years now. He has been reported for it, but still goes on. So no, as long as he continues, I see no reason why I shouldn't answer in the same vein once every few years. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Which was summarily closed. That is what you get when you insist your opinion is the only possibly correct one. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
On the "European ancestry" stuff
I've seen that you keep re-editing my own edits on the matter, but as you have probably perceived, I try to give some rational reasons while doing so : in few words, to put the way it's actually put ("suggest a significant proportion of Middle Eastern and European ancestry") would showcase that Ashkenazim are "50% Middle Eastern 50% European", but that would go again the genetic studies, who showcase the supposed "European" mainly on the maternal line, but even there, it's perhaps not "European" (which itself is mainly Italian, too) as per studies and "counter-studies". All of this "complexity" is not translated by the generic "significant proportion of Middle Eastern and European ancestry". I also think that this would be more respectful of the on going discussions in the later sections, below. Cheers.
April 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jews, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This is for (1) repeatedly adding content not supported by reliable sources; (2) repeatedly adding unreliable sources; (3) being hellbent on editing against consensus; and (4) putting a warning on my talk page telling me I'm supposed to discuss on the article's talk page after I did discuss it and you flatly replied there isn't anything to discuss.Largoplazo (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I know that essay. When "experienced" editors start pushing their POV's, that is when there is no choice, but to use a warning template. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Triggerhippie4 You made an edit, which I contest, as is clear from 1. the fact that I revert it 2. my edit summary. Why do you think it is me being disruptive instead of you? Debresser (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
And just that you know, I found you mention of some blocks I have had over 10 years of editing in the WP:ARBPIA area and making it sound as though I am a problematic editor insulting. You have definitely not earned my goodwill by that. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Triggerhippie4 You used to be a normal editor, albeit a bit trigger-happy. These last few days you have been impolite and irrational. If I were to guess, I'd say you are going through some tough time in real life. Not a reason to take it out on me, but at least that would be an explanation. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
Since the beginning of May multiple attempts have been made to crack my password. I have checked my committed identity, and still remember it. If you notice me making suspicion edits, please block my account asap and I will get it back through the designated channels. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
But all your edits are suspicious ;-). I have failed login attempts on my account too. Zerotalk 08:05, 24 May
@Zero0000 Lol. That is interesting information. I was expecting some political motive, but if you have also been under attack, that would imply a political motive is less likely. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Zero0000, there have been thousands of brute force attacks at Wikipedia accounts recently. The WMF is aware of it. No accounts have been compromised but be sure you have a strong password. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
You violated the 1RR at Jabel Mukaber. This reverted your edit, and less than 24 hrs later you reverted once more. I dont plan on reporting this but please mind the 1RR. Thank you. nableezy - 18:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I am indeed not yet used to the rule saying "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". At least, I guess that is what you meant with 1RR. But since we are discussing it, does that rule apply to an edit which was a revert itself? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't get to the bottom of this, but this seems to lead to some kind of paradox. After all, a revert means getting back to the original text. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Jabel Mukaber
I didn't even check if you put a notice on the Palestine board as well as the Israeli board. I just assumed you would. But you didn't, despite this being an RfC about a Palestinian organization on a page about a Palestinian locality. Can you provide an explanation for this clear violation of CANVASS? You should be aware that AGF is not an absolute right but one that can be lost through repeated misbehavior. Zerotalk08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I promise that I will show it to you, but today I won't have time. Thanks for writing me on my talkpage about this. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
NPOV/N
If you want to hide something you can start with your off-base comments. Kindly do not re-factor others comments. nableezy - 19:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, at Beitar Illit you misrepresented the source you cited. It says nothing close to what you put in an encyclopedia article. I'll be adding the source distortion to the report if that is likewise not self-reverted. nableezy - 18:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Please explain why you think I violated 1RR at East Talpiot. I made very sure to check that I was not violating anything before I made the edit, so please tell me if you think I missed something. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
As you have not self-reverted either the 1RR violation or the material that completely distorts the source you cited I am filing a report. nableezy - 22:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I withdrew the report. But both your edits yesterday at East Talpiot were reverts, the should both be self-reverted. nableezy - 18:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I made no earlier edit to that article on June 4, just those two, and I already reverted the second. So I think this time you are mistaken after all. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Like I said its not something that really bothers me, but I think it would be found to be a revert in that you removed the link to Israeli settlement. Again, Im not about to quibble over this, too minor to care about, and thank you for self-reverting at both pages. nableezy - 17:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Sheikh Mohammed
Hi. I undid your reversion to the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum article. The event was a statement of fact, cited by the memoir of the head of the Trucial Oman Scouts (the Union Defence Force). Saqr Al Qasimi - the murderer of the Ruler of Sharjah - surrendered to Mohammed and was handed over to Sheikh Zayed (the president, the one mentioned in the para above) by Mohammed. It doesn't violate WP:CENSOR at all. I added Sheikh Mohammed to the next para rather than 'he' to differentiate from Saqr, the subject of the previous line. Your revert also undid an edit I did to text that DID violate WP:BLP so I took the liberty of redoing that one. Happy to talk, but reverting cited historical fact isn't, IMHO, the way to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Mikveh article: BaMeh DanTaNi
Even of a HIGHLY experienced editor, with MANY years of experience, I still am entitled to ask
People are supposed to shower, and women do so, but not all men. Chlorine is added and some mikves have filters in the water. This would all need to be sourced, of course.
Did you truly find objectionable my sourced statement
Men are expected to shower before Mikveh.
Having had some time to think (part of a day, after a day off-line), can you now see it as OK?
I would have no problem with the word "recommended", I guess, if it were properly sourced. My opposition to your edits, apart from their awful layout, is mainly because they make it sound as though it were an obligation according to Jewish law. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Based on Derech Eretz KadMa LaTorah, "expected" seems like the correct word. If one enters a Mikveh that has a sign "Everyone must shower before entering the pool" then the word "expected" fits what they're saying: It is not "recommended" but "expected." As for "is it Jewish law?" - what's your guess as to a rav would respond? Pi314m (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Such a sign is a recommendation. The public may or may not expect it, and in general does not frown at skipping the shower. A rov would say it is not an obligation according to Jewish law. I should know, since I am one myself. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
A sign that says "must" isn't a recommendation, and it's beyond an expectation, it's a requirement. What did Moses bring down from Sinai, the Ten Recommendations? Largoplazo (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's a requirement of a specific establishment, then the sign posted by the establishment that uses the word "must" is expressing a requirement, not just an expectation nor a recommendation, in that establishment. Such a sign is not a "recommendation". Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Largoplazo Of course. The question was, if that sign can be used to establish that there would be such a halakhic requirement. Which you seem to agree with me that it can't. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the sign also doesn't, and can't, establish that it's a halakhic expectation or a halakhic recommendation. The fact that those notions were being entertained here, that showering might be either an expectation or a recommendation, led me to understand that these were being discussed within the context of that establishment, not the context of halakha. Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Shlishi
Please be aware that I added the following to a request for a third opinion:
@Zero0000 Do you mean what I said about hypocrisy? Because if that is it, I am willing to strike that. The real question is, was I wrong...? Debresser (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you are being overly sensitive here, especially in view of the real hypocrisy showing in your point of view regarding academic authors of different camps. Feel free to report me, but just like in real life, truth is a defense against libel claims, so will it be on Wikipedia, and you will have to answer for your opinions. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Listen, I spent hours examining every single source cited in the text I changed and I had a reason for every single change. Then you think it is just fine to revert it all without any checking, any discussion, even reinstating the dead links, misrepresented sources, etc etc. that I had fixed. And you have the gall to call me hypocritical. You should have been permanently topic-banned years ago as your total contribution to the encyclopedia has been a large negative. Zerotalk01:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I disagree with you regarding Lissak-Shpak as well, but you seem to be referring to Palestinian right of return now. I agree that some part of that total edit were not worthy of reinstating. It was, however, not easy to differentiate the wheat from the chaff, after the many consecutive edits. That notwithstanding, IMHO some of the many removals were based on nothing but POV, certainly not objective considerations. The fact that litteraly all of the removed sentences and paragraphs represented the same point of view, contrary to yours, supports that conclusion. Your personal opinions regarding whether I should have been topic-banned and my contributions to this project, are of no interest to me, and I heartily disagree with them. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I've got to add: if you can even get a fix on a single Yiddish pronunciation of anything (good luck!), the line between "Yiddish pronunciation" and [traditional] "Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation" is usually somewhere between fuzzy and non-existent. After all, for most terms related to religious holidays, concepts, objects, etc., the Yiddish word is a borrowed/incorporated Hebrew word, anyway. Was it first an Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation, then borrowed into Yiddish? Was the Hebrew word borrowed into Yiddish, then pronunciation modified (probably often true, at least with respect to the question of the location of the emphasized syllable, which tends to mimic German)? Something else? If you can prove any of that, fine. Otherwise, my preference would be something on the order of "Yiddish/Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation" most of the time, anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
A gut mo'ed to you as well. I explained on the talkpage the difference between a language and a pronunciation. I don't understand how this isn't obvious, but maybe that is because you don't speak Yiddish as a language? Debresser (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Template:Faith primary has been nominated for merging with Template:Religious text primary. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mr. Guye (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jews, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Ronhjones (Talk) 21:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Lotje (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Largoplazo (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jews, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This is for (1) repeatedly adding content not supported by reliable sources; (2) repeatedly adding unreliable sources; (3) being hellbent on editing against consensus; and (4) putting a warning on my talk page telling me I'm supposed to discuss on the article's talk page after I did discuss it and you flatly replied there isn't anything to discuss. Largoplazo (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
