User talk:Debresser/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Vandalism

Stop. You are modifying my comment by changing where it is placed. That is vandalism. Again, stop. nableezy - 20:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You also violated the 1RR at Birthright Israel. nableezy - 20:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not vandalism. That is something you disagree with. I gave a very good explanation. In any case, I won't do it again, but I think it is a mistake. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Modifying my comment in any way is vandalism, the end. nableezy - 20:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not. Your comment was not modified, rather moved. Please read Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, where you can see that this is something legitimate. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I will look into that right away. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With one edit on September 29 and the second on October 2, how is there a 1RR violation. Not to mention that I think the Birthright Israel page is not under any WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The material you reverted very clearly is covered. The restriction is on re-reverting an edit you made, which requires you to wait 24 hours from the time of your edit being reverted. nableezy - 20:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me look into that. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree and self-reverted. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#Debresser. nableezy - 20:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Interesting, what this could be about. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Lowercase "jew"

Here is a simple question. This is a redirect. It contains "jew" in lowercase. The simple question is—are there other instances of redirects containing the word "jew" in lowercase? If so, could you link to examples as I have above? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Some false positives clearly exist. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Slightly better. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Izno—followup question. Can you link to any instances in which lowercase "christian" is used in a redirect? Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is some of those. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Izno. You make a valid point. On a separate note—how did you search for such redirects? Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Background reading: Help:Searching. The search parameter I used was intitle. I used what is called a regex search to look specifically for the text "jew" or "christ" (in the above searches, the slashes /<thing>/ indicate I want a regex search). (An exact search using quotation marks instead returns both upper and lowercase.) In the "slightly better" search above, I used the [^<thing>] syntax (specifically, the ^ character) to exclude the letter "e" from coming after the phrase "jew". --Izno (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Izno, I will have to read up on that. Maybe you should be an administrator. I believe that administrators should try to be helpful. And you seem to have the right temperament. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It is easy to have the right temperament for technical things. --Izno (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA3 violation

Im sorry what? And uh you need actual reasons for reverts. nableezy - 16:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You notice my rewrite kept the disputed name in it, right? nableezy - 16:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not afraid to acknowledge my faults. Which does not mean I all of a sudden think you are a good editor. I think your edits are pushy and inflammatory. But that edit was okay, and I made a mistake to jump on it. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of formal warning related to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have closed the discussion at Arbitration Enforcement (AE) and formally warn you as follows:

On a number of occasions, Debresser has improperly presented requests for arbitration enforcement. Taken as a pattern, Debresser's actions are an abuse of process that is serving to inflame tensions in topic areas that already are heated. Furthermore, whilst Wikipedia process pages are internal, conduct such as abuse of process itself, indirectly, affects the external topic area that is subject to arbitration enforcement. Conduct such as Debresser's is therefore equivalent in seriousness to tendentious or disruptive editing of content pages. I therefore formally warn Debresser that continuing such conduct will result in enforcement action, such as restrictions from requesting enforcement, blocks, and topic bans.

This action has been entered into the 2018 log of enforcement actions and may be relied on by an enforcing administrator in the future. I have closed the enforcement request.

AGK ■ 17:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This is officially bull-shit. Any report that I made, was made in good faith and this warning goes against WP:AGF.

In addition, it is not my fault that admins ignore Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Tendentious editing, which reads "Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles". Poor judgment from you and Sandstein. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Modifying quotes and other problems

Could you explain why this blatant example of distorting a source should not be reported? You modified quotes to change what the person quoted said. Why should that not be reported? nableezy - 16:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

See that article's talkpage. I am not surprised you decided to add yourself to the "editors of low morale repute" mentioned there. Your POV is well known. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way: content issue. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia editing 101 that if you add quotes you add them as the source says them. Calling me an editor of "of low morale repute" is unacceptable and a personal attack. In an area you are well aware is under discretionary sanctions that is not a very advisable action. AIRcorn (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhodesia is now called Zimbabwe. The "Palestine" from that article is Eretz Yisrael. All normal, not 1906, sources will say so. Using "Palestine" is POV-pushing. This is a dead giveaway.

@Aircorn I didn't mean you. I meant the editor who reverted me. His POV is well know. And no, using language from our sources is not a good idea, when that language is not clear or outdated. That is precisely the opposite of "Wikipedia editing 101". Good editing is WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COMMON. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, but I am familiar with controversial articles and discretionary sanctions. Saying something like that about anyone is not a good idea. In my area editors have been topic banned for much less. You did use the plural "editors" so I assumed you were referring to more than one editor.

Well, I did not mean you. Sorry for the confusion. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

As to the dispute, quotes and paraphrasing are two different things (see WP:quote#Comparison with paraphrases). You were not paraphrasing you were quoting and as such have to follow what the source says. AIRcorn (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I see now that you are right, and this was a quote, and as such it should be quoted faithfully. The real solution is of course to stop using the Jewish Encyclopedia source, because translating "Eretz Ysrael" (lit. "the Land of Israel") as "Palestine", is not normal and not the accepted translation. I see that one editor has already replaced one of the quotes, and I have found another. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Um, that is not a content issue. You are changing what somebody is quoted as saying. That is something way beyond a "content issue". Thanks for the personal attack. You did not paraphrase, you changed a quote. nableezy - 18:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

See above. You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad your hypocrisy is alive and well. At least you have at least acknowledged you shouldnt be changing quotes in an encyclopedia article, so hey that's progress. nableezy - 15:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was my oversight, and I apologize. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You just did the same in this very same edit you saved your response: You falsified a quote, again. And please don't claim you have a problem with the word "fuck" since you're using it yourself.--TMCk (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark 1. It is my right to modify or even remove altogether comments on my talkpage. 2. Do you have a point, or do you just want to be a nuisance? 3. Yes, I do have a problem with that word, especially on my talkpage. And no, before you ask or remark, that does not mean I would never use it myself under any circumstance. 4. If you have nothing to contribute to my talkpage, you might as well not return here. 5. How did you even end up here? Debresser (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• They have apologised and admitted the mistake. Speaking for myself I accept and thank them for this response and that is the end of it for me. Unless someone else wants to take it further at a different board then I see no point continuing this bickering here. AIRcorn (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown

Hi senior user. I was just following User:SheriffIsInTown because of his wrong supports on Usman Dar Degree issue and Supporting irrelvantly criminal acts i think being IP and unexperienced editor i dont have any right to bring my point on ANI, that time he was continuously supporting contentious information to be added on that blp. Will you please keep my this point on ANI too?.122.8.27.201 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with that issue, I'd prefer not. I see however no reason you shouldn't raise this issue yourself at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

So can i give my Vote of Support ban for him there? Actually being Pakistani editor i was very disappointed at that time with there behaviour. 122.8.27.201 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I did it. Thank you for your response. :) 122.8.27.201 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Good for you! :) Debresser (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration on Talmudic tractate articles

I have noticed that many of the articles on individual tractates in the Talmud are sorely in need of expansion and improvement. Examples of these poor articles include Gittin (tractate), Ketubot (tractate), and Makkot to name just a few. If you are willing to collaborate with me to help improve them, please let me know. Also, I kindly request that you bring this to the attention of other members of WikiProject Judaism, and WikiProject Books. Thank you - Alternate Side Parking (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

1. I am a bit busy the coming few months.
2. Please feel free to post on WT:JUDAISM yourself.

Thanks for the proposal. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

1RR at Efraim Karsh

Your recent edits at Efraim Karsh violate 1RR. Please consider self-reverting.

• This edit, a revert of [1]
• This edit, a revert of [2]

There are others. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalusi: Just report him, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As I already replied on the talkpage of that article, those are all together one revert. There is no repetition of the same revert. Please review WP:1RR. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

They're not consecutive. Only consecutive edits count as one. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, it is you who needs to review the 1RR rule. You aren't allowed to make two reverts in the same article in a 24-hour period. There is nothing in the rule about the reverts being the same. The only exception is when the reverts are consecutive edits with no edits by another person between them, which was not the case here. Zero^talk 23:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

While perhaps technically a violation due to an intervening edit - Debresser's edits (at least one of which removed a BLP vio) were all in a six minutes between 23:06 and 23:12 with an intervening edit at 23:09 (to a separate paragraph). The 23:12 edit removed a BLP vio, leaving the 23:10 which came after the 23:09 intervening edit - a one minute gap which could be considered simultaneous. Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

More frequent is more severe, not less, and attributed quotes from recognised experts are not BLP violations. Zero^talk 10:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Labeling someone a Zionist, a term used as a pejorative in some circles, could be a BLP violation when done without a source. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A quick search for "zionist historian Benny Morris" returns hundreds of results, many of which are from scholarly sources. Nice try though. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Absent a citation - this is a redline BLP vio. Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

lol wut? You think calling Benny Morris a Zionist is a BLP violation? nableezy - 16:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest AE

WP:AE#Debresser nableezy - 16:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Really? You again? And again no violation on my part. Okay, will reply there. You are becoming tiresome. Debresser (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request involving you

Given the lack of interest displayed by uninvolved administrators regarding this enforcement request filed two weeks ago, I have closed it. You should treat the complaints made as neither endorsed nor rejected. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I have taken them to heart. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

File:David Roytman Luxury Judaica Logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This image is 15K logo, which is not much, so I removed the template from the image. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Crocodile Kippah.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This image is 274K, and I understand. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The image is 1 megapixel which is enormous for a non free image and would only be allowed in an extremely few cases when there is a compelling argument to keep a big image. The byte size is 100% irrelevant. It's the pixel count that is measured. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones I mixed up the sizes before, swapped them now. So I agree with you about this one. What about the one above it? Debresser (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It's now at a normal non-free size. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Great that we have such instruments on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Crocodile Kippah.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Crocodile Kippah.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. GMG^talk 19:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Found, and commented. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

File:David Roytman Luxury Judaica Logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Crocodile Kippah.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Crocodile Kippah.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A Discovery of Witches note

Why are you so opposed to hidden notes in articles, added for the benefit of editors? I agree that we "don't need to repeat all relevant policies and guidelines", but we're not doing that - only one guideline is being mentioned. If "there are editors who don't know this", then this will help them, so that we don't have to revert and go to their talk pages in the first place.

Are you so opposed to hidden notes in other articles as well? -- Alex^TW 07:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss instead of edit-warring over a hidden note. -- Alex^TW 07:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is not a note that is routinely added. Nor is it an issue that arises often. If such a thing would happen, we should simply alert those editors. This is not needed.

Why do you ask? I never saw such a note before, but yes, I sometimes removes notes with instructions to editors, because editors are supposed to know the rules, or we will inform them. We do not add notes about all kinds of issues to all kinds of places in articles. Debresser (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have edited hundreds of television series articles, as it's the area where I edit the most, and I have found that it is indeed quite necessary. Point in case: this. We are informing them of the rules, by adding the hidden note. Can you point me to where else in the article there are "notes about all kinds of issues"? Nor is your OWN accusation valid, as you have no basis for it. Edit-warring over a hidden note? Really? -- Alex^TW 07:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The diff is not a good example, because that edit was not in the text of the article itself at the time. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet another necessary hidden note. -- Alex^TW 08:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have seen such a note before, indeed. At the time, I didn't remove it. It's not precisely the same, and anyway, what is your point? Debresser (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It is alerting an editor to a guideline that states that content should not be added to a specific location. It is precisely the same. Now, explain your OWN accusations, and do you believe that edit-warring over a note is acceptable? -- Alex^TW 09:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your off-topic questions aside, I said that the page is on my watchlist, by which I meant that if an editor would add unneeded footnotes, I would take care to remove them, and explain the issue to that editor. Isn't that good enough for you? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you said it was on your talk page. And when notes are added, then such action isn't even necessary in the first place, is it? -- Alex^TW 23:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: ). Thank you. -- Alex^TW 23:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. In addition, this is such a lame issue, that I'd be ashamed to report it. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit-warring over a hidden note? Don't you have better things to do? -- Alex^TW 23:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't you feel left out not getting a holiday greeting?

[3] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I've seen that one before ... StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Debresser, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk) 01:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Esther and WP:BURDEN

In regards to your recent edit at Esther, the Wikipedia WP:BURDEN is very clear about how you shouldn't add unsourced information into an article after it has been removed. Given that you've been here quite a while, and that both User:Seraphim System and User:Largoplazo have warned you about this issue in the past, it's really a Wikipedia policy you shouldn't be confused about at this point. Alephb (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment response

Hi Debresser, I left you a comment. here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haredi_Judaism GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Reversions at Esther and Vashti

As always, your lack of self-awareness is astonishing! All the abuse you you lavish on those who dare to disagree with you applies more appropriately to you. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I remember you as a hothead editor, and your recent behavior only confirmed that. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Review while LeChaParat Pesha is open?

Somehow I saw the following (Talk:Posek)-

Quote

Actually, most of the rabbis in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis are very minor figures (most of those articles should be put up for deletion as they violate the basics of not adhering to WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO) that have been pumped up and fluffed up with PR but that in no way reflects their greatness as rabbis or anything for that matter. Watch out, the editorial sword cuts both ways. IZAK

What does Chabad have to do with this? Stop poisoning the well. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to review your comment on R'Zev Leff re Notability. I'm not claiming that his sefer on Shmoneh Essray puts him in the league of Rabbi Paysach Krohn. Chodesh Tov. Pi314m (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pi314m I remember making that comment over 8 years ago. I also remember the issue. What I fail to understand is how that is connected to my comment regarding the notability of Zev_Leff?

I stand behind my comment, that judging from his article, he is not notable. And I think the issue of his notability has nothing to do with my comment from 8 years ago.Debresser (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pashtuns are a typical Indus Valley population and aren't close to the Ashkenazim

I am being reasonable and basing it on thorough genome-wide analyses. They have little in common with Askhenazi Jews:

Wadaad (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

A disagreement involving you have been added to Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements CapnZapp (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you have pinging turned off

SherriffIsInTown is appealing the i-ban with you here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction and topic ban appeal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually have it turned on. Thanks though, I'll go there now. Debresser (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Esther

Must I really do another RFC? The last one produced a fairly clear result, which you are now ignoring (despite invoking in an edit summary earlier). The fact that information is referenced does not mean it should be in the infobox - see WP:INFOBOX. Such a bore! Please reply here, not on my page. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing in that Rfc that says that this specific information should not be in the infobox. If you understand the results of the Rfc otherwise, please explain. I am open for your comments here. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it actually wasn't a formal RFC I think - I am entirely happy to have one of those; I expect you can imagine it is not likely to support your edit. Though that discussion certainly produced varying points, the main drift was, as I said in the final post in the section, was that the information in the box should be restricted to what is actually contained in the biblical account. If that is not clear to you then perhaps we should have another RFC, with specific options. That biblical information does not include her burial place. Additionally, it seems there are at least two claimants for this, according to the article (neither really supported by WP:RS, but let's ignore that). An infobox is not the place to mislead by including contested or contentious facts, especially when one possibility is included and another excluded for no reason that is explained, and when it is not key and essential information, and typically not given in infoboxes for people, even where it is certain. I hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You removed two things: Queen of Persia and burial in Hamadan, Iran.

1. For some reason, your post here doesn't mention the first, and I think the reason is because you recognize that your edit regarding Queen of Persia was a mistake, since the Biblical story clearly supports this, as the article states clearly in its first sentences.
2. I understand your point regarding the mix up of the Biblical and non-Biblical facts regarding the burial place. On the other hand, if there were no Biblical story, there'd be no alleged burial place, so I am afraid you'll have to admit that these two are closely related. In other words, if you hold that there is a real grave, you have to cease being opposed to writing the article as though it were some fictional story. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The "rfc" comments on "Queen of Persia", are pretty clear, aren't they? They are to me. You do realize that a very large proportion of Biblical scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds do indeed believe that the Book of Esther was indeed written, and intended to be understood, as precisely a work of fiction? This question is addressed in that article, but not here, which it really should be, but that's not my point now. But under the circumstances, it seems POV to insist she must have a grave, let alone that we know where it is, and that one particular competing claim is correct. It seems rather odd, given your stated occupation, that you seem to be having difficulty telling apart things that are actually in the bible and theories and traditions that aren't, but relate to biblical matters. In any case, you don't address the issue of the 2nd tradition. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse for barging in here, but as far as I know there is no existing reliable historical evidence for any of the details of the biblical story in the book of Esther, not even for the basic fact that any of the characters indeed existed in actual history. I mean, I myself do not believe, from the existing historical evidence, that any of the biblical characters such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc., right on down to Esther (and Jesus for that matter), really existed in historical reality. But the first ones above, which are the really important ones, are also much more difficult to knock down and erase from popular/religious belief in some type of "religious history" that never really occurred. The latter one, and the subject here, is rather elementary as far as I am concerned. That is why I also think it should not have an Infobox at all to begin with. But all that is just my own personal vote, which is already on record on the RfC there. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I also supported no infobox at all, but the discussion didn't clearly go that way, so I agreed to settle for a box with just the info actually in the bible. As I've been attempting to explain above, the Book of Esther is in a rather special position, as there are many biblical scholars who broadly accept what we may call the historicity of other parts of the bible, but regard Esther as different, & written with the intention of being understood as a moral work of fiction. Debresser's argument about the grave above is therefore a POV denial of that possibility. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, completely agree with you again. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the issue of the Queen of Persia remains unaddressed, so that is as good as an admission of your mistake.

I remain of the opinion that if we have a Biblical person, historical or not, then we can have a grave ascribed to that person. This point of view seems to me to be in complete agreement with the Rfc. To say otherwise, seems illogical. I see therefore absolutely no problem to have to location of that grave in the infobox. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The "queen of Persia" is not "unaddressed", you are just refusing to accept the rfc, as you are now blatently doing re the burial. "Complete agreement with the Rfc" indeed! All arguments are brushed aside; this is how you get a reputation. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to listen. Please explain what is wrong with "Queen of Persia"? It is after all part of the text of the Book of Esther, that she became queen, so what do you find wrong with it? Debresser (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been explained to you several times, and was supported in the rfc (or whatever it was). I'd be willing to compromise on a "Queen of Persia, according to the biblical Book of Esther in the "occupation" box lower down (though if we do a further RFC to nail the question, others might not be), but not in the header. This was what started the whole issue. On the alleged grave, how do you justify choosing one claimed grave over the other? Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, the core of the problem is that from the perspective being described here, the character of Esther is treated neither as definitively real nor as definitively fictional. She is in the "gray zone"—not certainly one, and not certainly the other. Yet we only have two templates in play here: {{Infobox royalty}} and {{Infobox character}}. Instructions for the former strictly prohibit its use for fictional characters. The latter is clearly for the use of fictional characters.

So how is this handled for others? Abraham and Isaac get {{Infobox character}}. David gets {{Infobox monarch}}. Jesus gets {{Infobox person}}. Why? Who decided?
On the whole, I think the best way to handle a situation like this is to allow the infobox to contain the all facts related to the context of the notability of the character. Therefore: because the notability of the character of Esther is through the Biblical book, all facts in the Biblical book, and all facts traditionally taken as true of the Biblical character (as suported by RS, of course), are allowable.

• Where there is a choice between an unambiguous fact and an ambiguous one, choose the unambiguous one. Thus, the header preferably says "Biblical character" (certainly true), rather than "Queen of Persia" (not certainly true).
• Where an ambiguous fact is included, it's easy enough to add a tag like (trad.) or something similar. It isn't always necessary: If the article on Abraham had included "occupation=shepherd", would someone have cried out that it is unproved? Everyone will understand that he is described in the Bible as a shepherd. But here, one probably should, because queens of Persia have some inherent notability, unlike shepherds.
• I think I'd either use {{infobox person}}, which is a pretty neutral template, or actually subst. out an infobox and put a customized one here, so that the very presence of an infobox is not taken as a claim.

I absolutely hate it when two sides need to fight to be "right" about something here, when there are perfectly reasonable middle grounds possible. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on the unofficial Rfc, I think that I agree with your conclusion, that we can say "Queen of Persia", as long as we call the infobox "Biblical figure". Debresser (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

StevenJ81, while I agree that infobox person is probably the better route, this doesn't really address the issues here. Esther (and Vashti) are not comparable to Abraham or David, of whom one would not really expect any record in the histories or surviving documents of other nations. Esther is much later, and this is not the case for her. There is also a large body of scholarly opinion who believe that the Esther story is written, and intended to be understood, as purely a work of fiction, in a way that is fundamentally different from the majority of the bible, and not the case for Abraham or David. They see it as literature rather than history. The Book of Job would be one other example. In addition the claim "Queen of Persia" refers to a non-Israelite culture - there are several "queens of Persia", like Atossa, of whom we have records, and there is more than a hint of cultural appropriation here. The rfc was especially concerned with this aspect. Let's be plain here: it is not just "not certainly true" that there was a historical queen of Persia called Esther, with facts matching the biblical story in some way, I do not think you will find a single RS that supports this as a historical fact, outside the Bible. This is quite different from the case with figures from Genesis, where many scholars may be happy to believe that the traditions of these figures relate to some actual historical figure, following the occupation the Bible describes.

I can go as far as accepting "Queen of Persia, according to the Book of Esther" in the middle of the box, but not as a header. Lots of real historical figures are in the Bible, and it is vital to preserve the distinction, as the rfc confirmed. Your "best way to handle a situation like this" is odd - it goes way beyond WP:INFOBOX in including everything. Infoboxes are for giving the most important facts that are certain and unambiguous. There are several problems with the grave - it selects one claimed site, and ignores the other, for no reason that has ever been given. It takes a POV line that Esther was a real person. At least one clearly fictional character, Charles Dickens' Little Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop had a "grave" that was a profitable tourist attraction in the 19th century, but we should not be putting such stuff in an infobox. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod Since the title of the infobox is "Esther, biblical character", we should not repeat that in the infobox by adding "according to the biblical book of [whatever]".

Infoboxes are specifically for that: to gather all the details about that person. That is true whether they are real or not. So we can not leave out the burial place.

Even taking into consideration that there are more than one alleged burial place, this is the most well-know, and it is sourced. If there are more, when can simply add them all, or even consider adding the word "alleged". Debresser (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of infoboxes at all. The MOS guideline begins: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." You can and absolutely should leave out the burial place, which in fact is rarely included in the infoboxes of dead people, even when it is certain. You are just making all this up! Both burial places are sourced (the other arguably rather better) and it would be better imo to have two than one, but much the best and most appropriate to have nothing. The primary importance is to avoid the infobox being misleading, as it certainly has been. That is why the "Queen of Persia" needs to handled especially carefully. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I understand Debresser’s reasoning, that the applicability of “Queen of Persia” can be properly understood in the context of “biblical character”. However, in the case of an infobox, which is not only a feature of the article but is designed to be treated as a database entry by external users, the context doesn’t necessarily get preserved. IMO this is ample reason to eschew anything that’s at all ambiguous, nuanced, or context-dependent in infoboxes.—Odysseus1479 20:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For compromise's sake (and only for that reason as far as I am concerned), and in view of Odysseus1479's argument that context might get lost, what about "Biblical Queen of Persia"? That should satisfy all. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

And the graves? Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What about them? They stay. I don't think "biblical graves" is an option here. :) Debresser (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's only one of them in the box, which is part of the problem. But to be clear, none should be there, for the reasons given above. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I see no real reason why burial places are not included in infoboxes of dead people, but since in Judaism burial places are often places of pilgrimage, that is good reason to make sure to have them, even if general articles don't.

If we have more than one, we could have both and add "alleged" after both of them. I personally know only of Hamadan. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WRT burial places, easy enough to say "Disputed", with a link to the spot in the page where it is discussed. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought of that option as well. But for that we need that a section of the article actually discuss several burial places. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is why I will second Johnbod's suggestion that this Infobox should not contain any grave information. A piece of agreed disputed data has no place in an Infobox to begin with. I will also reiterate once again my original position that a Biblical character of dubious existence in real historical annals should not have an Infox at all to begin with. But barred that, disputed information has no place whatsoever in any Infobox, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Warshy It is the nature of history to give rise to lack of information. That is called "historical incompleteness". If there are a few reliably sourced claimants for a field in an infobox, I see no reason why they shouldn't be mentioned. I also had a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and Help:Infobox, and your point of view is not part of that guideline and help page. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Bottom line, I am fine with not mentioning the burial place in the infobox in this case. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tzniut

Can you clear up the descriptions of R' Weinberg and/or R' Bigman's positions following this edit? Ar2332 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ar2332 I'd be happy to, but I don't understand what you mean. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The article currently says "Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg[citation needed] Rabbi David Bigman[22] of Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa..." - did you mean to delete the R Weinberg reference? Currently it's not a grammatical sentence. Ar2332 (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Resolved. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Do not restore poorly-sourced content.

This is a predatory journal, not a WP:RS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the concept. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. That's part of the pitfalls of predatory publishing. They're set up to look like legitimate peer-reviewed publications, but aren't really. Now that doesn't mean that " crime rates decreased in Iran during Ramadan, and that the decrease was statistically significant" isn't the case. It may well be. But that journal is not credible for that claim, and a better source is needed for Wikipedia to say this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 542 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

מזל טוב!--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please respect the RfC

Your repeated attempts to circumvent the consensus process at Jewish religious clothing are disruptive to the good-faith efforts by myself and our fellow editors to reach a solution. I would prefer we managed on our own to desist from edit warring but if you remove the image in question again I will seek administrator intervention to determine and enforce the preexisting consensus. Best, Ibadibam (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My argument is solid. Nothing to do with the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive question

How many times were you banned for undermining wikipedia by editing with an extreme bias and being unable to work with other editors? Does this edit count also include the other accounts you would use when this one was blocked all those times? Of 19 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

For editing with bias, never. For being unable to work with other editors, never. For disagreeing with other editors, that has happened, and as often as not those blocks have been unjustified. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

RE

RE this - I would avoid filing AE (on this specifically) as I don't quite see how you tie this into ARBPIA. The community also has a complex relationship with the F word. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

right. Based on my experience, he's baiting you. You will get blocked for filing a frivolous request. See here where he did the same to me,

[4], User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_9#Arbitration_enforcement_block_extension Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz that, while the TP comments are some way from ideal, they would not be within the scope of ARBPIA. Filing at AE would therefore not get you far. AN or ANI would be the only places you could file this, but I don't recommend it; I don't think you will achieve anything. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there is something really wrong with a system that lets editor badmouth other editors and bully them like that. Since this is something Nishidani does regularly, I think the community should outcast him, read: block him. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It was as a matter of a fact Sandstein who said he might do the right thing and do something about this in the future.[5] Debresser (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There was a RfC a while back on whether the f word was incivil. I do not remember how it closed - but it was close either way. You are unlikely to get an established editor sanctioned for f-word use by itself - particularly not in AN/ANI.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, editors should never use the f word. nableezy - 17:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this, and while, Debresser, I refrain from visiting your page as per your request, I believe, I would appreciate it if you avoid slinging wild WP:AGF violations in my direction ('badmouth'/'bully' etc., here, without even the courtesy of a notification. I do neither. Saying 'for fuck's sake' is an expression of exasperation, (at the general failure of most editors to research the topic and engage in close source scrutiny, as opposed to reverting people who do). Rather than target editors, which is personalizing matters, one does well on the relevant page to check sources - several are screwed up (i.e.like this copied and pasted from the Yemenite Jews page without controlling the sources and summarizing their content correctly). If the consensus is my work in this direction is not desired on the page, fine. But that does not absolve editors of the duty to ensure by close quality control that the material I am implicitly thought not to be an appropriate editor to fix, be fixed. Not fixing it, means the remaining editors cannot see what is obviously wrong with the text. So, drop it. I too dislike editing in hostile environments, but focus on the factual record, build articles and explain with some care for precision to editors who dislike my edits, why I think the sources I adduce are cogent. Nothing more, nothing less. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz In this case the editor, Nishidani, has been criticized for his battleground behavior, and using strong terms is part of that behavior. That is a fact, whether Nishidani himself views it that way or not, and it can be acted upon, as Sandstein has stated at WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy I never said I am perfect. These terms are , however, not a regular part of my contribution to this community, and I certainly don't use them to intimidate or deter other editors from contributing. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani Indeed, your posts are not wanted on my talkpage, and please respect that. Moreover, I would have counted on you to understand the inappropriateness of posting in a section like this. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents: (As one who apparently has "a pro-Palestinian POV from here till Ramallah" link) I would greatly appreciate if all of you refrained from using the f word, (or the c word, etc), Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything thinking about writing such things should first be asking themselves, "Is this going help resolve this dispute or not?" GoldenRing (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I too agree with Huldra. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra You have to appreciate the humor in that phrase. :) Debresser (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, after he made a few more violations of various sorts, I reported him in the end: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nishidani. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring

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

for edit-warring at Eliezer Berland, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Nomoskedasticity_on_Eliezer_Berland [6] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I deserved that. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Instead of a WP:BOOMERANG

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

for not respecting WP:BURDEN, repeatedly adding WP:SELFPUB promotional material, and for bringing to ANI a false claim that Nomoskedasticity was refusing to go to the talkpage when they had in fact done so over 24 hours before the that claim was made ... all at Eliezer Berland, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Nomoskedasticity_on_Eliezer_Berland [7] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the false claim you missed this admission that it was a mistake. And I repeat that the material is doubtlessly true, and therefore not overly promotional, even if indeed not well-sourced. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if you are the editor against whom enforcement is requested.

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

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

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, what's the justification for the specific "commenting" portion of the ban? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

He wants me out of there. Period. I used to think he was a good admin, but his recent way of handing out block and bans without proper discussion, has made me loose my respect for him. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Hello Debresser. You recently reverted my removal of hatnotes at Herem (x3). Hatnotes are not required there because, per WP:NOTAMB, "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous". In my opinion the names of the articles are not ambiguous. If I didn't know what "Herem" meant I'd be at the disambiguation page Herem, not at one of the disambiguated articles. I'm sure the hatnotes were carefully thought through, but I disagree they're useful; I actually suggest they separate the reader from the text they're looking for. No big deal, though. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We (the editor who mainly edited those articles and I) felt that WP:SIMILAR applies. I still do. An editor could easily end up at one of the articles, while looking for one of the others. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Honest advice

Debresser, I am being completely honest with you here, but you are just wrong on this. WP:AE is specifically for arbitration enforcement. It is not for seeking sanctions for activity in any part of Wikipedia not specifically covered by an arbitration decision. You cited WP:ARBPIA as the sanction or remedy to enforced. Now, first off, ARBPIA is a case, what you were looking for was WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. But that misses the point here, WP:ARBPIA has a defined "area of conflict" where the sanctions apply. That area of conflict is "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." That has generally found to include all related discussions anywhere on Wikipedia (WP namespace, Template namespace, whatever). If an article is not related to the area of conflict then no misconduct there, even assuming there is misconduct there, can be brought to AE to enforce those sanctions. Your view that because you had conflict in that topic area that any other conflict you have is covered is not going to be accepted, by Sandstein or anybody else. And Sandstein does not have to continue to respond to your argument. He only has to justify his actions when asked, not repeat his justification. When you repeat the same argument he answered he can ignore it, and I suppose that is what he will do. Now, if you are at all interested in what I think you should do, then I do have some advice for you. You are not going to win an argument that the f word is verboten on Wikipedia. You are not going to win an argument that the use of the f word, when not explicitly directed to someone as in "f--- off" or "f--- you", is by default uncivil. Give up on that argument. Accept that people are going to use language you find offensive. Accept that people will find offense in the words that you use. You have a standard for what constitutes acceptable language on a talk page. Great, use that standard, abide by it. Expecting anybody else on the internet to abide by it however is not reasonable. As far as this sanction, if you want it lifted I would say the most obvious way to do so is wait 6 months, go to AE and tell them you understand the purpose of the board and what is and is not covered there. You are not going to get Sandstein to reverse it. You could of course appeal it right now, but, being honest with you, I dont think you have even a little bit of a chance of getting consensus to overturn it right now. nableezy - 21:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. Thank you. Needless to say, I disagree with certain part of what you wrote, although I agree with others. I hold that Nishidani make three violations out of battleground attitude rooted in our disagreements in the IP-conflict field, and because he is, I think, an unpleasant person who does not respect other people. He should have been sanctioned for that. Ergo, I was right in reporting him there, and should not have been sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, you missed the point. You can only report to AE what happens in pages covered by arbitration decisions. Jewish religious clothing is not one of those pages. There are other places you can report misconduct there for, but AE is, without even a little bit of a question, not one of them. That is what you got sanctioned for, not understanding that AE is only for arbitration enforcement and not for any misconduct anywhere else on Wikipedia. It does not matter if the behavior you are complaining about is rooted in the IP-conflict field, it only matters, for the purpose of can it be reported to AE, where that behavior took place. If it did not take place on an ARBPIA article you cannot report it as an ARBPIA issue. nableezy - 22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy In fact, I think you are missing the point. WP:AE should address this behavior, regardless on which pages it occurred. According to your logic, an editor could "take revenge" on a page which is outside the scope of the IP-conflict for motives that are 100% related to it. That is unacceptable. Moreover, I don't think that is true. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Nab is correct. There have been many times when the admins at AE have declined to look at something not covered by arbcom sanctions. Behavior on other pages can go to some other board, like WP:ANI. Zero^talk 02:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zero You usually show better logic. My point is that this is covered by ARBPIA, IMHO. And if it weren't, it should be. Debresser (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In practice, ARBPIA covers what the admins at AE hold it to cover. If you disagree with them, your only recourse is ARCA. My prediction is that a case there would not succeed. Zero^talk 14:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zero Here we agree. It galls me however, that Sandstein closed the report within 24 hours, not even waiting to see if perhaps other editors would agree with my argument. And at least he should have understood that the fact that he personally disagrees with me, does not justify meeting out a sanction to me without first seeing if perhaps the community agrees with me. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No Debresser, that is not my logic. My logic is if there is misconduct anywhere besides pages specifically covered by an arbitration decision then you can seek redress at WP:ANI. WP:AE cannot take action for any act that occurs outside of pages that are specifically covered by arbitration. Whatever tho, I tried. nableezy - 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, as I see it, the behavioral issue should be covered by WP:AE on any page. In any case, I think the position of Sandstein,the two of you, and likely many others with you, is clear to me. I still hold that this is something that should have been discussed at WP:AE and is no reason to sanction me from posting there. By the way, if not your "kind" reminder,[8] Sandstein wouldn't have sanctioned me, so I am not so sure I am altogether happy with you playing the nice guy here. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

How you see it is not how it is. Im not playing nice guy, Im trying, or was trying, to help you understand the problem here. And get you to not waste your time asking Sandstein to reconsider, I dont think Ive ever seen that happen without a consensus pretty much already against him. If youd asked me if you should file that report I would have told you no, and that this exact sanction would happen. nableezy - 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:DR

User:Debresser, There is a discussion here on WP:DR to which you have been named as an involved person. Please check it out.Davidbena (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

They closed the case, because of an acting AN. Sorry about that.Davidbena (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that when I went there. Had a look at the WP:AN case as well. Didn't like what I saw, but don't think there is much I can do about it. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

David P Mindell, The Evolving World

Re the Judaism article: David Mindell, whose book The Evolving World, is being used as a source on very early Jewish history, is an evolutionary biologist. His credentials as a student of ancient history might be a bit questionable. Personally I think the idea that Jewish history begins in 500 BCE is ridiculous.PiCo (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So do I. Nor, as usual, one can argue as to the degree of distinctiveness that justifies the name of Judaism as a religion distinct from other Israelite religions. Even though the main tenets may have been there a millennium earlier, based on once POV as a historian or person one can always find a criteria that wasn't met till later, and decide that that is the criteria which justifies the distinction. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You could definitely tag that statement with {{Better source}} or perhaps even {{Dubious}}. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tareksa: NOTHERE?. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I see this editor has been indef blocked already. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rabbinic Judaism

Hey, I just went with what was in the Lead section. The existing short description is kind of long, could you shorten it a little? Editor2020 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I understood how you made the short description. My problem with the lead is that it is unsourced and dubious. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How about we delete that (unsourced) first line then? Editor2020 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is useful to say right from the start that Rabbinic Judaism has been mainstream Judaism for a long time. The fact hat we don't have a source that tells us for how long, doesn't mean that we should delete that important fact. I hope that the tags will prod somebody a more precise statement.

I personally think that Rabbinic Judaism has been mainstream since the destruction of the second temple changed the Jewish demography, and if I see it as a continuation of Pharisaic Judaism even since before that. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Bar Kokhba Revolt

I was questioning indigenous, not genocide. Do you feel that that applies? Editor2020 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Well, the Jews were at the time indigenous to the Judea (Roman province), where they had lives for about a millennium, so yeah. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is King of troy and WP:SEEALSO. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I put this on Favonian's talk page - copy to you.

Greetings. I am RPSM. The following is from article "Passover" third paragraph second sentence.

In Judaism, a day commences at dusk and lasts until the following dusk, thus the first day of Passover begins after dusk of the 14th of Nisan and ends at dusk of the 15th day of the month of Nisan. I don't think that's quite right. If it's a question of havdallah, it is nightfall, surely.

The first day of Passover does not begin after dusk. It begins at sunset, and observance is set 18 minutes before sunset (40 minutes before sunset in Jerusalem) - from googling.

Are you the right person to contact about this? RPSM (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

RPSM (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am, and I think you're right. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Gay themed Talmudic sages?

Hi Debresser, please see: Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Allegations that Torah true classical scholars supported and implied pro gay themes and memes is ludicrous. What do you say? IZAK (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to COI allegation

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at Wikiemirati's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Wikiemirati (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It was an inquiry rather than an allegation. :)

Thanks for the Talkback template, but no need, I always follow up on my posts in article or user talkpages. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

CfD Conversos etc

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7#Category:New Christians (conversos). Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Categorization question

Hi, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7#Category:New Christians (conversos) that is trying to determine how best to classify Conversos/Marranos/Anusim. New Christians or Crypto-Jews or both. Your WP:EXPERT input would help the discussion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing without consensus

Hi, you made an edit before we established consensus on the Jewish Holidays article. So I don't see why I couldn't do the same. But I'm happy to to continue discussion on the talk page. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you are the Tu quoque type of guy. :(

Did you read the editnotice on top of this page when you posted: "If I posted on your talkpage, that means I am watching it. To keep discussions centralized, I propose you post there." Debresser (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Beitar Illit

Thats a 1RR violation, a NPOV violation, and a generally disruptive edit. You should self-revert before I put the diffs together. nableezy - 14:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Take back one bit of that. Its just a disruptive edit, not a 1RR violation. nableezy - 15:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not even disruptive, as I opened an Rfc on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Now, calling a perfectly logical edit like the one you reverted here "nonsense" that is a problem. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ill be reverting these nonsense edits soon. You dont get to force through your repeatedly rejected POV and demand that be the basis of any discussion. nableezy - 17:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

My edit is not based in POV, nor has my POV ever been rejected, since I never edit out of POV. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about the Exodus

I have been thinking about the Exodus a lot lately, as you can tell by my editing
Based on your edits on the talk page, it seems like you are Jewish and believe in the Exodus.
Maybe you can share your thoughts on my analysis?
I recently found out that the Exodus is not historically real, ie like creationism or the ark. I feel like most Jewish people are not aware of this, however for those who do know-- It seems unethical to accuse Egypt of enslaving millions of Israelites, when historically we know that they did not enslave any Israelites. And the same goes for saying Jewish ancestors were slaves when we know they were not.
For example: hypothetically if Italians told everyone that 4,000 years ago Israel committed a holocaust against millions of Italian people. Historians said it was false. Italians said they had faith in it and would continue telling everyone. This would be unethical. The untrue accusation against Israel, the appropriation of the Holocaust.

I know some Jewish people say that the Exodus is a story to teach about oppression and finding ones home or place in the world (ie Israel), but clearly this can be done without the unethical side effects. For example with the actual historical event of the Holocaust. Jewish people overcame oppression and formed Israel. Its the same basic story but completely real.
What do you think about my thoughts on this? and about the Exodus?
Thanks Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As a religious Jew, I believe that it took place as described in the Bible. I am waiting for archeology to dig up some proof that support the Bible, since for reasons that are unclear to me, the Bible is not considered a historical document by academics.

I have no issue with any Egyptian, if that is what worries you. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do you have any thoughts on my analysis of the ethics? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Not really. As I said, I have no problems with any Egyptian because of this, so I suppose the ethics is fine. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I would guess that most Egyptians are as unaware of the historical evidence/consensus as most Jewish people. But at any rate, I'm more interested in the ethics from a philosophy standpoint than whether people are upset. Do you have any thoughts about the philosophy of the ethics? Thanks Fajkfnjsak (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As someone who looks at Exodus from a different perspective - some notes... To begin with, today's Egyptians probably have little to do with the Egyptians of yore (different language, culture, religion, etc.). As a second note there was some slavery (as well as migrant workers) from Canaan in Egypt in the period (and note - Proto-Sinaitic script - the beginnings of the Canaanite writing (and the English Alphabet...) - took place at such a junction). More significantly - Egypt ruled over Canaan during the period. The Exodus narrative is also rooted in the Hebrew god coming from the south (probably with accompanying people - e.g. perhaps the priestly tribe - as well... Note that priests in Exodus have Egyptian names, while Israelites have Hebrew names). Is the story in Exodus true? Currently the scholarly consensus is that what happened differed (e.g. most Israelites developed in-situ in the Canaanite highlands - though there definitely was some migration (e.g. the writing system traveled up from down south))... However many elements of the narrative in Exodus have historical roots - e.g. it would appear the Egyptians lorded over the Canaanites in Canaan itself... And on a philosophical note - do you take the Iliad as gospel truth? The journey, the way the narrative is told and taught - the lessons from the narrative - are more important than if god created the world in seven days or if the Staff of Moses was an element in all the miracles attested to it.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing Ichewiz

Remember, I am talking about the philosophical ethics, not of who is mad. It is unethical to make false claims of enslaving Jewish people against ancient Egyptians or living Egyptians. In addition, people connect with, care about their ancestors and do not want false accusations made against them.

Currently the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus has no historical basis. The Israelites were not enslaved in ancient Egypt, and they never even lived there. They came from Canaan as you pointed out. As far as "historcial roots", imagine the hypothetical Italians telling people that Israel committed a holocaust against them (and most people believed them), claiming that there were "historical roots" because holocausts have happened somewhere, and that there were conflicts where the Israelites treated Italians poorly. And that the lessons from the story are more important anyways, therefore it is ethical. What do you think of the this justification, ethically?

I agree with you about the importance of lessons being greater than the historicity. But I think this only applies to stories about supernatural staffs, creationism, etc, which do not make unethical claims. This is the difference from the staff and creationism vs Exodus and Israel's Holocaust against the Italians.

This is why I make my proposal of teaching the same lessons about overcoming oppression and returning to ones homeland, Israel, by telling about the real Holocaust in Germany against the Jewish people, and not the Exodus mythology. This would retain those lessons and not make unethical claims that we know are not historically true.

What do you think of this proposal and the philosophical ethics of telling the same lessons with the historically false Exodus vs the historically real Holocaust? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for explanation

Hi Debresser, I saw that you left a comment on my page telling me to be aware that edit summaries must be accurate. Please let me know what exactly you found to be inaccurate about my edit summary. Shoelaces1 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I always follow talkpages I post on, so you could have posted this request on your talkpage, which would have had the additional benefit of keeping the discussion in one place. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Jewish user templates

Category:Jewish user templates has been nominated for renaming to Category:Jews and Judaism user templates. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. And support. Debresser (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wolfdog

I was not aware my template was being used by other users. How do I check something like that? Wolfdog (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfdog You can press "What links here" on the left side panel. Where it says "transclusion" that means they use the template. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

You know perfectly well that government spokespeople are not reliable sources for the writings of that country's enemies. Why do you persist in this disruption? Zero^talk 18:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all be careful whom you call "disruptive". Secondly, this was not a government spokesperson but an official report. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference between an official report and the words of a government spokesperson in their official capacity. Both are highly unreliable sources regarding that country's enemies. Zero^talk 18:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I guess next you will quote Abba Eban's words to the UN in 1957, "stating" that all of the Palestinian refugees were as a result of Arab encouragement for them to leave? (see Maximos_V_Hakim#1948_Nakba_controversy). Try using Abba Eban's words to the UN as undisputed WP:RS...Huldra (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Still, this source is very specific as to who its source is. And it is not Israeli. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No it is an Israeli source making a claim that could be checked but hasn't been as far as we know. Zero^talk 10:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As I have said on the talkpage as well, I do understand that sometimes official statements are not reliable, but to state the opposite, that any official statement is not reliable, I think you made a mistake. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I get it now. Debresser decides which official statements are reliable. Why didn't you just say that? Those of us trying to define objective criteria have been approaching it all wrong. Zero^talk 19:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all, thank you! I am happy you finally started seeing things my way. I kindly ask you to use User:Debresser/Testcases to run all sources by me before using them.

Secondly, I don't really understand what you are referring to. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Bituah Leumi

This appears to be what is called in other places social security, or national insurance, not a conventional insurance system. Am I wrong? Rathfelder (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Rathfelder, Debresser can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be a mixture of many systems. So if you take the US system, it would be the Social Security system and Medicaid system together. For the UK, I think it would be the NHS plus other systems, since it's not just health. Also, I'm not too keen on the spelling of Bituah. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It includes basic health insurance, welfare and other social allowances.

What would you like better, Bituach, Bitu'ah? Debresser (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, I know Wikipedia hates the "ch" but I would prefer that, but there needs to be something with the "h" even that stupid dot under the "h" or the stupid modern "kh" would be better, but we do need to differentiate from the plain "ah" sound which it's not. Since it's a small article which doesn't get much traction, I do think we can get away with a "ch" which is my preference. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

So it isn't well categorised as insurance. Can anyone point me to useful sources, in English? Rathfelder (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Rathfelder, here's some useful information on Bituach Leumi: https://www.nbn.org.il/aliyahpedia/government-services/health-care-national-insurance/bituach-leumi-2/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You dont like the source Sir Joseph suggests? I dont think the point is the literal translation. The point is to help readers understand the organisation. National Insurance Institute of Israel is the wording used on the official website. Rathfelder (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the about page of Bituach Leumi where they spell out a bit more of their services. [9] I think Social Security is about right. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"died" vs. "murdered in the Holocaust"

Hi there, in general, I think the phrase "died in the Holocaust" is worse and less descriptive than "murdered in the Holocaust". The Holocaust, as a whole, was a program of systematic, state-sponsored mass-murder. This naturally encompasses the most direct methods of kiling (gas chambers, bullets, hangings), as well as extermination through labour, which also falls within the definition of murder. For the Nazis, death was an obvious, foreseeable, and welcomed consequence of cramming humans into horrifically filthy and unimaginably overcrowded conditions and not providing inmates with adequate nutrition, clothing, or medical care. Just like saying "John locked Bob in his basement with utter disregard to Bob's welfare, and Bob died of malnutrition", any prosecutor could reasonably charge John with murder. The Holocaust was mass-murder and the people who were killed through the totality of the Nazis' genocidal machinations are murder victims. For this reason, I avoid the phrase "died in the Holocaust".-Ich (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

For most of the Jews who died in the Holocaust it would be correct to say that they were murdered, either because it was clear murder or because it was indirect murder as you correctly explain. Still, some died of other causes, like soldiers of the Jewish Brigade, or Jewish victims of famine. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Died" is an event, "murder" is a legal conclusion (e.g. one dies by being murdered). Using legal terminology without referencing the court and ruling is not a statement of fact, therefore "died" is correct. While you likely could include a count of murdered individuals as there are court rulings to reference, that would likely be a different number than all who died. Lexlex (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that after the Neurenberg trials, we may safely use "murder" regarding what Nazis did to Jews and others. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: cite the trial conclusions as the reference. Having such a well-known legal reference that directly addresses the point of a discussion is a rare thing - why not use it? Lexlex (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See my opinion above, that not all Jews who died in the Holocaust were murdered. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that not all Jews who perished during WW2 were murdered, but when the sentence specifically uses the phrase "murdered in the Holocaust", I think "murder" is correct. Even the Jewish members of, say, the Warsaw Uprising could in a larger sense be viewed as having acted in self-defense, fighting back against their own eventual murder.-Ich (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Date format

Concerning your objection to not use the date format "xth of". I will try to use the format Month day(, Year), however https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS states: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other.". --Salamandra85 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a matter of WP:ENGVAR, rather of MOS:DATESNO. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

TP violation

Are you sure these [10],[11],[12],[13] aren't violations of your topic ban[14]?

You are banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if you are the editor against whom enforcement is requested

I believe you are breaking your ban and you should withdraw your remarks before it is going to be noticed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That ban is specifically on WP:AE, while this discussion is taking pace on WP:ANI. This is so obvious, that I don't understand why you are even writing me about this. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that Black Kite also noticed this distinction.[15] Which makes it even stranger to me that you should pressure me here about this issue. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

no pressure...actually I just realized that ban applies only for WP:AE, so you are perfectly fine commenting there. Ignore my previous message.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. No problems. Debresser (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Please take a minute to look at the nature of the content that is removed from an article before blindly reverting another user as you did here . Saying that an article is 4k characters shorter is not an argument. Moreover, try to avoid putting words in other people's mouths, such as stating that I had made the "unexplained claim that this is not connected to the subject of the article". I never said such a thing. I said that the content in question wasn't connected to the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Central Europe, which it isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this was over 4,000 characters is an indication that this is a major edit (read: major removal), and as such needs a better explanation than a minor edit. This is surely nothing new to you.

I agree that that information was not about Germans, but why not simply create a new subsection? Why remove it altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

for intruding on your page, but I require some input I think only you could provide (it has nothing to do with wiki). I heard from an old man that in reciting the incipit of Genesis, 'elohim' must be pronounced 'elokim' out of respect for the name of God. This defies everything I know and have heard. Do you know of any Jewish community where this kind of phonetic alteration is practiced? or is it just an individual's idiosyncracy Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome here. When reading the Torah "Elohim" is pronounced "Elohim". When quoting the Torah in a lecture e.g. it is common to use "Elokim" instead, so as not to use God's name in vain. Even though this would not be truly in vain, as it is part of a lecture, still, many are careful about this. Others are not, as indeed it is not in vain. I hope this answered your question. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, Dovid. Much appreciated. I just wondered whether it was specific to Ashkenazi usage or a general substitution practiced by all communities. The important thing is that the old man reciting it thus was using lecture style, not Torah reading style. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It is more common for Ashkenazi rabbis to be careful about this than for Sefardi rabbis, yes. Debresser (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.

You're currently at 3 reverts. Just FYI.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you're now over the 3RR limit. It would behoove to stop gatekeeping and using semantic stop signs. See WP:CCC The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I see 2 reverts on October 13, and 2 reverts on October 14, and I kept Shabbat in between, which is an over 24 hour observance. So how can this be a 3rr violation? Debresser (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, 27 hours can easily be seen as gaming 3RR, so I would be wary about that. El_C 16:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

24 hours should be 24 hours. I understand 24 hours and 5 minutes is gaming the system, but 25-26 hours should be the limit. In any case, this is a known edit warrior, who is fighting against consensus to keep an edit he made recently, so it is plain and simple disruptive editing. Feel free to block him for 24 hours for that. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what the consensus is and am not about to block anyone on the basis of it being disputed alone (!). As for your view advancing a strict interpretation of 3RR's 24 hours, I just wanted you to know that, regardless of what you think it should be, that view is not generally shared by admins, myself included. El_C 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:El_C Irrespective of that, it is still quite clear that he is edit warring (having reverted at least 5 times in the past 2 days, and 3 times today). In addition to violating a host of other rules, notably WP:AGF, WP:Personal attacks, WP: Bully, and ignoring WP:CCC in favor of enforcing a "consensus" that is now at least 2 years old. For instance, I highly doubt leaving messages like this on another person's talk page is in any way acceptable. [16] The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, indeed, that is not a manner in which to conduct oneself. You need to stop referring to the editor and focus on the edit, instead. El_C 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that most admins will freely add as many hours to 24 as they see fit. I have never in my life had respect for people who apply the rules as they like. In any case, since I was over 24 hours out of editing because of my religious adherence to the Jewish Shabbat, it should be clear that I was not gaming the system. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue on the category talkpage. Which does not mean that the editor is not the problem here. The editor is very much part of the problem here. If editors weren't ever part of the problem, we wouldn't have WP:ANI. So please stop lecturing me. In any case, I moderated my comment.[17] Debresser (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but enough is enough. He is clearly not heeding WP:El_C's warning, or anyone else's.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

@NinjaRobotPirate I ask to rescind this block for the following reasons. :# You could at least have waited till I had the chance to defend myself. After all, I am a 10 year + editor, and this is not the level of courtesy I'd expect. :# I did not violate 3RR. I know that edit warring is not limited to 3RR violations, but if I am guilty of edit warring, so is User:The Human Trumpet Solo. It takes two to edit war. :# The category page in question was recently edited by User:The Human Trumpet Solo, who changed it from the consensus version of many years. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD that means that he is the one that should show consensus. In other words, I hold the higher moral ground here. "# See my explanation above that I was not gaming the system when editing after over 24 hours.[18] Debresser (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This edit summary is unacceptable. You need to observe our rules concerning civil discourse and refrain from edit warring, especially after having been warned about it (including by myself). Further battleground behaviour and edit warring in the future may result in increasingly lengthier blocks, so please be wary of that. El_C 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

@El_C And the previous edit summary was OK?[19] Because apart from the "ignorant", they are the same. And really, calling a Jew "Middle Eastern" is ignorant. I mean "of Middle Eastern descent" I could understand, but "Middle Eastern"? Not to mention that that page's history shows that User:The Human Trumpet Solo was stalking me when he reverted my edit. Is that OK too? Debresser (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into how they ended up there. But calling someone "ignorant" and continuing the edit war was the wrong call. Did it ever occur to you to bring the matter to an admin's attention first? El_C 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not much rattled by such edit summaries. So no, I didn't see any reason to take the edit summary to an admin. I took part in the discussion on the talkpage, but User:The Human Trumpet Solo insists on repeating his edit in complete disregard of that discussion. I was probably going to report that tonight, but User:NinjaRobotPirate didn't give me time for that. He even didn't give me time to defend myself, which really offends my sense of justice and is quite unusual when dealing with long-time editors. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nor do I think that upholding my block because I called an ignorant edit "ignorant", is a good call. I mean, as far as uncivil language comes, this is not the worst of it, now is it? As a matter of fact, since you had previously mentioned that I was at risk of being blocked, I would not have expected you to review my unblock request. You were hardly neutral on this issue. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The matter (in its entirety) — not the edit summary. And you are more than free to list your contention that I lack neutrality in another unblock request. I, of course, disagree. El_C 20:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How can you even disagree with that? In any case, I am not expecting anything remotely like justice on Wikipedia. But that both you and NinjaRobotPirate would be so blatantly one-sided in your decisions, that disappoints even me. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your reply strikes me as unresponsive — so I'll reiterate: why did you not bring the matter to an admin's attention first? Also, just because The Human Trumpet Solo also erred, does not immediately absolves you of responsibility. El_C 20:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I can't try to reason with an editor myself first. So I really don't understand the question. Most editors are responsive to explanation. User:The Human Trumpet Solo wasn't. He is not the only one. If we were to go to admin forums as a first resort, Wikipedia would be bogged completely. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Except, that your so-called attempt at "reasoning" with that editor is why you were blocked. El_C 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Human Trumpet, please leave Debresser alone. Debresser, if you agree to use dispute resolution (for example, an RFC) to resolve this, I'll unblock you. Name-calling and reverts obviously aren't doing anything to resolve it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that Debresser mentioned dispute resolution to Human Trumpet two days ago, but neither of them seem to have seriously pursued it or any such related requests. El_C 21:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I though to ask for additional input at WT:JUDAISM for starters. I also envisioned the option of an Rfc, but afterwards.

And since you are here, I do think User:The Human Trumpet Solo should self-revert, since he was a much edit warring as I was, but he is edit warring for his recent change, and that is not how things work on Wikipedia. New edits should receive consensus first. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I was defending myself, User:NinjaRobotPirate. And my edit in both cases was already reverted, and I have not reverted since. Nor do I plan to.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's no longer possible for The Human Trumpet Solo to self-revert since their edits have, themselves, been reverted. El_C 21:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

His last comment here, that he won't revert any fursther, is good enough for me to feel there is with whom to talk.

@El_C Di you investigate my accusation that The Human Trumpet Solo was stalking me when he reverted me at Category:Canadian Jews? Debresser (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C is correct. My edits were undone and I have not reverted since, and I am more than happy to resolve this through discussion. The last thing I want is conflict with another editor, especially now when my health isn't exactly the greatest.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

May you go back to good health soon! Debresser (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Best wishes from me, as well. El_C 21:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. Much appreciated!The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, I did investigate this. My finding is that hounding of you by The Human Trumpet Solo did take place. El_C 21:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I see you mentioned it on his talkpage. OK. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked

Effective immediately. I am encouraged by the discussion above and I think the blocking admin would agree. El_C 21:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on this tomorrow, as it is 00:50AM here, and I too fell ill this morning (thank G-d nothing more serious than a virus or food-poisoning). Debresser (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Sounds good. Hope you feel better by tomorrow. El_C 22:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I came home at 4AM because of Simchat Beit HaShoeivah, so this will have to wait just a tad longer. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Middle Easterners

User:The Human Trumpet Solo. Can we agree that Middle Easterners means those who live in the Middle East at present, and therefore agree that Category:Canadian Jews should not be in Category:Middle Eastern Canadians? Just like a New Yorker is somebody who lives in New York now, not somebody whose ancestors lived in New York.

Let's leave open the question whether Category:Canadian Jews should be in Category:Middle Eastern diaspora in North America, which is the same issue we'll deal with at Category:North American Jews, but I think we can at least agree that Category:Middle Eastern Canadians is incorrect? Debresser (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response, User:Debresser.

1. I wouldn't be against categorizing Middle Easterners in that way. But if we do that, we'll have to define Europeans, Asians, Americans, et al in the same manner, or else it'll be too difficult to navigate. We would also need to leave a brief note at the top of each of these categories explaining what types of categories belong (e.g. that only people who reside in the Middle East can be included under "Middle Easterners"), and what types of categories don't.

1. The Middle Eastern Canadian category presently functions as a parent cat for Middle Eastern diaspora populations (be they ethnic or national) in Canada. That's how most of the other descent and diaspora categories are arranged right now, and that's why I tried to include Canadian Jews there. A category for Canadians who resettle/resettled in the Middle East would be called "Canadian Middle Easterners" (which does not exist), or "Middle Eastern people of Canadian descent" (which does exist).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

1. I think it is completely clear, and needs no explanation, that Middle Easterners, means precisely that: people who are at present nationals and citizens of states in the Middle East. Please notice that Middle Easterners is a redirect to Ethnic groups in the Middle East, Europeans is a redirect to Ethnic groups in Europe, Asians to Asian people, while Americans is defined in the first line of that article as "Americans are nationals and citizens of the United States of America."
2. That is of course precisely the point of our disagreement. Jews should not be in a Middle eastern descent category. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The Asian people article looks fine. It makes the meaning of the term "Asian" abundantly clear. However, Middle Easterners and Europeans are not as clearly defined, and these terms remain open to misinterpretation until they are. For this reason, I support renaming Ethnic groups in Europe to Europeans and Ethnic groups in the Middle East to Middle Easterners.

But even with that problem out of the way, that would still leave the categories (which is what this discussion is about). The categories in question pertain to diaspora origin and descent, not citizenship or residence. Nevertheless, I am still not convinced that these cats do not belong under a Middle Eastern parent. If we were to ignore or downplay the ethnic (specifically Levantine/Judean) component of Jewishness, there would be no point to having the Jewish descent or Jewish diaspora categories. So why have them at all? How do you "descend" from a religion? And if we head even further down that slippery slope, where does the Jewish diaspora originate? Nowhere? Did it emerge out of thin air? Obviously not.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Another thing worth noting is that anyone can become Assyrian, or Maronite, or Shawnee, etc. But we still categorize the first two under Middle Eastern people and the third under indigenous peoples/ethnicities of North America.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of courtesy

You just violated the 1R rule governing the page at Jewish stone-throwing, and should self-revert.

• Ist revert 21:47, 23 October 2019‎
• 2nd revert 17:42, 24 October 2019‎ Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is now by a few hours more than 24 hours after that edit, so please consider as though I self-reverted and redid the edit. But thanks for the reminder, and I'll try to be more careful in the future.

And you please stop being a pain in the behind and don't make bad edits. Even your own edit summary read like an admission of the fact that there was no real reason to undo that part of my first revert. Not to mention that I disagree and think that removing that link was a clear improvement, since the link should be to a location. West bank is a location, while Israeli occupation of the West Bank is not, and is in addition so clearly POV motivated, that you should be too ashamed of yourself to come and complain on my talkpage. Where, by the way, you know very well that you are not welcome in general. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is now by a few hours more than 24 hours after that edit, so please consider as though I self-reverted and redid the edit — What? That is simply unacceptable. I have blocked you for one week for this blatant violation of 1RR. I'll try to be more careful in the future — there was no better time to do when given the opportunity to self-revert. Wow. El_C 22:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked with apologies. Page is not actually subject to 1RR. Still, had it been, your response would have constituted a gross violation of the first order. El_C 22:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani is back to his usual seeding controversy. A shame he came back from his umpteenth retirement. Nothing good ever came from his edits or comments.

I have seen that argument used and being accepted. You may call it a "gross violation of the first order", but that is a huge exaggeration. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, don't you want to unfollow my talkpage, El_C? It looks as though you are hounding me as well. Or was this reported somewhere? Debresser (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, not an exaggeration. Also, I am acting in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, not hounding you. Please refrain from such aspersions. Thanks. El_C 23:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see what is wrong with it. Can you point out a place where it says specifically that such a construction is unacceptable? I doubt it, since, as I said, I have seen the argument being used and accepted.

I don't think that following my talkpage is fitting behavior for an uninvolved admin. I think it constitutes or comes close to a violation of the second paragraph of WP:HOUNDING. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to bring any of this up to review in any forum you see fit. El_C 23:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Omar

Hi. Please read MOS:VAR and stop edit-warring. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Forget it, I've self-reverted. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I did read MOS:VAR, by the way. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not a picture

Special:Diff/929895745 It is a PDF file.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, even though technically a PDF file is somewhat like a picture, see our PDF article. But the problem is that it is not a reference. It is a link to the original. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Gathering of Israel

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish on Gathering of Israel, but it would be helpful if you'd stop wasting both our time. The IP editor User talk:195.60.233.179 added non-English and unsourced descriptions to the article on 25th. But I didn't notice that User:CLCStudent had already reverted the first of those containing the non-English. So my edit summary described both issues. But the end result is exactly the same. Reverting me just because you don't follow what happened, restoring twice unsourced, and suspiciously POV, material is not helping create a good article. Perhaps you could revert what you have again restored, and stop edit warring? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And the argument that "the existing stuff isn't sourced" is not a good argument for justifying that further unsourced material can be added. If we head in that direction, unsourced gets stacked on unsourced, and nothing ever get sourced. If you have concerns about what's already there, and not sourced, then please either add cites to it, or challenge it. Thanks.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing is like this. I can base myself only on what you communicate. You communicated that you saw non-English additions, and unsourced additions. The first was definitely not true, and the unsourced additions seemed true, relevant and helpful. So I could only come to the conclusion that you made a mistake, so I reverted your edit. This happened twice.

Now for the unsourced additions themselves. Since they seem true, relevant and helpful, as stated above, I would oppose their deletion. If the statement without the additions was sourced, then of course I would agree with you that a sourced statement can not be changed without another source. But since that is not the case, and, I repeat this, the unsourced additions seemed true, relevant and helpful, I think that the correct thing would be to tag the resulting statements with a Citation needed tag, rather than undo them and leave inferior but likewise unsourced statements in their place. I hope you can appreciate my logic.

I will therefore tag these statements, and after the weekend will make an effort to find some source for them. Thank you for your cooperation. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree, but willing to discuss

That seems like a borderline case (as the wording in the article to me isn't specific enough about his mother being the person in his lineage who was Jewish, so simply saying of "Jewish descent" would appear to be a WP:SYNTH issue as his father could be of entirely different descent based on the sourcing used). Even still I don't see how it isn't UNDUE to be mentioning, and how it isn't a partial violation of WP:BLPCAT and related community standards to be mentioning his religion ("not religious" is still a form of stating the subject's beliefs) without a preponderance of reliable sources also doing so. Can you explain why it needs to be there and how it isn't a violation of WP:BLPCAT to place a religious diaspora category/data on their page? I'll note this is all stemming from an OTRS ticket on a different BLP. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to discuss. I am not familiar with the OTRS ticket. Let me review your questions to be able give you an even more serious reply than I had in mind when reverting this, and I'll be back here soon. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

To give you even more backstory (note I can't go into the specifics of the ticket we got from an article subject)... we've also had several tickets this month from various people baffled as to why this is mentioned so much on so many different articles where as other people's religious/ethnic origins are rarely mentioned. I conferred with 3 4 other OTRS members about this (one an OTRS admin, the other two are English Wikipedia admins) and we came to a pretty clear consensus these descriptions were being over-used and needed to go unless they were clearly being covered that way by multiple reliable sources. So, do take that into account here as well here. I'm not just doing this of my own arbitrary volition. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffee, Can you point me to where the discussion with OTRS agents took place? S Philbrick(Talk) 00:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After a re-read of the source it is now clear that Brin's parent were both Jewish, as well as his wife's mother.

That makes both Jewish, by the way, obviously with Brin being the relevant person for the categories of this article.

Religion is not relevant to the question of being Jewish. There are Jewish atheists as well. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the background story. Interesting. Perhaps some sort of anti-Semitic campaign?

I think your (all three of you) conclusion is based on the mistaken notion that Jewish is a religious description, while our Jews page is clear that "Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and a nation". You might want to take this back to the OTRS group, and discuss this some more, and perhaps even consider asking an expert opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A good point (in regard to this particular source's statements about the parents), I must have missed that it said his parents were in my reading of that source somehow (I am capable of mistakes). However, as to whether religion is relevant or not: there is such a thing as being ethnically Jewish, but the current categories used point to "religious diaspora" as is expressly stated in the related categories like Russian-Jewish says in it's first paragraph. So my contention isn't that we can't categorize people as ethnically Jewish, it's that we don't currently have a specific enough category doing that in pretty much any listing right now (among basically all of the categories you just reintroduced this problem arises). Wouldn't it be a better idea to fork the categories properly before reintroducing them to BLPs? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I might agree that the fact that people are Jewish is sometimes overly stressed, but usually this is done by sources. Somebody being Jewish is statistically speaking more interesting than being of let's say being of German descent or belonging to the Protestant faith. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The difference is between the categories and the articles. Will expound after looking into it, in a short while. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Further: basically using the categories as they stand runs into issues of WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R/WP:LISTPEOPLE even when we'd be trying to use them properly until they only refer to ethnicity... I suggest categories like "people of Jewish ethnic descent". Thoughts? (I'll also note I have several times been conferring with another admin who I would consider an expert on the religion). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I get us wanting to properly list people's ethnic backgrounds, and even religious (when the latter is part of their notability)... I just want to make sure we're not enabling veiled anti-Semitism on our site by having such broad categories that encompass/confuse both religion and ethnicity (making them prone to being used as loopholes around the very strict requirements at WP:BLPCAT etc). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent doesn't refer to Russian-Jewish. Which link is itself indeed a redirect to History of the Jews in Russia, but on the other hand even a cursory reading of that article will make it clear that it is by far not about a "religious" diaspora only. Moreover, the sentences "The history of the Jews in Russia and areas historically connected with it goes back at least 1,500 years. Jews in Russia have historically constituted a large religious diaspora.", when read carefully, don't actually say that the article is only about a religious diaspora. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to boost my credentials here a bit, I have been actively involved with Jewish descent categories for quit some years, and there have been quit a few discussions there.

It is my opinion, and so far I have not seen other opinions, till now, that he word "descent" implies "ethnic descent". Surely "descent" does not imply "religious descent", as religion is not something that is considered to be hereditary, as opposed to ethnicity, which is per definition hereditary. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope the continuation of this discussion can wait till tomorrow (23:44 PM here). Debresser (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I get that it isn't only a religious diaspora... the problem is that it also covers that while it can be used to describe ethnic origins and as such basing a category off the same type of grouping can run into some big issues (mostly the loophole I described above). Is there a good reason to not fork the categories to specify whether we're referring to ethnic or religious Jews? Wouldn't that entirely prevent the issue of potentially calling someone religiously Jewish when they aren't? As you brought up above there are certainly atheists who are of Jewish ethnic decent... and other religious affiliations as well... surely we wouldn't want to potentially label someone as religiously Jewish when they aren't? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In regards to your last point about descent, I would agree that it could indicate ethnic background, but I feel we aren't aiming specifically enough yet with it. As while you say there isn't such a thing as religious descent, there very much is religious descent in Judaism (for instance if I and my wife were to convert, not having any Jewish ethnicity ourselves... any children we would have after such a conversion would be considered now to be of Jewish religious descent even without any actual ethnic change between my wife and I [neither of us could be considered of Jewish descent regardless of the conversion]). If the entire descent category is being used to only refer to ethnic origins (first it would be good for the category to state that at the top of the category page) can't we simply make some category moves to "people of X Jewish ethnic descent" from the current "people of X Jewish descent"? Is there any good reason not to considering how contentious many of these labelings have been (especially considering the violent targeting that frequently occurs to these people)? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That would be a rather drastic step. Something that should be discussed, probably at WT:JUDAISM, with input from people at WP:CATEGRS. One practical problem being that till a few hundred years ago (varies per region) the two went hand in hand in almost all cases (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. Spinoza). Debresser (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your point regarding your Jewish children (lol) is not correct, as being accepted into the religion means being accepted into the nation, while the opposite, leaving the religion, does not mean leaving the nation. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think you or anyone else gets to decide whether someone considers themselves a part of a nation. If someone wants to leave Judaism I don't believe any policy allows you to tag them as still belonging to it, regardless of your personal beliefs or even "the nation's" beliefs. I don't believe a single policy on this site permits others to decide for them what they believe or what they want to be a part of. I would also warn you not begin your edit warring behavior again (how many times have you been blocked for that now?) by going back through my edits I see you already took upon yourself to do with an entirely unrelated article. I would point out to you this discussion has been made aware to my fellow admins working this serious issue, so do try and keep this professional and do not try and subvert policy with your beliefs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you are wrong here. And let me explain this with another example. I hold dual citizenship. If I decide today that I don't want to be a citizen of The Netherlands any more, that simply won't work. There are papers to fill out to relinquish a citizenship. If I don't fill out those papers, I can give interviews in which I can state that I am not a Dutch citizen any more, and those statements of mine will not make the least difference, as long as the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not agree with me. The same is true about being part of the Jewish nation. If I were to decide that starting today I am not Jewish any more, that would simply not be true. I can decide not to be religious any more, but I can not decide not to be Jewish any more. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please also take into account, that this is not just my point of view. This is simple logic. Your opinion as stated above is not the accepted point of view, not in academics and not on Wikipedia. My edits are based on more than 10 years of editing, including on many Judaism-related articles. As I said before, I really think that you and your colleagues at WP:OTRS should consider my arguments carefully.

If I am reverting your edits, so are you. It takes two to edit war. The fact that you are part of WP:OTRS and talked this over with some colleagues does not mean you are aware of all aspect of the real-world issue, nor does it mean you have consensus on Wikipedia. I say this with all due respect, but I really do think I am knowledgeable regarding this issue both in real life and on-site. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As one of the administrators Coffee is reffering to in this thread, I'll further note the tickets we got were not part of an "anti-Semitic" campaign and your framing them as such is ”not” appropriate. If anything, the mass additions of this description are actually enabling anti-Semitic behavior in the mainspace as it is singling out one type of people who happen to have been disproportionately targeted for their religious beliefs throughout modern history. These additions are in no way protecting or assiting Jewish people (or people who are not Jewish but who people [including yourself] seem to ”think/believe” are), they are adding potential issues of contentious information without proper sourcing (in violation of our very clear policies on this matter). The Jewish religion has complexities to it that other religions don't when dealing with anyone considered to be potentially a member of the ethnic/religious diaspora. As such it must be dealt with precision and proper cateogorization that does not confuse religion and ethnic backgrounds (otherwise it would be impossible to enforce WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE to prevent mislableing of persons' beliefs). I have also noticed that Coffee previously blocked you for Arbitration enforcement violations (specifically edit warring). Combine this with the recent re-addition of a removed BLP vio and re-addition of a removed SYNTH violation that Coffee reverted, and it could reasonably be inferred that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Please be aware that the BLP topic area is also covered under discretionary sanctions, and if you continue to insert violations back into articles you may end up subject to those to prevent disruption. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not "frame" anything as an anti-Semitic campaign. I suggested the possibility. Or how do you understand my words "Perhaps ... ?"

Secondly, that re-addition was a mistake, which I fixed with apologies.

As a last point, I would like to say that I consider your post bullying. The following things are typical bully behavior: 1. Your implication that I might have a conflict of interest. Especially without providing any logical explanation for that implication. 2. If you are referring to Coffee's block, first of all I was not aware of that fact till you mentioned it, nor do I take these kind of things personally. Secondly it was not "recent" but two years ago. And lastly, the implication that this would influence my opinion or on-site behavior is a bad faith assumption, and not worthy. 3. Your mention of discretionary sanctions. 4. The fact that you ignore that this is a discussion, and there exists a possibility that things you talked about before should be reviewed in light of some of my very good remarks above, which I am sure warrant a certain amount of reconsidering the issue.

Please notice that Coffee has been honest enough to admit a mistake and acknowledge that my remarks gave him what to think about. I would advise you to do the same. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, @TheSandDoctor: and perhaps @Coffee: too, how can you be sure those OTRS tickets are not part of some coordinated campaign, anti-Semitic or otherwise? Debresser (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that this is being discussed on WP:ANI as well, and have added my opinion to that discussion. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, I enjoy this discussion (although I hope it will stay clear from personal allegations from now on), and will be delighted to continue it with you and possibly assist actively in resolving the issues you raised here. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, I feel like I'm late to the table, even though it appears this discussion is not yet 48 hours old. I am an OTRS agent (and OTRS admin). I have seen multiple OTRS tickets related to this issue in recent weeks, although I don't think I responded to any of them yet. The issue has been bouncing around in the back of my head, because I don't think anyone will disagree that it is complicated. I'm happy to see a robust discussion, but I'm particularly intrigued about references to a discussion among multiple OTRS agents. Can someone tell me where this is taken place, because I'd like to weigh in. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Coffee_removing_Categories_and_Lists_Inappropriately Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, thanks but I have seen the AN discussion. That's what led me to this page. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I got the impression the reference to a discussion among OTRS agents was somewhere else. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, sorry, can't help then. Coffee has repeatedly said he has had discussions with OTRS members and they all agreed to remove this "contentious" information. Check his talk page for most recent discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, please ask Coffee, as he mentioned an OTRS discussion in both of his first two posts in this section. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mandalorian edits

Your edit summary ⁽¹⁾ was pretty uncool; making OWN accusations doesn't do anything but make collaborative editing more difficult. So don't do that. And if you really feel the need to report me for OWN, I absolutely encourage you to do so. I don't think I am acting in that way, and I am fairly certain that others won't as well, but go ahead and give it a shot.
Please feel free to use the talk page instead of the edit summary to get your point across, because - and I speak from hard-won experience here - you aren't going to accomplish anything by trying to change anyone's mind via edit summary. Any information in an article can be challenged. When challenged, it isn't going to get resolved via edit-warring. Its going to get resolved by people working collaboratively to find a solution that works within our policies and guidelines.
I've initiated discussion on the talk page. Feel free to contribute and defend your edit, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I will do so. :) Don't take it too hard, but I see you have taking it upon yourself to police this article, and that is a WP:OWN issue. In any case, let's start with a talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I prefer to address interpersonal issues in user talk, keeping any drahmah out of the 'workplace.' Yes, I am absolutely devoted to making sure this article - like any other article in Wikipedia - conforms to our policies, and I am a lion when it comes to synthesis; most editors don't even know that they are doing it (at times, I've even missed my own). The guiding principle is this: 'what is obvious to you is not so obvious to someone else.' If we don't get a chance to do so in article talk, have a nice and safe New Year's Eve. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to work alongside such conscientious editors as yourself. I am familiar with WP:SYNTH, although during my over 10 years here on Wikipedia I have found myself opposing those who thought they recognized it more than agreeing with them.

I am Jewish, so my New Year was September 29, but thank you, and the same to you. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then. A belated happy Rosh Hashanah to you, then. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I must insist that you work harder at not attacking me, please. There is not "just one editor" disagreeing with you; there are several, and even if it was just me, doesn't lessen the strength of the points I make. I understand that you are frustrated at my seeming resistance to your viewpoint, but consider that I have relented to not contest the creation of an Analysis section, an offer which might have gotten lost in the crush of posts.
Said section could be populated by info about beskar metal, the Child's connections to Yoda and the speculation by sources that the item seen at the very end of the season closer was the Darksaber. This seems like a more equitable solution where you get what yu want while still keeping our policies and guidelines unmolested. To my way reckoning, "This Is The Way" to proceed. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you. On both accounts.

1. You are the only editor who is on a crusade against this, and you are not being too shabby about it yourself (a fact noticed by other editors as well, see e.g. [20]).
2. I have no problem with an analysis section. But a mention of the fact that the Darksaber notably was used in the last episode should be in the plot summary as well. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So, first you (incorrectly) suggest that I am "the only one" interested in keeping the information out, and then I am "on a crusade"; that is what I am taking about. When you attack the editor and not the edits, you absolutely set yourself up for civility concerns. You need to stop, or risk losing the AGF from those you attack.

As for the proposal, there is no way I am going to support any mention of the Darksaber in the plot summary; there is nothing to support it, except for reviewers spouting out their fangushy speculation. The Analysis section is the only way we maintain our policies while serving the same toxic fan rabble that caused actors to close off their social media. And yeah, I do compare that to the intransigence of certain editors in the discussion - most notably through their seeming inability to find common ground and recognize that you don't have to gut our policies - when offered an alternative to doing so.

Suggesting any mention of the Darksaber is a non-starter with me. The analysis section gives everyone what they want. I certainly hope folk recognize it, because I am certain that if this were to go to arbitration, it is the very best offer the Darksaber fans will get. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "arbitration"? You mean mediation, or Rfc?

By the way, you may disagree all you like. Edits are judged based on merit, not whether you agree with them or not. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and those edits that attack other users are - to be blunt - stupid, counter-productive and factually incorrect. Is that the sort of merit you are seeking? I did not come here to berate you, but to insist that you stop making attacks. If you stop, great. If not, then you just shed any good faith you would otherwise have. And trust me when i say that it sucks to walk into an article and have everyone assume you are a douchebag.

Lastly, when I say arbitration, I mean, every step up to an including ArbCom if necessary. Allowing this info to be added to a plot summary isn't just a slippery slope - its a toboggan ride off a cliff. This just isn't about adding a stupid item to a media article, and anyone who thinks different is wearing blinders. I hope that clarifies my position for you.

I think you are wrong. As far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go, I so no problem. What worries me more, is that you are blowing this up way out of proportion and being far, far too involved in this. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Darksaber

Don't mean to interrupt anything. You have anything to help me out over at the Mandalorian talk page for the Darksaber? It's impossible to talk sense into these guys. Any help would be appreciated. --Bold Clone 19:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If you mean the discussion in the Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out section, continued after an arbitrary break in the Talk:The_Mandalorian#Arbitary_break section, then yes, as you can see I have commented in both. I have no idea what your point of view is on the issue, but I have stated mine there very clearly. Is that what you had in mind? Debresser (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, I'm afraid I don't know how to do that, otherwise I certainly would have done. Regards, Richard75 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Please also see the editnotice on the top of the page when editing my talkpage, that you could have replied on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Did that. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please remove your comment

I would like to ask that you self-revert your comment wherein you suggested that I needed to "calm down". Its rude, unwarranted and suggests that I am not presenting a valid request calmly. A little more good faith would do a lot of good.
Beause I am presuming that you were unaware as to why I made the request, I will connect the dots. At least 5 different editors or varying levels of experience were willing to screw over the riles to add a bit of unsupported fancruft. It took weeks for us to find a solution, and I'd prefer to avoid that same sort of nonsense the next time a few contributors wander by and change the plot summary yet again. They aren't going to read a wall of text to follow the reasoning; having a summary explaining the issue and resolution would go a long way as a preventative measure. I am asking for different points of view as to the issue and resolution so as to combine them into the most neutral response for others.
You don't have to apologize for suggesting that I'm freaking out or whatever, but you should probably remove it anyway, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You are an aggressive editor, and you really should be less dramatic. The only reason there is a compromise on that talkpage, is because you were pushing your incorrect point of view, and editors simply decided it is easier to make a compromise than explain to you that you are wrong. I for one hold that view. And now you think there is something was said in that discussion that is worth condensing and stressing in some special way? Even though three other editors have told you that they disagree with that. I see it happening all over again. I will remove my comment, only because you asked nicely, but you are really ruffing my feathers the wrong way, and I really think you should stop being so dramatic about non-issues. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Template

Hi, Debresser. Thank you for offering to work on this with me. I've copied the old style HTML into Template:Cite organization/sandbox/sandbox2, changing "Work" to "Organization", knowing I have to find a way to un-italicize it. I'm not sure if that's the right start, but I wanted to make a start and have you take a look at it. With much appreciation, --Tenebrae (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Shivas Ha'amim

Hi Debresser. I started to write an article on the Shivas Ha'amim but it was suddenly moved to Draft:Seven Nations (Bible) without giving me time to develop it. Could you help out? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IZAK. Long time no see. Nice to hear from you.  Done Debresser (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Chabad

What if I find citations for eg. academic decription of Habad as "Intellectual Hasidism", which it clearly grew to become, eg with last Rebbe's Sichos?

• The very word Chabad means "The Intellect/Intellectual" Hasidism!!

Also with Breslav: Rabbi Nachman was the opposite pole from Chabad in Hasidism, fighting Medieval Jewish philosophy (unlike Chabad which quotes it extensively)- anti-rational, imaginative, poetic in all his works (eg "song comes from the birds"), especially his unique Wonder Tales April8 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please check recent edits on page "Yetzer hara"

Hi, Reb Dovid. I wanted to call your attention to a recent edit by a contributor who added some "esoteric views" (perhaps not fully understood by our readers) in the Wikipedia article Yetzer hara. Something doesn't feel right in the most-recent edit, and perhaps should be reverted, or else reworded. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone has just undone his edit, so everything now seems good.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

In The Mandalorian, you have chosen to revert three times, and is very clearly edit-warring. Please stop. Likewise yoru reasoning, provided in the edit summaries, is insufficiently knowledgeable regarding edits to protect you should an edit-warring discussion become necessary:

1. "Your revert clearly contradicts the consensus, as wel las relevant policies and guidelines. Please stand down or risk sacntioning" - incorrect. In point of fact, the edit was a new one, and consensus is built from the discussion that ensures, as per WP:BRD. The status quo is maintained until a new consensus is clearly created that changes it.
2. "Tu quoque." - You kinds shot yourself in the foot with that one, buddy. Take it from someone who took both Hebrew and Latin all throughout his education; stick to English, you'll fare better.
3. "1. it is already clear what the consensus will be. 2. That was no status quo. That was a very recent poor compromise, that now finally will be abandoned" - Firstly, you are not a fortune teller, and your wish as to what consensus should be is likely different than what what will actually be. Secondly, I do believe you has severely misapprehended how consensus IS in fact almost always compromise. Your interpretation that it was a "poor" one appears to have been not borne out as it appears to have lasted a number of weeks before the SW uber-fans once again demanded their way.

So, if you choose not to believe me telling you that this is the way it is, you should feel free to ask around (make sure to get some admin input, as they tend to be a little bit above the fray, really). I hope you do, because you are often quite thoughtful in many of your other edits elsewhere.
Anyhoo, that bit about the third revert is just a heads up. Don't revert for a while, because you can still get blocked if you revert three times within 24 hours and make a fourth revert in the 25th. EW is seen in both numerical terms as well as intent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Tell me something I don't know. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay. That little indentation on your face beneath the nose and above your lips? That's called the filtrum. You're welcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That was actually funny. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lithuanian Jews

Of course you're perfectly right about Purim. I'm Jewish and active in my synagogue, and I should've recognized that myself. I'm not sure where I got that error from. Thank you for fixing it.

You evidently didn't read the part of my edit summary concerning "dystonia":

Etymology: Improved wording around "chol hamoed". Simplified link on "dystonia", in accordance with previous simplification of that article's title.

If you had clicked that link, you would have found that the article title is now simply Dystonia. Idiopathic torsion dystonia now redirects to Dystonia.

A mention of "IDF" without explanation anywhere in the article assumes without justification that every reader will be familiar with the abbreviation. I'm going to restore the full name, in parentheses after the initialism and linked to the article.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Casting aspersions/personal attack

I am asking once again for you to retract / delete / strike / template ({{RPA}}) your statement casting aspersions upon me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad at Texas A&M University based upon seeming fabrications. Thank you. StonyBrook (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is there. No need to come to my talkpage for this. Debresser (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters." But whatever. StonyBrook (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I told you what you can do, remove your offensive comment. As soon as you do that, I'll remove mine. So really no need to post here. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. It is fair game and not offensive to point out a fact that you have decided to post on your user page (for whatever reason) in connection with possible bias in a content dispute; if you never wanted this fact to come back and bother you, it is a bit too late now once you have shared it. You should be grateful for attempts to remind you to keep your editing neutral. It is offensive to lie by saying I told you once that I have a problem with Chabad (that conversation never happened) in order to use that as leverage to obfuscate my own position in the above dispute which is clearly policy based. But I have struck my comments. StonyBrook (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I always edit neutral. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am not neutral. :)

I am not "fair game", since Wikipedia is not a battlefield.

I'll go and strike mine, then. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not only did you not strike, you continue to perpetuate the lie.[21] StonyBrook (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary, since you didn't really strike anything, as in removing what you said before, just moderated your choice of words, I did the same. And please..., I would not knowingly lie. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between a knowing and unknowing lie, and/or prove your allegations. StonyBrook (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Please explain the difference between a knowing and unknowing lie" Really?

I am not interested in perusing our history to look for this.

Please do not post here any more. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A word in your shell-like

I don't quite know who you think you are, going around shouting at people, and leaving hostile messages on a talk pages without assuming good faith, but I would suggest that you stop it. A continuation of this type of bullying behaviour will only end badly for you. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As you may notice, the CAPSLOCK key was pressed per accident. In any case, your post here is waaaay out of line. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you shouting, and after that, I noticed an overtly pointy message; so one is to assume that the two went hand in glove. If you say it was an "accident", then so be it, but you've only said this once it's been pointed out to you. Cassianto^Talk 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You didn't notice me shouting. You erroneously thought I was shouting. Will from the fact that the first letter was in lowercase you should have understood that CAPSLOCK was on. Talk about a bad-faith assumption... Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no smoke without fire, and please don't tell me what I did and didn't notice. You went to MarnetteD's page pissed off, remained there pissed off, and left pissed off. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the caps were on...because you were pissed off. I tell you what, here's an idea: when you start offering good faith assumptions, I'll do the same. How's that? Cassianto^Talk 18:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Insolent and pretentious. I was not pissed off, nor am I pissed off now. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add to that, that I only reminded that editor of the fact that he/she used a tool wrongly. I never assumed bad faith, but there does seem to be a competence issue, when an editor does this twice in the span of a few minutes. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You did remind them, yes, and after they thanked you for fixing their mistake, you then went on to shout at them and ordered them "not to use the tool then". You do not get to tell someone not to use something that is accessible to everyone. There was no need for that second post. MarnetteD is someone who should be treated with respect as one of our best editors. You'd do well to keep them on side. Cassianto^Talk 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't need anybody on my side. This is not a battle field... I never saw this editor before, as far as I remember, and the edits were bad edits, made by irresponsibly using a tool. So I told him/her so. No bad feelings, no bad faith. Then you come along, apparently a talkpage stalker, and post a rather insolent warning on my talkpage. Not going to get you far, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Then don't treat it as a battlefield. It's very simple. Cassianto^Talk 18:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You should tell that to yourself, not to me. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• You call someone insolent for presuming you were shouting because you made an error in keeping your Capslock on, but you throw accusations of incompetence because someone erred in something they did? Can you see how that looks staggering arrogant, Debresser? – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally pressing your CAPSLOCK (in an edit summary) is one thing. Adding two incorrect titles (in an article) is another. That mistake could easily have been avoided by looking at the articles themselves, rather than relying on some tool. That is precisely why we are responsible for tool-made edits. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And people can make mistakes. There is no need to bite people's heads off. Cassianto^Talk 18:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's head was bitten off. You seem to take this a lot more serious than the editor in question. Please stop harassing me now. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You should respect the desire of an editor to withdraw a comment they have made before it is replied to. Editors often do this to deescalate a situation. If you agree to do this, I will remove the block myself. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As my action is in dispute, I have reversed it for further discussion. However, I would still encourage you to consider what I've said. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@331dot I am familiar with the idea, that an editor should be able to withdraw a comment which he made as long as nobody acted on it. However, this is my talkpage, and I think I should have more leeway here. In any case, as a compromise, I am willing to restore it with <s>...</s> code, that is, as something that was strikken. I think that should satisfy both sides. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Be kind

...to members of the reFill / Bare URLs team, please. They often provide a support which rapidly moves articles from being disgustingly bad to passable, en route we hope, to GA. No one of us can do everything by themselves, and without the support of reFill volunteers, I would give up editing the worst—because in the worst sourced cases, I know I can strip an article of the bad, down to its URLs, and they can rapidly move it back toward being acceptable. Sure, there remain corrections, and additions. But 80% uniform and checked citations in many articles is a very strong step forward. No, my real issue, now, is that reFill is working much more poorly than in past (technical issues, fields being left out, or filling incorrectly)—and to the contrary, I do not place these issues at the feet of the users of the tool. Like it or not, the skills to use tools versus create/troubleshoot them are two very different sets of skills. My opinions, these. Cheers. [A former professor, and non-logging (but regular) WP editor.] 2601:246:C700:19D:49BF:AECD:6AA6:2E34 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Only now do I understand what you wrote, and why. Of course it is important work, but when using automated tools, the responsibility is on the using editor to check that the tool is doing its job correctly, and in this case I think that was not done. That is negligent, and does not hep the project. Better a bare URL than one with incorrect information. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq

Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not really interested in history. However strange that may be for a Jew. :) Debresser (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Inadequate lead

Template:Inadequate lead has been nominated for merging with Template:Lead too short. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have stated my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Parameter alteration request on Lead too short

Hi. Thanks for making the additions in the plan. Do you mind removing the "#" from the talk parameter on {{Lead too short}}? That's how I had intended to add it in the plan (so that the "relevant" text line only shows up when you add a talk parameter, as it behaves on {{Cleanup}}). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Your recent editing history at The Hunt (2020 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted twice over the last 24 hours. The first of which was not just a revert, but an attempt to find a satisfying solution. You are stonewalling, removing sourced information, ignoring the fact that several editors agreed with my edit, by improving it rather than reverting. You seem to have an unhealthy WP:OWN issue on this article, and will be warned yourself. Also, don't template the regulars. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just stating here for the record, that I proposed dispute resolution.[22] Debresser (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Templating the regulars is justified once the registered editor refuses to heed a warning template (see the essay), and nobody agrees with the changes you put forth, including this. Stop lying to yourself. You insists on adding content that has not been approved by consensus, which is why you keep getting reverted; see WP:BRD. Your accusing me of "owning" the article as well as "stonewalling" you makes me think that you're an amateur who likes reverting the blame on others because you're incapable of owning your mistakes. Very well. You may initiate a dispute resolution discussion if it means stopping you from editing disruptively. Carry on. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you had the same treatment as me. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We have all been there. There just are some situations that you are completely convinced that your position is correct, and that others are being disruptive by editing otherwise. Some editors are easier to talk with than others... Debresser (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Previous AN3 discussion

Hello Debresser. You opened a thread at the WP:DRN. The link you need to the previous AN3 report about Al Maktoum is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive404#User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Debresser (Result: ). This link should be added to your post. I am puzzled that you keep using the word 'convicted' which I assume is not found in the sources. Based on the BBC article, you might be able to use the phrase, 'fact finding judgment'. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your RFC

Hello Debresser. I see you created an RFC; many thanks. However, it seems that your current description at the top of the RfC is not neutral as is required. Would you allow me to rewrite the description? You can move the arguments against the addition to your !vote. --MrClog (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there any objection on your part if I rewrite the description? --MrClog (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, your RfC description is not neutral. You have edited since having been notified of that, so I am assuming that you are unwilling to correct the description so that it meets the requirements of WP:RFCST. I'll now correct the problem myself. --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Next time you make such an edit, make sure you don't forget to add the original wording to the editors opinion, or make a clear note about it in the discussion. This is not acceptable. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't tell me what edits to make. I will not sign posts in your name, nor alter the contents of your already signed posts to do that. Nor am I at your beck-and-call to make notes explaining your position. You could have avoided the problem, had you fixed the mess you made yourself. But you chose not to, so don't winge now that the mess has been fixed by someone else. Did you even read WP:RFCST before launching the RfC? --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I will tell you what edits not to make. You may take an example from User:MrClog here above, who said proposed to "move the arguments against the addition to your !vote". That is what you should have done.

Mess? Calm down, please. And yes, I am familiar with WP:RFCST. I have been on Wikipedia over a decade, and have seen many good edits and many bad edits. I am not saying mine was good, but neither was yours. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You won't tell any other editor what edits they may or may not make. You wilfully ignored User:MrClog's polite request, so it's rather rich trying to defend your stonewalling by pointing to their post here.

Despite your unconvincing claims otherwise, you clearly have no familiarity with WP:RFCST.

WP:RFCST states "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. What did you do? You wrote "It has been ruled by a civil court that the subject of this article has abducted daughters and threatened his wife. The fact that this was a civil court implies implies that the ruling was based on a balance of probabilities (>50%) and not above a reasonable doubt (which is far higher, some say >95%, for example), at least in all countries I am aware of. A certain editor decided that nevertheless the words "on the balance of probabilities" should be added.[23] I have repeatedly undone this, as 1. this sounds apologetic = POV and 2. we do not use this formula on other articles which mention civil rulings. Is the addition needed and wanted, or had it better be left out? Are you really still trying to claim that is brief and neutral?

WP:RFCST states "Sign the statement". What did you do? You didn't sign the statement. You only signed you !vote further on. That meant that your oppose !vote was transcluded into the listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law compounding the non-neutrality of your statement. Take a look at that listing and then try to defend your actions. It wasn't just a mess, it was a complete failure. So much for your being on Wikipedia for a decade.

Which part of "I will not sign posts in your name, nor alter the contents of your already signed posts to do that" didn't you understand? There was absolutely nothing wrong with my edit fixing your mess, and I strongly resent your implications otherwise. I reserve the right to repair any damage done to the encyclopedia by you at any time, and I reject your demand that I have to do it in a way that pleases you. If you have any further criticism of my action, I'll be pleased to defend it at WP:ANI. Your call. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I understand you well. I just think that was a bad edit, not to mention uncivil. But then again, I now see that being civil isn't your strong side. Be well, Debresser (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

An IP address 217.150.87.242 is proposing speedy deletions for several bios. I was wondering if you could take a look. I am very cautious with Jewish bios right now since they are watching me and I really do not know what the proper standard is (as all the admins seem to have different standards). The bios are Maurice Kremer, Milton H. Biow, Joy Silverman, Floria Lasky. I think they are all notable.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say two are notable, two less so. Have put them on my watchlist. Thanks for the info. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battir; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I don't want to remind you to subscribe to WP:BRD. Changes of longstanding wording needs to be discussed first in the talk page. No consensus for your change. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I really needed this templated warning. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, please. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: ). Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you like to frequent admin forums. I also noticed you like to remove inforamtion that is negative about Islam. Sounds like a huge POV to me. Have reverted 3 of them, and let's see where this goes. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Battir

Can you point out to me the consensus at Talk:Battir for your latest revert? Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

[24],[25], and me. Not to mention that it is now a sourced edit, and the discussion took place mostly before the source was added. Plus the editors supporting this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#RFC:_West_Bank_village_articles. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'm going to keep an eye on this. By the way, please quit with the edit summaries like the one in that revert. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I know. But Nishidani is indeed a disruptive editor. I say that based on years of interaction. I was perhaps a bit too emotional about this, because I saw the tendentious insistence of a clique of editors (I know them for years) without serious arguments. And in this case, I am sure the edit I am pushing is a good one. Sometimes, I am wrong, and I admit it, but not in this case. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, take a look at the comments here: Talk:Hebron#Demographics Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is Nishidani making his usual personal attacks and putting down people to squash all resistance to his opinions. I reported this nehavior several times at WP:AE and was banned from that forum for pointing out his disruptive behavior. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You are in your rights to revert this since you asked me not to comment on your page. But virtually every time my name has been raised by you over the past two years, you add the epithet 'disruptive'. You are entitled to believe that. My record, even in these articles, shows most of my editing is focused on scholarly improvements, and my use of reverting is, compared to most editors in this area, exiguous. It is, in short, an NPA violation to use the sanctuary of your own page to repeat a viewpoint about what I do here that, unless I am not mistaken, is not widely shared. So please desist (and of course, now notified, exercise your right to revert my counsel.)Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I indeed repeat my demand you refrain from posting on my talkpage. If you think I misuse my talkpage to attack you, feel free to raise that point at the appropriate places.

You may well believe that you add a scholarly point of view, however I have noticed that that point of view invariably coincides with your POV and in addition, that you convey your posiiton in talkpage conversations by using a very unpleasant tone of superiority, including explicitly stressing other editors' inferiority. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, there is no point in pointing it out. Someone did an analysis of AE actions for political issues (right wing/left wing, anti-Trump/pro-Trump, etc.) and found similar scenario. We can point out that several of the comments in that threat violated NPA, one even from Zero were not that great, but nothing will get done about it. The Wordsmith years ago warned "final warning" to Nishidani but I guess final warnings for civility doesn't mean anything any more. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Wordsmith years ago warned "final warning" to Nishidani" I said the same at WP:AE, but as a result they banned me from opening complaints there. Wihout even letting other admins express their opinion: just came by and decided. Such admins should be desyssoped! Debresser (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. ... Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Looks to me that there are a few hostages to fortune here.     ←   ZScarpia   12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I can substantiate everything. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that any admin looking at the comments will be more interested in how disruptive they are than how true.     ←   ZScarpia   19:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia,

"What's your point, attempting to be silly or flashing an unfamiliarity with the PEF?"

"I'm interested in intelligent discussion by competent editors on problematical issues. There are several here. This is a work place, not an internet pastime for mucking about."

These are not CIVIL comments and are what he was warned about many times.

Granted, no admin is going to sanction him, and trying to explain to admin that these comments are in violation, will just get labeled WIKILAWYERING, the worst sin imaginable on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia "My guess is that any admin looking at the comments will be more interested in how disruptive they are than how true." Unfortunately I am afraid you may be right. Not that these comments are really disruptive here, since this is after all my talkpage and it is not as though I am interspersing my comments in some article talkpage or noticebooard discussion with them. And the really paradoxical thing will be that I am pretty sure that Nishidani's disruptive edits, which I are linked above, will not be of interest to them. Unfair as that may be. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)