This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Regarding your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=553061965&oldid=552963784
This was already discussed at length here:
Fladriff already concluded that it's reliable. If you have a problem, raise it on that page. Thanks. Yonoson3 ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.
There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".
Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 ( talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Ashkenazi Jews". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halakha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Debresser. I'm writing this message to you because of your reverts on my edits about the category "Russian Jews" in the article about Serge Gainsbourg. The main problem that appears in this case is the understanding of the whole concept beyond the Russian Jews. Unlike many other ethnic groups or nationalities that are purely based on the region where the person was born or his or her predecessors historically lived, the "Russian Jews" represent an ethnolinguistic group of Jews with Russian being their native language. You can check the article about the Russian Jews to note that this includes not only the Jews that live in what nowadays is called Russia, but as well Jews that use Russian as their native language regardless of the territory of their residence. It mostly refers to the Jews from the territory of the Russian Empire, but in recent times many other Jews that populate many other parts of the world. One may say that it is so simple and you can refer to the Jews from Ukraine as "Ukrainian Jews" or to the Jews from Belarus as "Belarusian Jews", but these two designations broke the concept of the Russian Jews and tend to follow most of the other definitions about the ethnic groups, such as those about the English people, the Dutch people, or the French people. But even if we agree on the usage of "Ukrainian Jews" or "Belarusian Jews", then it doesn't restrict the usage of "Russian Jews" simply because the Jews that inhabit or descend from the territories that are now parts of Belarus or Ukraine use or used Russian as their native language. Similarly, Serge Gainsbourg is a Russian Jew from a territory that is now part of Ukraine because the language that was used in his family was Russian and the territory was once part of the Russian Empire. There are many other Russian Jews that have no association with Russia, such as Vilna Gaon, Léon Bakst or Isaac Levitan. Finally, the people are called "Russian Jews" because of the language and their historical homeland, not because of Russia today. Best regards.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Some time ago, Rich Farmbrough moved EngvarB to {{ Use British English}}. I didn't object to it at the time as it seemed eminently sensible. However, as I broadened coverage of the script action, I have been experiencing increasing frequency of complaints such as this and this from 'nationalists' (used advisedly) because the tagging does not conform to their code of English. I'd like to have this template move reverted, but before I start the process, I'd like you advice as to how I might execute a potential merger of these templates (except Canadian and American), and what other factors I may need to consider. As I wrote the script offering only ' vanilla' British English and have no intention of creating more variants to cater for the different codes, it would be ideal if I could bring all these tagged articles back to a single repository, but with different tags tolerated, so they can be maintained centrally. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:
"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ( [1]).
Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 ( talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just wondering why you reverted the changes to this page, because you didn't leave an edit summary. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=La_Femme_Nikita&oldid=556797040 removed a closing <noiwiki>"</ref>"</nowiki> tag, which I repaired and then got a less than well considered message on my talk page, because in other edits you seem to have refactored content in the article.
I'd like an explnation, as I don't appreciate getting messages of concern or telling me to read policies, when the relevant contribution in question was neither iniated or performed by myself.
Closing a reference tag, should not be controversial.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Nikita needs work. Comments inside text started before Talk page post, before problems added up to major, for editors who do not check Talk. Like you? That was the first time I tried inline comments, after seeing warnings in movie article where differences in endings and more in DVD extended versions had obviously caused contention, so inline comments prevented future trouble. Your massive "undo" was NOT helpful.
Please be constructive, not destructive. Fix a problem or leave for someone else. Removing comments and sources that can help other editors, does not remove a problem or the need for sources.
Wiki Policies and Guidelines are helpful, to refer, and remember. After another kind, helpful, senior editor gave link, I have word count tools and wiki style, format, and guidelines all bookmarked. Quotes and source follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
"Instead of deleting text, consider:" a long list including
AnEyeSpy ( talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Debresser. Just a quick note to let you know I agree with your reversion of my reversion over at Rape by gender. Mine was really just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the removal of content which had 3 pretty serious-looking references, but as you rightly point out, not relevant. Regards, -- Technopat ( talk) 00:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I added a brief section to the historicity of Esther, specifically regarding historical evaluation of Esther in light of Herodotus. The article which I cited questions the historical validity of Herodotus'work. This is relevant to the historicity of Esther because Herodotus' writings offer some conflicts with what is recorded in Esther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elantz73 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you made this change?
Also, how was "(Minor.)" as an edit summary supposed to convey this information to other editors?
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
(removed link)
" would have made a more straightforward/honest/informative edit summary. Perhaps "(removed in-line external link)
" if one wanted to get technical/precise about it.Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramadan (calendar month), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Why did you undo my edits in Template:Examples, Template:Elucidate and Template:Ambiguous? Did the cause any problem? By the way, please also provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field in the future, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. — Kri ( talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I repeat Kri's request above: Please provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. When I undid your revision, I provided my reason: To match source. So please explain why you disagree. I'm also not so sure about this capitalization business, which is why I recommend following the source. In an article about a doctor, for instance, would you also capitalize the Doctor each time he's mentioned? -- -- -- 21:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I take your point (mostly) re Rosh Hashanah and Reform Judaism. It turns out not to be particular to North American Reform, but goes back to the early founders of Reform in Germany in the 1840s. On the other hand, the article does not discuss this issue explicitly with respect to any other holiday; instead, it covers it briefly in the section on Yom Tov Sheni. So my solution is to add two sources that cover the whole issue, to address the whole matter in the Yom Tov Sheni section, and to leave it out of the Rosh Hashanah section entirely.
I did need to edit out half of a reference that you left in the Rosh Hashanah section. None of us are perfect, of course. But I mention this because I thought your edit summary about "as usual, spacing and punctuation" was a little snarky. We've worked well here over time, and I didn't see a need for that. And forgive me for learning as a schoolchild that commas and periods always go inside quotes, and that periods get two spaces after them. MoS deprecates the first and is indifferent to the second, but you didn't need to be snarky about it.
I was thinking of putting this up for GA. Do you think it is missing any important content?
Will look further after 9 Av. Debresser ( talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks on both matters. Have an meaningful, but not-too-difficult, fast. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding [2], do you have a secondary reliable source to support this? I would venture that any secondary RS, even Catholic research into their Jewish heritage, better comports with WP:RS than the raw text of the Torah in English literal translation, which remains a primary source. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not going to reply to the last post of this editor on the talkpage of 613 commandments. Not because I agree with him, but because I hope he will see that he is not correct. Unless he'd pursue his line of reasoning and make an edit accordingly. Debresser ( talk) 09:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
My arguments? 1. practice is always as I stated, that the sources are not accompanied by publisher and date of publication. 2. the dispute involves some Christian source, which sources are themselves unclear, by the way, and Christian sources are irrelevant concerning the meaning of commandments in Judaism. Debresser ( talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Debresser, a bot pulled the RfC template. So I went ahead and archived the discussion as "closed without prejudice" along the lines of the discussion near the end. Keep me posted if you hear anything. StevenJ81 ( talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm DavidLeighEllis. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:613 commandments that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Debresser, because what happened there on May 8 1943 is often called Masada of Warsaw [5] or second Masada Boston9 ( talk) 08:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Under the heading "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors" the policy quoted by User:Sean.hoyland states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule". Which means that his removing it was in accordance with the rules. But the policy also says that removing such edits is not mandatory, so if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it. But not in the form of a revert with an edit summary that is factually incorrect. Thomas.W talk to me 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding " That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit". Well, it's not really your edit is it, so I can't really consider it as such. It's the edit of a blocked (on both Spanish and English Wikipedia) racist ultranationalist who compulsively lies and unethically exploits a charity for ethno-nationalist reasons through extensive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. My concern is block/ban enforcement in ARBPIA, not the nature of the edits by people who are not allowed to edit. Blocks and bans have to be enforced and someone has to enforce them. If they can't be enforced there's really no point imposing them.
Here, by the way, are some quotes from the real world by the person whose block evasion you are, in my view, facilitating and encouraging by restoring their edit whether or not that is your intent. You can google him.
If you have any ideas how you can help make policy enforcement in ARBPIA more effective so that people evading their blocks can't profit from their lack of ethics and are not encouraged to continue evading their blocks by other editors, let me know. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You might like to replace http://www.zionism-israel.com by a reliable source. That one fails WP:RS rather obviously. Zero talk 02:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree about that that gallery did not add anything to the article. On the cortrary. Beside that it was a lot of work getting it together, it did gave a pretty good picture of the Mikveh in the past and now. I was attending a lecture about this subject at the university, and I have to say it was rather difficult for all of uss to picture how this mikveh lokked like. We asked a lot of quistions about it, and since I am not Jewis was still wandering how these places looked like, and what kind of mood they had an so on. I found ,loooking for these pictures that they seem to be secret places, dark and privat, and charming. Also shows the water to cover the entire body of capite ad calcem, the whole thing is fascinating and very interesting. I really would like to see more pictures in that article, just to be able to collect a general impression of it. Hafspajen ( talk) 20:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My changes were discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_12#Template:Missing. It was sitting in the holding cell for 2 months, so I decided to get started on it. Also, what was wrong with my error handling? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chabad Chasidim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad Chasidim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah ( talk) 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rebbes of Chabad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebbes of Chabad until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah ( talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone moved this page to Ohel Chabad Lubavitch and, in the first paragraph, linked Chabad as "Chabad Lubavitch". I tried to fix the new title by putting Chabad-Lubavitch in parentheses and hyphenating it, but now I'm wondering what's going on here. The main Chabad page has not been changed, nor have I seen any renaming discussions about changing "Chabad" to "Chabad Lubavitch". Best, Yoninah ( talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
ראיתי ששחזרת את העריכה שלי. חפשתי בדף שלך, ולא להפתעתי גיליתי שאתה חב"דניק. מכיון שלא רציתי לפתוח את זה בהערות על הערך, וכמו כן אני מעדיף להמנע ממלחמת עריכות בלתי פוסקת, אני כותב את זה כאן (כאמור, הסתכלתי בדף שלך וראיתי שאנחנו אמורים להסתדר די טוב עם דיון בעברית. לנהל אותו באנגלית יהיה קצת קשה, לפחות לי. עמך הסליחה). ברור לכל לומד מסכת סוכה או הלכות סוכה, כי בסוכה ישנן שתי מצוות - לאכול ולישון. מה שחב"דניקים עושים (או לא) בסוכה, זהו עניינם הפרטי, וייתכן שהוא ראוי לאזכור בגוף הערך. אתה מוזמן לערוך אותו באוות נפשך (גם מזה אני לא אהיה מרוצה, מן הסתם, אבל אין מה לעשות, ויקיפדיה לא שייכת לי). אני חושב שהגיוני להסכים שבחלק הראשי על הערך נרשום מה שמופיע בשו"ע, ושינויים אלו או אחרים מכך, לטב או למוטב, נציין בגוף הערך. מה דעתך? (בבקשה בבקשה בבקשה תוכיח לי שאתה שונה ממה שאני חושב על החב"דניקים.) חג שמח! איל דימנט ( talk) 08:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Bar Kokhba revolt, please keep in mind that it's 2000 years old event while genocide is 20th century coined term for describing systematic destruction of groups driven by modern ideologies. There was no any Roman ideology for such systematic destruction, only an armed conflict in which Jews were shamefully defeated. No any difference between Roman campaigns in Gaul, Carthage and many other places, or hundreds of campaigns by other great powers. Such events may be described as massacres or ethnic cleansing, but surely not as "genocide". Describing Jewish ancient defeats as genocides is childish and unencyclopedic, and most important of all - not supported by reliable sources. Provided source is not strong enough, neither are tens in which you can find terms like "Palestinian genocide". Some sources desribe invasions by Gengis or Timur (millions killed just in Iran) also as "genocidal", but categorizing those articles under genocides still would be WP:FRINGE. So please don't take it very personal, baseless accusing really isn't necessary here. -- HistorNE ( talk) 23:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed the back and forth editing were having on Chabad. I've taken up your suggestion to move rather than delete a subsection. But due to the fact I'm using a mobile phone I had to break up the edits into two. Now that I've moved the section, I will delete the earlier one (as it makes more sense to place political statements by Schneerson in the activities section rather than philosophy). Do you have any objections to the move? I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Debresser, you've reversed my deletion of the link to the Russian language because his birth certificate must have been in Russian. I object to this reversal for two reasons:
1. The phrasing is faulty because it is misleading, it gives an impression that he was Russian, but we both know that he was not Russian and he did not know the Russian language. He could not even read his birth certificate, and the placement/phrasing of the misleading link conducts the idea that it refers to Asimov, not to his unattested but supposedly existing birth certificate.
2. The practice in 1900s Russia was that all records were denominational till Stalin replaced religious registration with a national system of registry, long after Asimovs left Russia. In all probability, Isaak' birth was registered in Yiddish in Hebrew alphabet, and any certificate, if any, was also in Yiddish in Hebrew script, and all records were destroyed with all their inventory in the campaign of confiscation and destruction of the churches. The Azimovs lived in the Pale of Settlement that was dissolved only in 1905, it was not incorporated into the Russian state until Stalin instituted new apparatus.
If you want to maintain a note that Asimovs' supposed birth certificate was supposedly written in Russian, you should find another way to note it, accurately stating what you want to state that that is a Cyrillic spelling of his name. Please find a way to make it more to the point. The link to the Russian language is surely out of place in the introduction section that describes Isaac Asimov, not the peculiarity of his envisaged birth certificate. Barefact ( talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what your intention was when you put the tag {{empty}} in the page User:Debresser/EditCounterOptIn.js, but what that tag does is request speedy deletion of an article because it has no content. My guess is that was not what you intended, and in any case the tag should go only in an article, not a user space page. I have removed the tag to stop the page from showing up in the list that alerts administrators to pages nominated for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Debresser,
I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you personally. I was not, however, I felt that your ideas about "unacceptability" of the certain sources were based primarily, if not entirely, on your original research and personal experiences. You keep mentioning an aspect that I believe is irrelevant, so I have not addressed. Because it continues to be brought up, I will explain it here.
You say: "If anything, that and the fact that the last foreign country occupying Israel was England, are the two obvious reasons that English is so popular in Israel (no more popular than in any other country in Europe)."
First, note that the source at hand (the one you do not accept) does not dispute this view. It says, "This priority given to English is related to the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and the current status of English as a lingua franca for Jews worldwide." [6] Related to does not mean "exclusively related to," as your previous comments suggested. In other words, these could be two of several reasons. In addition, your personal disagreement with this fact, for better or worse, does not negate the reliability of the source.
Second, note that the use and priority of English in Israel has strengthened since the mandatory period. This is, indeed, in part—again, not exclusively—due to the need to communicate with Jews around the world. (See [7], collecting several reasons for the prevalence in English in Israel, among them: "the fact that the most active Jewish community outside Israel is English-speaking . . . strengthened the demand for English and the possibility of using it.") Thus, this source also repeats that one of the reasons for the priority of English in Israeli education was due to the need to communicate with the Jewish diaspora. There should be no issue with this
However, I emphasize that this fact was not the matter of dispute. Our matter of dispute was not over the reasons that English enjoys priority in Israel (which, we can see, is due to a variety of factors). Our dispute was over the source stating "the current status of English as a lingua franca for Jews worldwide." Whether or not you agree that this fact is related to (not necessarily the exclusive or primary reason as you suggest the source contended) is not relevant to our discussion about the reliability of sources. -- Precision123 ( talk) 22:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification about your edits of Chabad offshoots. What strikes me is that your setup/writing style of the smaller branches (Liadi, Niezhin etc.) would have to be re-written somewhat as soon as someone finds additional information about the group. I'm guessing you had in mind that these dynasty pages are just stubs, so the more summarized the better, but it should be restructured if new information comes up.
On another note, I was wondering what your take is on whether or not these groups are "branches/offshoots of Chabad" or whether, to be as neutral as possible, all groups (Chabad-Lubavitch included) are branches of Chabad as founded by Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Currently, the articles reflect the Chabad-Lubavitch narrative of Chabad history. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 15:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please change {{administrator|cat=no}}
on
User:Bahamut0013 to {{Administrator topicon|nocat=yes}}
, because a recent edit of mine to that template has changed the parameter use.
Debresser (
talk) 06:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This got approved GA, then tagged for reassessment. You might be interested: Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2. StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I imagine whatever you are doing, you started with autism because of alphabetical order, but it is unhelpful to find an edit that makes no useful change, done with no edit summary, that causes editors who have the article watchlisted to have to click to find out what the edit was, and in this case, no reason given for the edit that makes no useful change. If you start doing this to every FA, some editors (like me) are going to see their watchlists go off and not even know why. So whatever it is you are doing, it would be helpful if you a) went to WT:FAC and let the FA community know the whys and wherefores, and b) used an edit summary, so that c) when our watchlists go off, we'll know why and not have to click to check the edit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Allrighty then, we will try again.
Help:Edit summary explains why and how we use edit summaries; specifically, they help other editors understand the intent of the edit, review the history of the article, and decide whether to click on the edit to doublecheck or review it. The template that we use for editors who don't use edit summaries is:
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
Now, still not knowing why you would make such a trivial and unnecessary change to an article, but assuming that maybe you started at "A" and intend to do it to all FAs, I suggested that you would want to a) use an edit summary, and b) explain to the FA community why you are going to make their watchlists go bonkers. There are many editors who have dozens, scores or hundreds of FAs watchlisted, and seeing a nonsensical edit with no edit summary -- that takes their time to investigate -- is Not A Good Thing. Now, why you were there to make a "null edit" or why you think a null edit doesn't need an edit summary (they need them even more, since editors don't know why they are made) are other issues, but I hope this is now clearer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You reverted me here, commenting "not needed". I'm puzzled. Are there similar templates for those other uses that I'm unaware of, or is there some other reasoning at play? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see my response to your revert on Chabad talk page. My edit took your note into account. Let me know if there's anything further to discuss (and please undo your revert). Thanks in advance. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 18:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please replace the incorrect protected page template at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea. That page is not semi protected but fully. I'd have put the request on the talkpage, but I see it was deleted twice already. Debresser ( talk) 02:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags around the protection template on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea to avoid an error category on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 23.
Debresser (
talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo ( talk) 07:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noted your objection at Template:Reviewer topicon/doc. Could you please comment at Template_talk:Documentation#Avoid_categorizing_template_sandboxes ? Thanks, Cenarium ( talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing the article Adult bar and bat mitzvah from the Template:Jewish life? Xyz7890 ( talk) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As I've seen you participate in discussion at WP:Judaism in the past, please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:European people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As per your comment, I've modified my Kabbalah edit in Chabad. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 04:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I will appreciate it to see your notes concerning my remarks in the Arab Israeli 1948 war talk page.
I am an Israeli, but try to be objective. I am the only Israeli regular editor in this articles, and the other editors reactions are mostly negative , as expected. It is much better to hear your opinion as well. If you are not too busy, will it be possible for you to comment in the talk page.
thanks Ykantor ( talk) 18:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just when I thought there was a consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism that Jews were not, by default, Asian, there is a user of a different opinion who is reverting my edits removing these categories. I responded to him on the WP:JUDAISM talk page but it's clear he's going to plunge straight ahead. I don't want to get into an edit war. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted a recent portion of my update to this article claiming that the Talmud does not say that masturbation is not prohibited. How do you understand then Rab's statement in Niddah 13 where he says that "why is it not forbidden?" "because he merely incites the evil inclination upon himself"
Doesn't this mean that it is not prohibited? Rab literally says that. -- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 03:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
-- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 02:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Я прочитал Ваш ответ и полагаю, что я вправе восстановить мою версию в Catherine Asaro. У Вас ведь больше нет вопросов и претензий? И данное исправление не будет считаться "войной правок"? С уважением,-- Пробегающий ( talk) 07:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
In making this change to the {{ Proposed deletion endorsed}} template, you may have left some broken formatting.
The cat parameter of the underlying {{ Ambox}} template is supposed to take an unlinked category name, not the linked category. I.e.
cat = Endorsed proposed deletions
not
cat = [[Category:Endorsed proposed deletions]]
The latter version leaves an odd "[[Category:]]" string on the page. (See this version of Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud for an example.)
I would just fix the issue myself, but I'm not so much an expert on template editing that I'm hesitant to touch one that has such wide usage. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If you check WP:RFA2011 you'll see that it redirects to Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued) which is a multi-page project and is still active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the ref is defined on Filton Abbey Wood railway station, which is in principle the only place these templates will ever be called. - mattbuck ( Talk) 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please blank the page User:Freshh/vector.js. It was edited only once, with an edit that obviously causes a template loop, and has no use in its present for. It causes the page to appear in Category:Template loop warnings, which I have been emptying, successfully so far. Debresser ( talk) 05:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For your recent edit to Category:Jews. Please don't reprimand me for doing something (which I admit that I shouldn't have done, but I felt removing some of those categories went too far), and then go and do it yourself.
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Evildoer187 ( talk) 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what sect of Judaism you think I come from, but I happen to be chareidi jew not aligned with any political party or school of thought relevant to Rav Shach. My only problem was when I came to the article I saw that in the synopsis of the subjects biography, it is mentioned that he was a zealot etc. and other controversial things. I hold that that is not in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), and the article was written with bias interests. Once I did that edit, I added in honorifics. I held these do not conflict with any policy as such, but if they do I do not care for their ommission. (please refer me where this rule is in the guidelines). I just hold that the conflict of interest policy must be upheld, even if you are a chabad hassid, wikipedias standards must be kept. P.S. This is not my first time editing Wikipedia, just the I.P. address is new. P.S.S. Thank you very much for all your valuable work you have given wikipedia, it is over here that it seems you have some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.178.89 ( talk) 11:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you didn't get my point. I was trying to say that the initial synopsis is quite biased, calling him a zealot etc this is an opinionated position of the person, brought from an opinionated source. And you know this. And there is no denying this. You can carry on leaving a biased opinion on there, all it does it shows how much you care for wikipedia's quality, and all you care is for your own political agenda. It also may reflect on some of the other 60,000 edits that you have made, maybe they are also expounding your ideals and opinions? Besides for the above, what I did with honorifics is not in conflict with the article you brought at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.178.89 ( talk) 13:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Answered in the diff. I don't understand why there should be so much reverts about an unsourced sentence.-- Phso2 ( talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What "legitimate tags" are you talking about? Not even one of the tags was legitimate. First of all, the brick at the top of the page makes no sense at all. The article isn't very technical at all; it's perfectly straightforward in its style of expression. If the Judaic references are a bit beyond you, there are links. I read the article and had no trouble with it, even though my background is not Jewish. I notice that English is not your first language. It could be that your less-than-native fluency (you rank yourself level-3 in English, I notice) makes a text on this subject seem a bit muddy to you. I sometimes have the same trouble with a text not written in my language. Nevertheless, this article is clear and is in no way "too technical". I've seen much more technical articles -- in English -- that nobody has ever complained about (often on mathematical topics). As for your two "who?" tags, they were just thoroughly ignorant. In answer to your first "who?": Click on the link -- have a look; that name is linked -- and you'll find out who they are. In answer to your second "who?": Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal on Joshua 24:33 -- That's right in the article, at the end of the commentary that you flagged. Read on and find it. To me, these lapses suggest a problem with reading comprehension. That's quite common when the text isn't in the reader's mother tongue. There's one other thing: you reverted some textual corrections along with your restoration of the illegitimate tags. Please do not do such things. I notice that another user has also complained about you doing that. Kelisi ( talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
"Warn" me all you like! My edits are in good faith, and I think I have every reason to believe what I said just above. You are not helping Wikipedia by doing this. You are marring it. Just cut it out. Kelisi ( talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Infobox Australia state or territory/testcases. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As an experienced editor you should know better than to edit disruptively AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Smash!
You've been
squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
On
User talk:Lovelight please replace {{RFM-Request|September 11, 2001 Attacks}}
by {{subst:User:MediationBot/Opened message|case=September 11, 2001 Attacks}}
. This will remove the usertalkpage from
Category:Pages using deprecated templates, and is part of the deprecation process for
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote.
Debresser (
talk) 03:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello i see that you are a Rabbi and if you would be so kind i would like your opinion on a passage i remember reading in the Talmud where Eve complained to Adam about the mode of their intercourse so Adam left her for Lilith who did not complain about Adams needs, i believe this signifies that Adam preferred anal sex, this is my interpretation and i may be wrong but can you please give me further clarification as to the meaning of this passage.-- Sleeveman ( talk) 07:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Re my revert of your edits to the Jewish Encyclopaedia templates, please see Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Code question 2 -- PBS ( talk) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
I've done some cleanup on
Category:Pages with misplaced templates, and the 4 .js pages are basically the only thing left in this error category (I am working on
Template:Merge sections). When I had a look at them, I didn't notice the category at the bottom of the page, so maybe a null-edit (opening the edit window of those 4 pages and saving without making any changes and no edit summary) will fix the error message. Would you be willing to try this for me?
Debresser (
talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:PBS (Result: ) -- PBS ( talk) 19:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The SIU seal is for the SIU System and for SIU Carbondale, and the new SIUE seal is totally inappropriate for both. The new seal needs a new file page. I tried to revert the seal to the actual SIU seal, but it would not revert, so I have requested administrators' assistance. GWFrog ( talk) 18:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent changes appear to have broken the output when the format {{Deprecated template|Old|New|parameter}} is used. See the template documentation under "Additional" at Template:Deprecated template, or see Template:Basketball-reference for an actual example; a link to the new template is no longer provided after your changes.— Bagumba ( talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I closed this discussion, so it would be great if you could merge the two. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted this edit of yours because I noticed a bug appearing on transcluded pages and thought your edit may have caused it:
You may (or may not) wish to troubleshoot this in order to keep your last edit, not sure how important it was. Thought I'd let you know in case you disabled reversion notifications. meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Continued from Template talk:Relevance-inline. Recommend using hidden categories to test templates in the future. -- Brianhe ( talk) 23:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is probably still some cleanup to do ( Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Wikipedia deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Notifies you to update your comments on Template talk:NPOV#Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. since the debate continues. -- 14.198.220.253 ( talk) 15:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Debresser. I have closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Template:Obsolete_template as "merge". Since you wrote "if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself", perhaps you would now like to perform the merge. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert my on the article Talpiot Tomb? As you can see at the article you linked to, East Talpiot is in East Jerusalem. In what way is that in Israel? -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 17:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Your revert my edit on Jabel Mukaber makes no sense at all. It was an improvement with the exception of that I by mistake removed "r" of the name when I removed bold and a comma from the sentence. If you look at the edit, I removed space where it was unnecessary and updated the links. It was an improvement. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Debresser! Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Month abbreviations would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I'm not miffed at your reversion whatsoever... in fact, I rather expected it! And that's not meant to be a snide remark... I just wanted the diffs so we could examine what the text would look like as I try to articulate the concept. I'll get a talk thread started in the near term. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to know why did you remove the nomination from Labor Day (film)? I provided the reliable sources with it? Is it not worthy to be included in an article?-- Jockzain ( talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
See my reply to your comment on my talk page. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know that due to the size of the category, I have relisted the CfD for this category on today's page. Splash - tk 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy anointing oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calamus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
From what I can gather most of the most expert authorities these days favour the lemongrass theory, which was also espoused by Maimonides, so I think there is a real debate, leaving aside the ridiculous cannabis palaver. Also, since there is now a whole section on the debate, it just seems wrong to be directing readers who have only read the first few paragraphs to the "right" answer as determined by Wikipedia editors, not by the experts. I understand that you may have a worry about pointing readers towards a section that includes the cannabis theory, bit I don't see any way out of that. Paul B ( talk) 16:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This is in regards to the above mentioned article. I do not intend to enter into an edit war over the matter, but I'm afraid that this article's lead is lacking in relevant information. The lead can be greatly improved which is why I added the template. But you stated rather matter of factly that I am not to compare this article's lead to other articles, and that it is perfect for this kind of article. So tell me how is it perfect? And why should it be treated any differently to other articles? It shouldn't. The point of editing is to improve the articles standard and this one can still be greatly improved, and you can't really argue against that. I suggest that you discuss the matter on the talk page before you remove the template again, and explain your reasons for why you believe it to be "perfect" for "this article". I understand that it may not be a massive blockbuster and so won't be as big as others, but the intro can still do with some improvement. And remember that you have already reverted the edits I made twice with a reason that doesn't hold up. If you do it again you will be in violation of the 3 Reverse Rule and you may be blocked by an administrative editor. Thanks. And if you have any questions feel free to leave a message. - Over Hill and Under Hill ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 09 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering what the issue is with adding this section. Why doesn't it show up? Also, why did you move it? It is sourced and relevant. People should be able to use it and be part of this article. -- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 17:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. According to Wiktionary, "cannot" seems to be more common, however. Graham 87 03:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Debresser,
I apologize for not following the correct procedure regarding this article. I don't have much experience editing Wikipedia in the past, so I did not realize how the talk page works. I actually did not realize there was a talk page. I did not mean to be disrespectful, undoing your work. I though the only availability for comments was in the short paragraph next to the actual edit.
Thanks for letting me know how the proper mechanism for editing works, 129.67.199.152 ( talk) 12:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, I got into mini-edit wars (1R) with two users over whether to apply the People of Southwest Asian descent categories to several Jewish descent categories (for example, Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent). I was told I was arguing against consensus but I thought the problem at WP Judaism was that there was no consensus (although I thought there was a majority leaning towards not identifying every person who is "of Jewish descent" as being Asian).
I've reread portions of that long, long discussion and I still don't see a definite consensus and I just wanted to check in with you because you were a participant in that discussion. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Think before you revert. I made a large number of edits unrelated to the removing the superfluous month from the date parameter. Or to you think replacing "hacking" with protein engineering is removing useful information? I am trying to build an encyclopedia by improving content. I am not sure what you purpose is. Please revert your revert. Thank you. Boghog ( talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this that you undid was to remove several unused parameters and to use consistent citation formatting through out the article. This is consistent with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog ( talk) 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this which you also undid was to integrate this section of the article with the rest of Wikipedia by providing Wiki links. Boghog ( talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Per this discussion, the {{ PBB Controls}} template is no longer used (and in fact was never used) by User:ProteinBoxBot. The Bot maintainer has therefore recommended that these templates be removed entirely. That was the rationale for this . Boghog ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this that you also undid was to provide proper in-line citations. The purpose of this was to provide a more logical ordering of sections consistent with WP:MCBMOS. Boghog ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
See my revert. Boghog ( talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at TRPV1 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Boghog ( talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I confess to having made a slight error in judgment. The categories in question were added in January by an anonymous editor, after the discussion concluded in December. I made the mistake of believing you were going against consensus, and for that I apologize. That being said, you still violated the 3RR, which is grounds for a temp. block.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I reverted Liz here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category%3AAmerican_people_of_Jewish_descent&action=history) because the cat was there at the end of discussion, when it was decided there was no consensus for change in either direction. This cat was first removed in February 2014. See this diff, and check the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category%3AAmerican_people_of_Jewish_descent&action=history
If I have made a mistake, let me know. I am human, after all. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
outdent@Evildoer187 One year is not considered much on a category page. Especially not since the edit was made by an editor who was involved in the discussion which took place later. @ All I also don't want to go through the whole thing again, but I will not relent, believing honestly that the category is wrong and in violation of consensus. The first argument is personal, even though many have agreed with me in that discussion, enough to claim a majority I think, but the second argument is straightforward. I see only two ways out: an agreement from my Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to remove the category in view of the previously shown lack of consensus for it, or a procedural discussion at a location I am not yet certain of to enforce its removal in view of that same lack of consensus. I leave it to Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to decide which it will be. Since I am certain that I understand the Wikipedia rules and guidelines correctly in this case, and have the personal conviction to want to bring this issue to its conclusion, I prefer the first, as being the easiest way to end this. In any case, I think no discussion will re-open the debate, however much some will try to do so. Debresser ( talk) 22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. -- Almasworld ( talk) 06:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, as per what Liz says (who is a user who is on your side in this topic of debate): "There was a months-long discussion at WP:WikiProject Judaism and it was far from resolved, with a slight majority arguing against labeling all people of Jewish descent (not Jewish, of Jewish descent) as being "Asian"." I'm not sure if you haven't had a chance to look at the debate at Archive 32, Debresser, but there is a majority in favour, and I reverted your deletion based on that majority, which I did not feel was an unreasonable decision on my part. Clearly I haven't made up that majority, or it wouldn't be mentioned on Liz's page as well. Also, please do not use emotionally loaded and impolite terms like "outrageous" on people's talk pages. This is the first time we've spoken in person and I don't feel rudeness was called for; this is an encyclopedia and a forum for rational debate, not your personal boxing ring. If you do intend to post on my talk page again, I'm happy to speak about this further, but I would appreciate if you would do so in a calmer fashion. Thank you. Kitty ( talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You make an excellent point, there (sorry to bring it here, but I'm so done with that conversation for now). Who'd have thought it'd come to you, Nishidani, and me on the same side of a question? Maybe we could solve the problem by turning it around and forbidding all descent categories except Category:People of Edenic descent and then just add it to every article about a person?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Last December, you tagged {{ Infobox World Triathlon Series}} for speedy deletion. The tag appears malformed, and the template is still there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm making this section, because a user called "Evildoer187" edits and cherry picks as he wills regardless of consensus and additional articles. 84.111.196.56 ( talk) 12:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sephardi Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sasson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Inline, small and/or low-impact templates seem to use lowercase, while standalone, larger and/or more significant ones sport sentence case. At least, that's the tendency I've noticed while editing. If that is the rationale, it seems worthwhile from here. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Regarding your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=553061965&oldid=552963784
This was already discussed at length here:
Fladriff already concluded that it's reliable. If you have a problem, raise it on that page. Thanks. Yonoson3 ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.
There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".
Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 ( talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Ashkenazi Jews". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halakha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Debresser. I'm writing this message to you because of your reverts on my edits about the category "Russian Jews" in the article about Serge Gainsbourg. The main problem that appears in this case is the understanding of the whole concept beyond the Russian Jews. Unlike many other ethnic groups or nationalities that are purely based on the region where the person was born or his or her predecessors historically lived, the "Russian Jews" represent an ethnolinguistic group of Jews with Russian being their native language. You can check the article about the Russian Jews to note that this includes not only the Jews that live in what nowadays is called Russia, but as well Jews that use Russian as their native language regardless of the territory of their residence. It mostly refers to the Jews from the territory of the Russian Empire, but in recent times many other Jews that populate many other parts of the world. One may say that it is so simple and you can refer to the Jews from Ukraine as "Ukrainian Jews" or to the Jews from Belarus as "Belarusian Jews", but these two designations broke the concept of the Russian Jews and tend to follow most of the other definitions about the ethnic groups, such as those about the English people, the Dutch people, or the French people. But even if we agree on the usage of "Ukrainian Jews" or "Belarusian Jews", then it doesn't restrict the usage of "Russian Jews" simply because the Jews that inhabit or descend from the territories that are now parts of Belarus or Ukraine use or used Russian as their native language. Similarly, Serge Gainsbourg is a Russian Jew from a territory that is now part of Ukraine because the language that was used in his family was Russian and the territory was once part of the Russian Empire. There are many other Russian Jews that have no association with Russia, such as Vilna Gaon, Léon Bakst or Isaac Levitan. Finally, the people are called "Russian Jews" because of the language and their historical homeland, not because of Russia today. Best regards.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Some time ago, Rich Farmbrough moved EngvarB to {{ Use British English}}. I didn't object to it at the time as it seemed eminently sensible. However, as I broadened coverage of the script action, I have been experiencing increasing frequency of complaints such as this and this from 'nationalists' (used advisedly) because the tagging does not conform to their code of English. I'd like to have this template move reverted, but before I start the process, I'd like you advice as to how I might execute a potential merger of these templates (except Canadian and American), and what other factors I may need to consider. As I wrote the script offering only ' vanilla' British English and have no intention of creating more variants to cater for the different codes, it would be ideal if I could bring all these tagged articles back to a single repository, but with different tags tolerated, so they can be maintained centrally. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:
"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ( [1]).
Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 ( talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just wondering why you reverted the changes to this page, because you didn't leave an edit summary. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=La_Femme_Nikita&oldid=556797040 removed a closing <noiwiki>"</ref>"</nowiki> tag, which I repaired and then got a less than well considered message on my talk page, because in other edits you seem to have refactored content in the article.
I'd like an explnation, as I don't appreciate getting messages of concern or telling me to read policies, when the relevant contribution in question was neither iniated or performed by myself.
Closing a reference tag, should not be controversial.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Nikita needs work. Comments inside text started before Talk page post, before problems added up to major, for editors who do not check Talk. Like you? That was the first time I tried inline comments, after seeing warnings in movie article where differences in endings and more in DVD extended versions had obviously caused contention, so inline comments prevented future trouble. Your massive "undo" was NOT helpful.
Please be constructive, not destructive. Fix a problem or leave for someone else. Removing comments and sources that can help other editors, does not remove a problem or the need for sources.
Wiki Policies and Guidelines are helpful, to refer, and remember. After another kind, helpful, senior editor gave link, I have word count tools and wiki style, format, and guidelines all bookmarked. Quotes and source follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
"Instead of deleting text, consider:" a long list including
AnEyeSpy ( talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Debresser. Just a quick note to let you know I agree with your reversion of my reversion over at Rape by gender. Mine was really just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the removal of content which had 3 pretty serious-looking references, but as you rightly point out, not relevant. Regards, -- Technopat ( talk) 00:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I added a brief section to the historicity of Esther, specifically regarding historical evaluation of Esther in light of Herodotus. The article which I cited questions the historical validity of Herodotus'work. This is relevant to the historicity of Esther because Herodotus' writings offer some conflicts with what is recorded in Esther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elantz73 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you made this change?
Also, how was "(Minor.)" as an edit summary supposed to convey this information to other editors?
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
(removed link)
" would have made a more straightforward/honest/informative edit summary. Perhaps "(removed in-line external link)
" if one wanted to get technical/precise about it.Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramadan (calendar month), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Why did you undo my edits in Template:Examples, Template:Elucidate and Template:Ambiguous? Did the cause any problem? By the way, please also provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field in the future, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. — Kri ( talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I repeat Kri's request above: Please provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. When I undid your revision, I provided my reason: To match source. So please explain why you disagree. I'm also not so sure about this capitalization business, which is why I recommend following the source. In an article about a doctor, for instance, would you also capitalize the Doctor each time he's mentioned? -- -- -- 21:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I take your point (mostly) re Rosh Hashanah and Reform Judaism. It turns out not to be particular to North American Reform, but goes back to the early founders of Reform in Germany in the 1840s. On the other hand, the article does not discuss this issue explicitly with respect to any other holiday; instead, it covers it briefly in the section on Yom Tov Sheni. So my solution is to add two sources that cover the whole issue, to address the whole matter in the Yom Tov Sheni section, and to leave it out of the Rosh Hashanah section entirely.
I did need to edit out half of a reference that you left in the Rosh Hashanah section. None of us are perfect, of course. But I mention this because I thought your edit summary about "as usual, spacing and punctuation" was a little snarky. We've worked well here over time, and I didn't see a need for that. And forgive me for learning as a schoolchild that commas and periods always go inside quotes, and that periods get two spaces after them. MoS deprecates the first and is indifferent to the second, but you didn't need to be snarky about it.
I was thinking of putting this up for GA. Do you think it is missing any important content?
Will look further after 9 Av. Debresser ( talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks on both matters. Have an meaningful, but not-too-difficult, fast. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding [2], do you have a secondary reliable source to support this? I would venture that any secondary RS, even Catholic research into their Jewish heritage, better comports with WP:RS than the raw text of the Torah in English literal translation, which remains a primary source. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not going to reply to the last post of this editor on the talkpage of 613 commandments. Not because I agree with him, but because I hope he will see that he is not correct. Unless he'd pursue his line of reasoning and make an edit accordingly. Debresser ( talk) 09:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
My arguments? 1. practice is always as I stated, that the sources are not accompanied by publisher and date of publication. 2. the dispute involves some Christian source, which sources are themselves unclear, by the way, and Christian sources are irrelevant concerning the meaning of commandments in Judaism. Debresser ( talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Debresser, a bot pulled the RfC template. So I went ahead and archived the discussion as "closed without prejudice" along the lines of the discussion near the end. Keep me posted if you hear anything. StevenJ81 ( talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm DavidLeighEllis. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:613 commandments that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Debresser, because what happened there on May 8 1943 is often called Masada of Warsaw [5] or second Masada Boston9 ( talk) 08:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Under the heading "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors" the policy quoted by User:Sean.hoyland states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule". Which means that his removing it was in accordance with the rules. But the policy also says that removing such edits is not mandatory, so if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it. But not in the form of a revert with an edit summary that is factually incorrect. Thomas.W talk to me 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding " That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit". Well, it's not really your edit is it, so I can't really consider it as such. It's the edit of a blocked (on both Spanish and English Wikipedia) racist ultranationalist who compulsively lies and unethically exploits a charity for ethno-nationalist reasons through extensive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. My concern is block/ban enforcement in ARBPIA, not the nature of the edits by people who are not allowed to edit. Blocks and bans have to be enforced and someone has to enforce them. If they can't be enforced there's really no point imposing them.
Here, by the way, are some quotes from the real world by the person whose block evasion you are, in my view, facilitating and encouraging by restoring their edit whether or not that is your intent. You can google him.
If you have any ideas how you can help make policy enforcement in ARBPIA more effective so that people evading their blocks can't profit from their lack of ethics and are not encouraged to continue evading their blocks by other editors, let me know. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You might like to replace http://www.zionism-israel.com by a reliable source. That one fails WP:RS rather obviously. Zero talk 02:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree about that that gallery did not add anything to the article. On the cortrary. Beside that it was a lot of work getting it together, it did gave a pretty good picture of the Mikveh in the past and now. I was attending a lecture about this subject at the university, and I have to say it was rather difficult for all of uss to picture how this mikveh lokked like. We asked a lot of quistions about it, and since I am not Jewis was still wandering how these places looked like, and what kind of mood they had an so on. I found ,loooking for these pictures that they seem to be secret places, dark and privat, and charming. Also shows the water to cover the entire body of capite ad calcem, the whole thing is fascinating and very interesting. I really would like to see more pictures in that article, just to be able to collect a general impression of it. Hafspajen ( talk) 20:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My changes were discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_12#Template:Missing. It was sitting in the holding cell for 2 months, so I decided to get started on it. Also, what was wrong with my error handling? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chabad Chasidim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad Chasidim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah ( talk) 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rebbes of Chabad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebbes of Chabad until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah ( talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone moved this page to Ohel Chabad Lubavitch and, in the first paragraph, linked Chabad as "Chabad Lubavitch". I tried to fix the new title by putting Chabad-Lubavitch in parentheses and hyphenating it, but now I'm wondering what's going on here. The main Chabad page has not been changed, nor have I seen any renaming discussions about changing "Chabad" to "Chabad Lubavitch". Best, Yoninah ( talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
ראיתי ששחזרת את העריכה שלי. חפשתי בדף שלך, ולא להפתעתי גיליתי שאתה חב"דניק. מכיון שלא רציתי לפתוח את זה בהערות על הערך, וכמו כן אני מעדיף להמנע ממלחמת עריכות בלתי פוסקת, אני כותב את זה כאן (כאמור, הסתכלתי בדף שלך וראיתי שאנחנו אמורים להסתדר די טוב עם דיון בעברית. לנהל אותו באנגלית יהיה קצת קשה, לפחות לי. עמך הסליחה). ברור לכל לומד מסכת סוכה או הלכות סוכה, כי בסוכה ישנן שתי מצוות - לאכול ולישון. מה שחב"דניקים עושים (או לא) בסוכה, זהו עניינם הפרטי, וייתכן שהוא ראוי לאזכור בגוף הערך. אתה מוזמן לערוך אותו באוות נפשך (גם מזה אני לא אהיה מרוצה, מן הסתם, אבל אין מה לעשות, ויקיפדיה לא שייכת לי). אני חושב שהגיוני להסכים שבחלק הראשי על הערך נרשום מה שמופיע בשו"ע, ושינויים אלו או אחרים מכך, לטב או למוטב, נציין בגוף הערך. מה דעתך? (בבקשה בבקשה בבקשה תוכיח לי שאתה שונה ממה שאני חושב על החב"דניקים.) חג שמח! איל דימנט ( talk) 08:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Bar Kokhba revolt, please keep in mind that it's 2000 years old event while genocide is 20th century coined term for describing systematic destruction of groups driven by modern ideologies. There was no any Roman ideology for such systematic destruction, only an armed conflict in which Jews were shamefully defeated. No any difference between Roman campaigns in Gaul, Carthage and many other places, or hundreds of campaigns by other great powers. Such events may be described as massacres or ethnic cleansing, but surely not as "genocide". Describing Jewish ancient defeats as genocides is childish and unencyclopedic, and most important of all - not supported by reliable sources. Provided source is not strong enough, neither are tens in which you can find terms like "Palestinian genocide". Some sources desribe invasions by Gengis or Timur (millions killed just in Iran) also as "genocidal", but categorizing those articles under genocides still would be WP:FRINGE. So please don't take it very personal, baseless accusing really isn't necessary here. -- HistorNE ( talk) 23:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed the back and forth editing were having on Chabad. I've taken up your suggestion to move rather than delete a subsection. But due to the fact I'm using a mobile phone I had to break up the edits into two. Now that I've moved the section, I will delete the earlier one (as it makes more sense to place political statements by Schneerson in the activities section rather than philosophy). Do you have any objections to the move? I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Debresser, you've reversed my deletion of the link to the Russian language because his birth certificate must have been in Russian. I object to this reversal for two reasons:
1. The phrasing is faulty because it is misleading, it gives an impression that he was Russian, but we both know that he was not Russian and he did not know the Russian language. He could not even read his birth certificate, and the placement/phrasing of the misleading link conducts the idea that it refers to Asimov, not to his unattested but supposedly existing birth certificate.
2. The practice in 1900s Russia was that all records were denominational till Stalin replaced religious registration with a national system of registry, long after Asimovs left Russia. In all probability, Isaak' birth was registered in Yiddish in Hebrew alphabet, and any certificate, if any, was also in Yiddish in Hebrew script, and all records were destroyed with all their inventory in the campaign of confiscation and destruction of the churches. The Azimovs lived in the Pale of Settlement that was dissolved only in 1905, it was not incorporated into the Russian state until Stalin instituted new apparatus.
If you want to maintain a note that Asimovs' supposed birth certificate was supposedly written in Russian, you should find another way to note it, accurately stating what you want to state that that is a Cyrillic spelling of his name. Please find a way to make it more to the point. The link to the Russian language is surely out of place in the introduction section that describes Isaac Asimov, not the peculiarity of his envisaged birth certificate. Barefact ( talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what your intention was when you put the tag {{empty}} in the page User:Debresser/EditCounterOptIn.js, but what that tag does is request speedy deletion of an article because it has no content. My guess is that was not what you intended, and in any case the tag should go only in an article, not a user space page. I have removed the tag to stop the page from showing up in the list that alerts administrators to pages nominated for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Debresser,
I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you personally. I was not, however, I felt that your ideas about "unacceptability" of the certain sources were based primarily, if not entirely, on your original research and personal experiences. You keep mentioning an aspect that I believe is irrelevant, so I have not addressed. Because it continues to be brought up, I will explain it here.
You say: "If anything, that and the fact that the last foreign country occupying Israel was England, are the two obvious reasons that English is so popular in Israel (no more popular than in any other country in Europe)."
First, note that the source at hand (the one you do not accept) does not dispute this view. It says, "This priority given to English is related to the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and the current status of English as a lingua franca for Jews worldwide." [6] Related to does not mean "exclusively related to," as your previous comments suggested. In other words, these could be two of several reasons. In addition, your personal disagreement with this fact, for better or worse, does not negate the reliability of the source.
Second, note that the use and priority of English in Israel has strengthened since the mandatory period. This is, indeed, in part—again, not exclusively—due to the need to communicate with Jews around the world. (See [7], collecting several reasons for the prevalence in English in Israel, among them: "the fact that the most active Jewish community outside Israel is English-speaking . . . strengthened the demand for English and the possibility of using it.") Thus, this source also repeats that one of the reasons for the priority of English in Israeli education was due to the need to communicate with the Jewish diaspora. There should be no issue with this
However, I emphasize that this fact was not the matter of dispute. Our matter of dispute was not over the reasons that English enjoys priority in Israel (which, we can see, is due to a variety of factors). Our dispute was over the source stating "the current status of English as a lingua franca for Jews worldwide." Whether or not you agree that this fact is related to (not necessarily the exclusive or primary reason as you suggest the source contended) is not relevant to our discussion about the reliability of sources. -- Precision123 ( talk) 22:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification about your edits of Chabad offshoots. What strikes me is that your setup/writing style of the smaller branches (Liadi, Niezhin etc.) would have to be re-written somewhat as soon as someone finds additional information about the group. I'm guessing you had in mind that these dynasty pages are just stubs, so the more summarized the better, but it should be restructured if new information comes up.
On another note, I was wondering what your take is on whether or not these groups are "branches/offshoots of Chabad" or whether, to be as neutral as possible, all groups (Chabad-Lubavitch included) are branches of Chabad as founded by Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Currently, the articles reflect the Chabad-Lubavitch narrative of Chabad history. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 15:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please change {{administrator|cat=no}}
on
User:Bahamut0013 to {{Administrator topicon|nocat=yes}}
, because a recent edit of mine to that template has changed the parameter use.
Debresser (
talk) 06:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This got approved GA, then tagged for reassessment. You might be interested: Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2. StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I imagine whatever you are doing, you started with autism because of alphabetical order, but it is unhelpful to find an edit that makes no useful change, done with no edit summary, that causes editors who have the article watchlisted to have to click to find out what the edit was, and in this case, no reason given for the edit that makes no useful change. If you start doing this to every FA, some editors (like me) are going to see their watchlists go off and not even know why. So whatever it is you are doing, it would be helpful if you a) went to WT:FAC and let the FA community know the whys and wherefores, and b) used an edit summary, so that c) when our watchlists go off, we'll know why and not have to click to check the edit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Allrighty then, we will try again.
Help:Edit summary explains why and how we use edit summaries; specifically, they help other editors understand the intent of the edit, review the history of the article, and decide whether to click on the edit to doublecheck or review it. The template that we use for editors who don't use edit summaries is:
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
Now, still not knowing why you would make such a trivial and unnecessary change to an article, but assuming that maybe you started at "A" and intend to do it to all FAs, I suggested that you would want to a) use an edit summary, and b) explain to the FA community why you are going to make their watchlists go bonkers. There are many editors who have dozens, scores or hundreds of FAs watchlisted, and seeing a nonsensical edit with no edit summary -- that takes their time to investigate -- is Not A Good Thing. Now, why you were there to make a "null edit" or why you think a null edit doesn't need an edit summary (they need them even more, since editors don't know why they are made) are other issues, but I hope this is now clearer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You reverted me here, commenting "not needed". I'm puzzled. Are there similar templates for those other uses that I'm unaware of, or is there some other reasoning at play? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see my response to your revert on Chabad talk page. My edit took your note into account. Let me know if there's anything further to discuss (and please undo your revert). Thanks in advance. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 18:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please replace the incorrect protected page template at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea. That page is not semi protected but fully. I'd have put the request on the talkpage, but I see it was deleted twice already. Debresser ( talk) 02:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags around the protection template on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea to avoid an error category on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 23.
Debresser (
talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo ( talk) 07:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noted your objection at Template:Reviewer topicon/doc. Could you please comment at Template_talk:Documentation#Avoid_categorizing_template_sandboxes ? Thanks, Cenarium ( talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing the article Adult bar and bat mitzvah from the Template:Jewish life? Xyz7890 ( talk) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As I've seen you participate in discussion at WP:Judaism in the past, please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:European people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As per your comment, I've modified my Kabbalah edit in Chabad. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 04:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I will appreciate it to see your notes concerning my remarks in the Arab Israeli 1948 war talk page.
I am an Israeli, but try to be objective. I am the only Israeli regular editor in this articles, and the other editors reactions are mostly negative , as expected. It is much better to hear your opinion as well. If you are not too busy, will it be possible for you to comment in the talk page.
thanks Ykantor ( talk) 18:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just when I thought there was a consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism that Jews were not, by default, Asian, there is a user of a different opinion who is reverting my edits removing these categories. I responded to him on the WP:JUDAISM talk page but it's clear he's going to plunge straight ahead. I don't want to get into an edit war. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted a recent portion of my update to this article claiming that the Talmud does not say that masturbation is not prohibited. How do you understand then Rab's statement in Niddah 13 where he says that "why is it not forbidden?" "because he merely incites the evil inclination upon himself"
Doesn't this mean that it is not prohibited? Rab literally says that. -- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 03:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
-- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 02:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Я прочитал Ваш ответ и полагаю, что я вправе восстановить мою версию в Catherine Asaro. У Вас ведь больше нет вопросов и претензий? И данное исправление не будет считаться "войной правок"? С уважением,-- Пробегающий ( talk) 07:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
In making this change to the {{ Proposed deletion endorsed}} template, you may have left some broken formatting.
The cat parameter of the underlying {{ Ambox}} template is supposed to take an unlinked category name, not the linked category. I.e.
cat = Endorsed proposed deletions
not
cat = [[Category:Endorsed proposed deletions]]
The latter version leaves an odd "[[Category:]]" string on the page. (See this version of Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud for an example.)
I would just fix the issue myself, but I'm not so much an expert on template editing that I'm hesitant to touch one that has such wide usage. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If you check WP:RFA2011 you'll see that it redirects to Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued) which is a multi-page project and is still active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the ref is defined on Filton Abbey Wood railway station, which is in principle the only place these templates will ever be called. - mattbuck ( Talk) 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please blank the page User:Freshh/vector.js. It was edited only once, with an edit that obviously causes a template loop, and has no use in its present for. It causes the page to appear in Category:Template loop warnings, which I have been emptying, successfully so far. Debresser ( talk) 05:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For your recent edit to Category:Jews. Please don't reprimand me for doing something (which I admit that I shouldn't have done, but I felt removing some of those categories went too far), and then go and do it yourself.
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Evildoer187 ( talk) 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what sect of Judaism you think I come from, but I happen to be chareidi jew not aligned with any political party or school of thought relevant to Rav Shach. My only problem was when I came to the article I saw that in the synopsis of the subjects biography, it is mentioned that he was a zealot etc. and other controversial things. I hold that that is not in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), and the article was written with bias interests. Once I did that edit, I added in honorifics. I held these do not conflict with any policy as such, but if they do I do not care for their ommission. (please refer me where this rule is in the guidelines). I just hold that the conflict of interest policy must be upheld, even if you are a chabad hassid, wikipedias standards must be kept. P.S. This is not my first time editing Wikipedia, just the I.P. address is new. P.S.S. Thank you very much for all your valuable work you have given wikipedia, it is over here that it seems you have some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.178.89 ( talk) 11:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you didn't get my point. I was trying to say that the initial synopsis is quite biased, calling him a zealot etc this is an opinionated position of the person, brought from an opinionated source. And you know this. And there is no denying this. You can carry on leaving a biased opinion on there, all it does it shows how much you care for wikipedia's quality, and all you care is for your own political agenda. It also may reflect on some of the other 60,000 edits that you have made, maybe they are also expounding your ideals and opinions? Besides for the above, what I did with honorifics is not in conflict with the article you brought at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.178.89 ( talk) 13:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Answered in the diff. I don't understand why there should be so much reverts about an unsourced sentence.-- Phso2 ( talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What "legitimate tags" are you talking about? Not even one of the tags was legitimate. First of all, the brick at the top of the page makes no sense at all. The article isn't very technical at all; it's perfectly straightforward in its style of expression. If the Judaic references are a bit beyond you, there are links. I read the article and had no trouble with it, even though my background is not Jewish. I notice that English is not your first language. It could be that your less-than-native fluency (you rank yourself level-3 in English, I notice) makes a text on this subject seem a bit muddy to you. I sometimes have the same trouble with a text not written in my language. Nevertheless, this article is clear and is in no way "too technical". I've seen much more technical articles -- in English -- that nobody has ever complained about (often on mathematical topics). As for your two "who?" tags, they were just thoroughly ignorant. In answer to your first "who?": Click on the link -- have a look; that name is linked -- and you'll find out who they are. In answer to your second "who?": Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal on Joshua 24:33 -- That's right in the article, at the end of the commentary that you flagged. Read on and find it. To me, these lapses suggest a problem with reading comprehension. That's quite common when the text isn't in the reader's mother tongue. There's one other thing: you reverted some textual corrections along with your restoration of the illegitimate tags. Please do not do such things. I notice that another user has also complained about you doing that. Kelisi ( talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
"Warn" me all you like! My edits are in good faith, and I think I have every reason to believe what I said just above. You are not helping Wikipedia by doing this. You are marring it. Just cut it out. Kelisi ( talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Infobox Australia state or territory/testcases. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As an experienced editor you should know better than to edit disruptively AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Smash!
You've been
squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
On
User talk:Lovelight please replace {{RFM-Request|September 11, 2001 Attacks}}
by {{subst:User:MediationBot/Opened message|case=September 11, 2001 Attacks}}
. This will remove the usertalkpage from
Category:Pages using deprecated templates, and is part of the deprecation process for
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote.
Debresser (
talk) 03:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello i see that you are a Rabbi and if you would be so kind i would like your opinion on a passage i remember reading in the Talmud where Eve complained to Adam about the mode of their intercourse so Adam left her for Lilith who did not complain about Adams needs, i believe this signifies that Adam preferred anal sex, this is my interpretation and i may be wrong but can you please give me further clarification as to the meaning of this passage.-- Sleeveman ( talk) 07:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Re my revert of your edits to the Jewish Encyclopaedia templates, please see Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Code question 2 -- PBS ( talk) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
I've done some cleanup on
Category:Pages with misplaced templates, and the 4 .js pages are basically the only thing left in this error category (I am working on
Template:Merge sections). When I had a look at them, I didn't notice the category at the bottom of the page, so maybe a null-edit (opening the edit window of those 4 pages and saving without making any changes and no edit summary) will fix the error message. Would you be willing to try this for me?
Debresser (
talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:PBS (Result: ) -- PBS ( talk) 19:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The SIU seal is for the SIU System and for SIU Carbondale, and the new SIUE seal is totally inappropriate for both. The new seal needs a new file page. I tried to revert the seal to the actual SIU seal, but it would not revert, so I have requested administrators' assistance. GWFrog ( talk) 18:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent changes appear to have broken the output when the format {{Deprecated template|Old|New|parameter}} is used. See the template documentation under "Additional" at Template:Deprecated template, or see Template:Basketball-reference for an actual example; a link to the new template is no longer provided after your changes.— Bagumba ( talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I closed this discussion, so it would be great if you could merge the two. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted this edit of yours because I noticed a bug appearing on transcluded pages and thought your edit may have caused it:
You may (or may not) wish to troubleshoot this in order to keep your last edit, not sure how important it was. Thought I'd let you know in case you disabled reversion notifications. meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Continued from Template talk:Relevance-inline. Recommend using hidden categories to test templates in the future. -- Brianhe ( talk) 23:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is probably still some cleanup to do ( Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Wikipedia deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Notifies you to update your comments on Template talk:NPOV#Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. since the debate continues. -- 14.198.220.253 ( talk) 15:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Debresser. I have closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Template:Obsolete_template as "merge". Since you wrote "if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself", perhaps you would now like to perform the merge. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert my on the article Talpiot Tomb? As you can see at the article you linked to, East Talpiot is in East Jerusalem. In what way is that in Israel? -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 17:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Your revert my edit on Jabel Mukaber makes no sense at all. It was an improvement with the exception of that I by mistake removed "r" of the name when I removed bold and a comma from the sentence. If you look at the edit, I removed space where it was unnecessary and updated the links. It was an improvement. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Debresser! Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Month abbreviations would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I'm not miffed at your reversion whatsoever... in fact, I rather expected it! And that's not meant to be a snide remark... I just wanted the diffs so we could examine what the text would look like as I try to articulate the concept. I'll get a talk thread started in the near term. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to know why did you remove the nomination from Labor Day (film)? I provided the reliable sources with it? Is it not worthy to be included in an article?-- Jockzain ( talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
See my reply to your comment on my talk page. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know that due to the size of the category, I have relisted the CfD for this category on today's page. Splash - tk 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy anointing oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calamus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
From what I can gather most of the most expert authorities these days favour the lemongrass theory, which was also espoused by Maimonides, so I think there is a real debate, leaving aside the ridiculous cannabis palaver. Also, since there is now a whole section on the debate, it just seems wrong to be directing readers who have only read the first few paragraphs to the "right" answer as determined by Wikipedia editors, not by the experts. I understand that you may have a worry about pointing readers towards a section that includes the cannabis theory, bit I don't see any way out of that. Paul B ( talk) 16:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This is in regards to the above mentioned article. I do not intend to enter into an edit war over the matter, but I'm afraid that this article's lead is lacking in relevant information. The lead can be greatly improved which is why I added the template. But you stated rather matter of factly that I am not to compare this article's lead to other articles, and that it is perfect for this kind of article. So tell me how is it perfect? And why should it be treated any differently to other articles? It shouldn't. The point of editing is to improve the articles standard and this one can still be greatly improved, and you can't really argue against that. I suggest that you discuss the matter on the talk page before you remove the template again, and explain your reasons for why you believe it to be "perfect" for "this article". I understand that it may not be a massive blockbuster and so won't be as big as others, but the intro can still do with some improvement. And remember that you have already reverted the edits I made twice with a reason that doesn't hold up. If you do it again you will be in violation of the 3 Reverse Rule and you may be blocked by an administrative editor. Thanks. And if you have any questions feel free to leave a message. - Over Hill and Under Hill ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 09 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering what the issue is with adding this section. Why doesn't it show up? Also, why did you move it? It is sourced and relevant. People should be able to use it and be part of this article. -- Daniel E Romero ( talk) 17:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. According to Wiktionary, "cannot" seems to be more common, however. Graham 87 03:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Debresser,
I apologize for not following the correct procedure regarding this article. I don't have much experience editing Wikipedia in the past, so I did not realize how the talk page works. I actually did not realize there was a talk page. I did not mean to be disrespectful, undoing your work. I though the only availability for comments was in the short paragraph next to the actual edit.
Thanks for letting me know how the proper mechanism for editing works, 129.67.199.152 ( talk) 12:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, I got into mini-edit wars (1R) with two users over whether to apply the People of Southwest Asian descent categories to several Jewish descent categories (for example, Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent). I was told I was arguing against consensus but I thought the problem at WP Judaism was that there was no consensus (although I thought there was a majority leaning towards not identifying every person who is "of Jewish descent" as being Asian).
I've reread portions of that long, long discussion and I still don't see a definite consensus and I just wanted to check in with you because you were a participant in that discussion. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Think before you revert. I made a large number of edits unrelated to the removing the superfluous month from the date parameter. Or to you think replacing "hacking" with protein engineering is removing useful information? I am trying to build an encyclopedia by improving content. I am not sure what you purpose is. Please revert your revert. Thank you. Boghog ( talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this that you undid was to remove several unused parameters and to use consistent citation formatting through out the article. This is consistent with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog ( talk) 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this which you also undid was to integrate this section of the article with the rest of Wikipedia by providing Wiki links. Boghog ( talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Per this discussion, the {{ PBB Controls}} template is no longer used (and in fact was never used) by User:ProteinBoxBot. The Bot maintainer has therefore recommended that these templates be removed entirely. That was the rationale for this . Boghog ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this that you also undid was to provide proper in-line citations. The purpose of this was to provide a more logical ordering of sections consistent with WP:MCBMOS. Boghog ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
See my revert. Boghog ( talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at TRPV1 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Boghog ( talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I confess to having made a slight error in judgment. The categories in question were added in January by an anonymous editor, after the discussion concluded in December. I made the mistake of believing you were going against consensus, and for that I apologize. That being said, you still violated the 3RR, which is grounds for a temp. block.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I reverted Liz here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category%3AAmerican_people_of_Jewish_descent&action=history) because the cat was there at the end of discussion, when it was decided there was no consensus for change in either direction. This cat was first removed in February 2014. See this diff, and check the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category%3AAmerican_people_of_Jewish_descent&action=history
If I have made a mistake, let me know. I am human, after all. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
outdent@Evildoer187 One year is not considered much on a category page. Especially not since the edit was made by an editor who was involved in the discussion which took place later. @ All I also don't want to go through the whole thing again, but I will not relent, believing honestly that the category is wrong and in violation of consensus. The first argument is personal, even though many have agreed with me in that discussion, enough to claim a majority I think, but the second argument is straightforward. I see only two ways out: an agreement from my Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to remove the category in view of the previously shown lack of consensus for it, or a procedural discussion at a location I am not yet certain of to enforce its removal in view of that same lack of consensus. I leave it to Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to decide which it will be. Since I am certain that I understand the Wikipedia rules and guidelines correctly in this case, and have the personal conviction to want to bring this issue to its conclusion, I prefer the first, as being the easiest way to end this. In any case, I think no discussion will re-open the debate, however much some will try to do so. Debresser ( talk) 22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. -- Almasworld ( talk) 06:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, as per what Liz says (who is a user who is on your side in this topic of debate): "There was a months-long discussion at WP:WikiProject Judaism and it was far from resolved, with a slight majority arguing against labeling all people of Jewish descent (not Jewish, of Jewish descent) as being "Asian"." I'm not sure if you haven't had a chance to look at the debate at Archive 32, Debresser, but there is a majority in favour, and I reverted your deletion based on that majority, which I did not feel was an unreasonable decision on my part. Clearly I haven't made up that majority, or it wouldn't be mentioned on Liz's page as well. Also, please do not use emotionally loaded and impolite terms like "outrageous" on people's talk pages. This is the first time we've spoken in person and I don't feel rudeness was called for; this is an encyclopedia and a forum for rational debate, not your personal boxing ring. If you do intend to post on my talk page again, I'm happy to speak about this further, but I would appreciate if you would do so in a calmer fashion. Thank you. Kitty ( talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You make an excellent point, there (sorry to bring it here, but I'm so done with that conversation for now). Who'd have thought it'd come to you, Nishidani, and me on the same side of a question? Maybe we could solve the problem by turning it around and forbidding all descent categories except Category:People of Edenic descent and then just add it to every article about a person?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Last December, you tagged {{ Infobox World Triathlon Series}} for speedy deletion. The tag appears malformed, and the template is still there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm making this section, because a user called "Evildoer187" edits and cherry picks as he wills regardless of consensus and additional articles. 84.111.196.56 ( talk) 12:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sephardi Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sasson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Inline, small and/or low-impact templates seem to use lowercase, while standalone, larger and/or more significant ones sport sentence case. At least, that's the tendency I've noticed while editing. If that is the rationale, it seems worthwhile from here. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)