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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
http://www.quantummuse.com https://advertise.baltimoresun.com/portal/page/portal/Baltimore%20Sun/FAQ Zero talk 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Your heavy-handed reverting does you no credit. Twice you've reverted my edits to restore factually incorrect material that mischaracterises what the cited source says. In fact, to say almost the opposite of what the cited source says. Could you please actually read the source and stop behaving in a WP:OWN manner? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop with your patronising comments. They help nobody. Cassianto Talk 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at this edit and at Kohen Gadol. I can't figure out where the editor is coming from. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Dovid. This can certainly wait until after yom tov, but I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at something I've recently put together. I've never been happy with International Date Line#Judaism. It is written as if R' Heinemann's opinion is the beginning and end of the discussion (POV), and it additionally has always felt incomplete. So I cooked up something which you can see at User:StevenJ81/sandbox#International date line in halacha. I'd appreciate your advice/input/etc. (Even if you look Thursday, I'm going to sleep on it until after yom tov, so as I said before, don't feel in a hurry. Thanks, gut moed, gut yom tov. StevenJ81 ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
[1] - why not tag instead? This conduct is terrible. Chesdovi ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it help if you're both wrong? Chesdovi, your behavior is not acceptable, you do need to tone it down. Debresser, it's very common knowledge similar to the sky being blue that in Europe the dress was more colorful and Chofetz Chaim indeed still does colored shirts and feathers, etc. Not only that, the reason why the Chevron Yeshiva was sent to Chevron was because they were seen as too modern for Yerushalayim. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I undid your edit. Your edit summary "Completely irrelevant. See talkpage consensus." and your talk page comment "As a matter of fact, there are no quotation marks, so not a quot at all." are incorrect. It clearly is a quote. Wikipedia is taking a direct quote from the King James Bible version of Deuteronomy 31:26, and correctly uses quote marks. The Bible may not be using quotation marks, but we are quoting the Bible, and a specific version of it. I believe attribution is required per MOS:QUOTE. How is this an irrelevant objection? There was certainly no talk page consensus when you restored the edits since there were only two differing opinions on the talk page. You then added your flawed argument to the talk page. Two people have restored the attribution since it is a direct quote. The person who originally removed the attribution seems to be arguing WP:OSE and you think it the quote should be paraphrased, thus eliminating the need for attribution to a specific Bible version. That's not consensus. Your observation about paraphrasing eliminating the need for attribution is correct, but it's not a reason to remove the attribution while we are still using a direct quote. Meters ( talk) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Law of Moses has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. This is indeed a direct quote, with quotation marks, as was pointed out in the edit summary three times, on the article's talk page 4 times, and on your talk page. If you think that the attribution is not needed then discuss that issue, but don't vcontinue to revert with false edit summaries Meters ( talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Meters. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Really you template a regular for edit warring after only 2 well explained reverts and multiple attempts to discuss the edit on the talk page, and threaten to report me? Not even close. Meters ( talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Law of Moses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meters ( talk) 21:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: ). Thank you. clpo13( talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Seven Laws of Noah in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. TJH2018 talk 22:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Faith primary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. damiens.rf 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
There was no parameter until I added |number=
, which I later found to be a bad name. So now I changed it to |sortkey=
, and it is documented as such on {{
top icon}}. So please look further before reverting. I'm sorry if this adds extra work (which I'm willing to take off your hands), but this is better in the long run. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
<indicator>
is a lot easier.
StevenJ81 (
talk)
14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
<indicator>
. It ensures proper formatting of the icons. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
14:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Edokter, 1. Did you discuss this? I see no discussion that concerns preference of "sortkey" over "number"? 2. Why didn't you change all the documentation pages as well? 3. Did you ever hear of WP:BRD? 4. Did you ever hear of If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Debresser ( talk) 18:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|number=
on your user page, but an even older one that hasn't worked for over a year. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
21:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)<indicator>
two years ago, and sorting was disabeld in the proces (by the change in /core, not by me). I just now re-added that possibility, so why the flack? Discuss the parameter name on
Template talk:Top icon if you have to, but I won't stand being reprimanded by someone who doesn't see the bigger picture. Your reverts actually broke those templates and left a discrepancy with the 200+ other templates I edited. Yes, someone added the number parameter prematurely to those templates; I'm not on his back about it. I think long-term, and most people know that. I welcome any review. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
07:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC){{{icon-nr|{{{number|{{{sortkey|}}}}}}}}}
or something like that), and changing the documentation is something you definitely should do. Do you plan to do these two things?
Debresser (
talk)
08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
08:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
|icon_nr=
for a very long time, and they edit as if the topicon misordering is not a big deal anyway. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{number|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|{{#if:{{{icon-nr|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|}}}}
should do it? I remember there being an issue with if the parameter is defined (like | number = {{{number|}}}
) or not (like | number =
), that the latter is perhaps not found by this code?
Debresser (
talk)
07:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Yeah, I think it's similar to something like Special:Diff/720425195 without {{ Main other}} and addressing multiple named params. Again, it can be done, but I personally still honestly think it's getting a bit fussy to track this. I also take Edokter's absence as agreement with what I think as well. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Edokter: I am now working on the pages that are appearing in Category:Fix. I see no reason to use a more descriptive name for a tracking category, which I intend to remove within 24 hours. Debresser ( talk) 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way, somce interesting cases came up, like {{ PubMed indexed}}, {{ Virginia Tech ribbon}}, {{ WikiOgre}}, Wikipedia:WikiPlatypus/topicon, User:EWikist/WikiFun Police/WikiFun Police Topicon, {{ WikiProject Star Trek Top}}, {{ DOOM}}, {{ Template:Arbitration Clerk topicon}}, {{ Eventualist}}, {{ JLOWP}}, {{ Grump}}, {{ Pokeme}}, {{ WikiWitch-icon}}, {{ Olympicrings}}, {{ Pageprotection}} and most seriously User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon. Debresser ( talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We already have 870 cases, not counting the once I replaced already. 870! I think this should be a lesson for you not to replace parameters without providing backwards compatibility. What right did you have to render a parameter inactive that is in use on almost a thousand userpages? I am really angry at you for this. Debresser ( talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Done well over 1,000 instances. there are 26 pages left, all because of fully protected pages. I have dropped a request to some 5 editors, and there will be a few left that will need admin help. Debresser ( talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Perhaps you can help a bit more. There are 8 pages left with the old parameter. Perhaps you could edit the first four of them?
| icon_nr = {{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}}
that has to be changed to | icon_nr = {{{sortkey|{{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}}}}}
.{{
Adminhelp}}
I would like to ask any admin to fix the first four instances above, to finish this job. Over 1,000 pages were fixed, just 7 remain... Debresser ( talk) 07:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Debresser It is very likely that Lemongirl942 arrived the artcle by WP:STALKING my (other volunteer) edit summaries, as she did here, diff and then here, diff after she uncivilly attacked my paid work here. diff. The paid work had been up for 14 months and various other editors had contributed/reviewed without indecent/discourse. As a paid editor, I can't edit/restore the content in article space, and it can take months to get an edit request answered, so restoring even improved prose is no simple task. Her departure from the guidance (tagging, wholesale deletion, and then leaving the tag), established in WP:DT, which has been published since 2010, diff She practices disruptive editing on a daily basis imho.
I hope you will take the time to read WP:Local consensus, which cannot override Wikipedia-wide consensus. The local consensus here appears to support the passage I added in #6, yet of her own accord, Lemongirl942 again removed some of the content. [ diff] In an attempt to avoid having her disruptive editing technique -- disrupted.
I would not concern myself with the discussion about this Help page if it were not for the fact that it is being added to face of the tag templates. I appreciate that there is a "local consensus" in this discussion, I apologize for losing my cool with her, but other editors deserve to know why she is here and because of the Wikipedia wide visibility of this help page, the discussion is more important than inconveniencing a few electrons. Finally, I don't believe I've ever placed a banner tag in four years of editing, I use inline and section tags. 009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 19:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
(This wandered off topic from the Help page discussion, so I brought it here instead.) It's been two years since the Foundation's paid (declared) editing consensus, and a small group of editors has been allowed to sustain their POV into the matter. (Again, we are tasked to judge the content of the article, not the intent of the editor.) A recent instance I wish you could have seen, concerns a lack of integrity surrounding an AfD I stumbled into. The final version in article space had (pruned by at least 10?) fewer references than my version [2]. And I was warned not to add reliably sourced content back into the article after reverting a revert of my content. [3] Then, the involved editor (after voting and pruning) hatted conversations in the AfD, which included my list of the better references that apply to the subject. [4] This is not what I would call conduct that is congruent with the goals of the Foundation, especially for editors who primarily involve themselves with compliance issues.
As a declared paid editor, I do not work in, nor even visit the company offices. I am a buffer between the PR guy, who openly admits he cannot write neutrally (his background is marketing mine is tech), and the submitted (AfC) product. The idea that somebody who works in the office daily, with no knowledge of the guidelines, holds some kind of superior position among inferiors seems subjective. Finally, the writing is much like the job of a paralegal. The law (policies and guidelines) are primary when composing and knowing platform (similar to the old WordPerfect editor IMHO) is secondary, but another good reason to hire a specialist -- who is one-step removed. When I am confronted with an inferior understanding of the written guidelines, I can't take it to ANI or COIN and expect a neutral outcome (nor any outcome come to think of it). My only real recourse is to start an RfC to see if the local consensus reflects the wider consensus. For this I am accused of being an tendentious paid COI editor.
009o9
Disclosure
(Talk)
14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You should self-revert your 1RR violation. You can retain the "improvements". You should not misuse Wikipedia's narrative voice to say "Jerusalem" is in Israel. Wikipedia can't say that Jerusalem is in Israel because it is an NPOV violation. If you mean West Jerusalem say West Jerusalem. This has been discussed endlessly and please do not start another fire. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Notification: I opened an Rfc on this subject at Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser ( talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the help on my top icons! I have been away from Wikipedia and editing for over a year and came back to find that something had changed. I just couldn't figure out what it was. Nice surprise to log in this morning and find all of them back again. Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your tone saying "another undiscussed initiative that isn't a good idea". That's not very nice. No, Jews aren't a tribe, but they are a collection of tribes. The precedent is Samaritans, who are in Ten Lost Tribes (Tribes of Israel). Samaritans are three tribes, Ehpraim, Menasseh, and Levi. Something needn't be strictly one tribe to be in tribes of israel. Tribes of Israel as you should know is the analogous article to "Israelites".-- Monochrome_ Monitor 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:TPO. Modifying my comments is incredibly annoying. Please stop doing that. nableezy - 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought you had more respect for my work than this. If this had been a brand-new statement, you would (of course) have been correct to delete-and-then-justify. In fact, this statement had been stable for four years until Enigmaman came by, and there was a healthy discussion on the talk page already. With all due respect, you really should have let the discussion run its course. StevenJ81 ( talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to report that if it isn't reverted by the time I finish the report. nableezy - 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser nableezy - 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
As you were involved in the DRN, I thought I'd let you know about the current RFC on the Southern Levant talk page here Drsmoo ( talk) 09:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I only care to comment on content at specific articles. Sepsis II ( talk) 01:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sepsis II ( talk) 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not really an article, is it? It's more like a disambiguation page. The organisations mentioned each have their own pages. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this? There are editors I choose not to deal with, maybe you are more detached.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tel_Faher&diff=726571806&oldid=726550885
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ancient_synagogues_in_Israel&diff=725346956&oldid=725305993
For the second one: what about changing the title?
Land of Israel in stead of just Israel? There must be some accepted term. Israel and occupied territories might not please others :-) Common sense doesn't help much. "IAA-administered territories" would be my favourite. Cheers, Arminden
Arminden (
talk)
00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Basic distinction: "subjective" is bad if referring to EDITORS. The ALLEGEDLY subjective feelings of parties to a conflict are a hugely RELEVANT, and if proven: OBJECTIVE and ESSENTIAL part of the conflict. "Allegedly" ends where good sources are presented. Reverting as such doesn't bring much.
The Golan is not part of int'ly recognised Israel, nor of Palestine, and only in part or questionably of the Land of Israel as usually defined. "IAA-administered territories" was a joke, but a very serious one. Arminden
Arminden (
talk)
08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Debresser. No, no, that's what I figured. I would say that since EthniCelebs is, by it own admission, "for entertainment purposes only" and not to be used as a reference source, that adding it as a second source does hurt in that it can suggest to other editors that it's OK to use. Also, if the cite that's given is truly RS, we don't really need a second one, right? Thank you, by the way, for adding all those footnotes; I probably should have sent you a thanks as well. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
A user you dealt with in May has come back to do the same thing again. Just letting you know since you dealt with him/her before. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 22:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been following your discussion here and I agree with your points, but I would advise you not to call other editors "stupid" (even if they deserve it). It is against against Wikipedia policy and also not a logical way to argue. -- GHcool ( talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant 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/Southern Levant 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. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Widr and I have been kept pretty busy as Til keeps finding new IP addresses. A range block request is at ANI and MikeV blocked 71.246.144.0/20 for 48 hours. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I really dont understand the belligerence here. You seem intent on stoking some sort of conflict between us. You could have just included the two sentences agreed to, but rather than do that you choose to edit-war in the maximalist position. Thats fine, its up to you, but youre edit is against the policy objections of several editors, and I am going to file an AE report about it later. Or you can self-revert and seek consensus through an RFC or something. But edit-warring to include disputed material in a BLP probably isnt the wisest course for you. Up to you. I have dinner plans, so Ill check back on this later in the evening. nableezy - 23:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:AE#Debresser nableezy - 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
In Yiddish dialects#Varieties, I added the clarifying remark because the quotation itself is not very clear to a lay reader. It is hard to figure out what "period of reforms" might be meant; I'm still not sure what the intended period is. But from researching a little on Wikipedia itself, I came to the conclusion that the intended meaning can only be that Western Yiddish became extinct sometime in the 19th century (although the linked website presents evidence that may contradict this conjecture and that Western Yiddish might have survived longer, considering that there were still apparent semi-speakers in Orange County in 1997). I don't think Wikipedia should present readers with mystifying quotations like this absent any kind of clarification. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that you violated WP:1RR at Israelites. I notified Nishidani about the same violation I think he committed just before you. “ WarKosign ” 21:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for three months.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 05:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add this source after the sentence"The Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news." in Mandatory Palestine. I tried to look for sources for the recently removed statement, [10] but instead turned up with this. Debresser ( talk) 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
In mother nature’s dictionary (despite doing so in the dictionary of the prince), the word "child" never refers to anyone having begun puberty & simultaneously being at an age at which it is normal to be undergoing puberty. Oh & by the way, "child" is the most vile 5-letter word in the English language that can possibly be used to refer to an adolescent. It is (despite being used in many legal contexts, unfortunately), by any & every definition, a chronological slur. 65.129.128.18 ( talk) 03:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC) 65.129.128.18 ( Talk)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Rav shalom! I am most curious about your thoughts on this discussion and my original edits. Do you believe that my edits were "disruptive editing" and/or POV-pushing? I value your opinion. Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I am trying to understand why you cut out this as I thought it added richer information about Rosh HaShana and was also factually connected. Thanks for your time, IZAK ( talk) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser,
This "alleged" portrait is inappropriate as a portrait picture on the main page for Empress Myeongseong as it wrongly depicts the traditions and decorum of the Korean court. The queen did not leave an official portrait during her lifetime and the “alleged” portrait is a less credible variant of the picture that was first published by Rhee Seungman in the magazine 독립정신 (1910). This portrait was later described as being unauthentic and unrealistic by Moon Ilpyung (1888-1939) in his book 사외이문 (史外異聞) and has been widely discredited in recent years. The figure in the portrait is dressed in 적삼 (Jeoksam), a clothing that was worn by common people during Joseon dynasty; lacks any hair decoration that would accompany a Korean women of 양반 (Yangban) or higher status; and is not framed by any symbols of royal court. It is highly unlikely that the queen, who adhered strictly to the traditions of the court, would have posed in front of a photographer in a commoner's attire. To put this “alleged” portrait of the queen on her main page is both insulting and misrepresentative of the Korean tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.223.100.116 ( talk) 03:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Dovid. I've noted your technical fixes, and then your self-reverts. It's never passed through my mind to jump at such things to take you back to some administrative forum, and I just examined them to see what the problem was. Whatever the fucking rules say, I'd never think anybody but an utter arsehole would complain of fixing things like spacing, etc., as a violation of the ban (which, of course, it technically is). I'm not good at them myself, and appreciate such things when done. In any case, rest assured that the usual bad guys like myself are not going to worry you about such edits, whatever the letter of the law, since they are done in the right wiki spirit and do improve. If you have doubts,or think it safer to stick strictly to the 3 month T-ban, or see something that requires attention, you can notify me or Monochrome Monitor, or whoever, and I'm sure we'll fix it. Nishidani ( talk) 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
So, how sure are you that the editor who started that page is not another sockpuppet of this editor – as appears distinctly possible? And what is your reference for the date of birth you've restored to the article (it certainly isn't the one you've cited, which only gives the year). That appears to be a WP:BLP violation. Perhaps you'd be good enough to fix it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I've reviewed your request on my talk page along with the discussions we've had in other places. I don't see you as a POV-pushing editor or someone who's hopelessly tendentious. It's been only a short while, but I think you've proven yourself level-headed.
For the duration of the topic ban period (i.e., until 27 October, three months after it was imposed), you are under a 0RR restriction in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The topic ban itself is lifted and you're free to participate in edits to relevant pages and engage in discussions on relevant talk pages. However, you are not allowed to revert any other user's edit, except unambiguous vandalism (e.g. blanking a page, adding curse words, you get the gist). If you want to undo another user's addition, removal, or modification of text, you need to make the case on the article's talk page, but you yourself cannot do it. I, or any other uninvolved admin, may impose blocks of escalating severity for violations of this modified restriction.
If you have any questions, please ask me first prior to clicking the undo button. I believe this changed restriction gets at my original concern at AE while allowing you back into the topic. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 23:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Debresser (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that User:Purrhaps on Talk:Yom Kippur may not be mentally stable. What are your impressions? Debresser ( talk) 15:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This comes from my talk page as further evidence of my mental state: "Therefore, Sir Joseph's translation of Gen.6:14 must = Make an ark of gopher wood, don't COVER it, just ATONE it inside & out with ATONEMENT, not BITUMIN. ~ The ark won't float, but there will be a lot of thick, accusatory, obfuscatory SMOKE (& mirrors)" -- Purrhaps ( talk) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Q.E.D. = "which is what had to be proved" also applies to the LITERAL meaning of kippur & kaphar as demonstrated above. Now, please go back on your medication. :-) -- Purrhaps ( talk) 17:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to help you with your cry for help ("Some advice needed"). Please avoid ad hominem, character-assassination comments. They just reveal weakness of position & erode respect for you. I'm sorry to touch a sore spot, but "atonement" is not part of OLD or NEW Testament Scripture -- even though hard-to-accept, because it is a deeply-ingrained part of theological / vernacular vocabulary. -- Purrhaps ( talk) 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but not fairly, or as severely, & with "interesting" comment. -- Purrhaps ( talk) 09:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yom_Kippur -- Purrhaps ( talk) 02:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, wondering if you would like to respond here. I'm kind of confused, since it seems what you tried to do now is opposite what you said this month last year. Hope to see you there, and l'shanah tovah! Musashiaharon ( talk) 03:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The error in the holy anointing oil article concerning challah is being discussed and mirrored in other forums. I know of NOBODY who believes or practices giving the piece of challah to someone else as a starter.
I HAVE heard of giving away a piece of SOURDOUGH challah to enable others to create new sourdough loaves. But this is far divorced from customs concerning traditional challah.
WHY would you want this horribly inaccurate statement to continue on the internet? And WHAT IN THE WORLD does this have to do with holy anointing oil anyway?
The only reason I tried to rewrite it rather than just deleting it is because I knew you would accuse me of deleting a "whole section." No, what I rewrote was NOT worse than the horrible inaccuracy about challah. Someone DID add "according to traditional Jewish law, this piece may not be eaten under any modern day conditions" which attempt just furthered confusion as to why this paragraph even exists in the first place.
There is SO much in this article that needs redone. Ninety five percent of this article was lifted from an essay I wrote and published years ago along with errors I included when I was just young in my career. I also fought for years against cannabis users from turning this article into a commercial for the cannabis church.
I guess I will just have to be satisfied in allowing a blatant error about Jewish customs to live on.
A simple misunderstanding I am sure. May deal more with it later.
CWatchman ( talk) 20:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Participate on talk page, achieve consensus by arguing your point, THEN implement your change (see WP:BRD). You are attempting to enforce a change that does not have consensus (discussions from two years ago do not count, particularly in light of a more recent discussion justifying the retention of the categories in question) and which several editors have reverted you for. You don't have the right to do that. I have also removed your "warning" message from my page. If you do not participate in the discussion and build consensus, your protests will be ignored. Simple as that. 2601:84:4502:61EA:6CB6:9CB9:5B50:8147 ( talk) 01:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Some people might get offended.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 23:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I am User:ChronoFrog. I forgot my password so I've been using my IP address instead. You can take off the tinfoil hat now.
As for everything else, my stance remains the same. I won't allow you to remove the category unless you can show that your removal is justified. If the behavior I'm seeing right now continues, I will not hesitate to drag you before an administrator. 2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 ( talk) 11:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I have been following your edits as of late as a token of excellence I would to ask for your assistance improving Zeek Wikipedia article. I will be honest and come forward that I have a stated COI with the company but I feel the information presented in the article is notable. Any input from you regarding this matter would be amazing. Thanks, Eddard 'Ned' Stark ( talk) 20:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Debresser, I was wondering, since you are a Jewish rabbi and may know a lot of information about Jewish messianism, if you would like to help me undertake a task of improving articles related to messianism, which includes (but not limited to):
All the articles need improvement, by adding reliable sources and more information. The main Messiah article needs to focus more on the Abrahamic religions since that is where the Messiah(s) originated from (specifically Judaism/Hebrew Bible) and needs more information and sources. The messianism article should talk more about the concept of a savior/liberator/reedemer, not specifically the' Messiah(s) of the Abrahamic religions. The Messiah in Judaism needs clean up (too) and needs to be expanded, talking about the Jewish view of multiply saviors/kings as messiahs, and the two main messiahs, the suffering servant and king of the Jewish people. It also needs to talk largely about Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah (the most followed Messiah claimant in history) who is believed by Christians to fulfill the position of a suffering servant and king. The Messiah ben Joseph needs expanding, more information and sources, and the Messiah ben David could possibly be a new article, with Messiah in Judaism focusing on the two plus Jesus as Christ. The Christ article needs more information about how it originated from Judaism and became separate from it. This is just some of the things that need to be done to related articles.
If you are willing to help work on this project, please let me know. You don't have to if you don't want to, but it would be a wonderful help and project to undertake. Shalom. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Withdraw RFC as poorly worded". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 October 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Mediation on an Rfc? Debresser ( talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Withdraw RFC as poorly worded, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
A sweet 5777 to you and your family Dovid, and an easy fast. Regards, Simon. Irondome ( talk) 03:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
An Arbitration Enforcement case in which you participated has been closed with the following result:
All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, cmon, the article edit is sourced? He wrote in an article that Bill Clinton signed a Nazi like law. He used as a source a Holocaust museum source that never once mentions Bill Clinton. And he did it specifically because of the dispute at an Arab-Israeli article. You think that is anywhere near the bounds of acceptable behavior? I was legit shocked when I saw the edit to Clinton. nableezy - 04:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't my edit, but I noticed you reverted an edit on the Birthright Israel entry that linked out to Michael Steinhardt. From what I can tell it appears the link was correct, but I want to make sure I understand why you reverted it before I took any action of my own. -- LibraryGurl ( talk) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
He was banned at the time, he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Please do not undo those strike throughs. nableezy - 15:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing personal to me also. It just that wikipedia content should be maintained in the same manner that main article name should be combatible with the main category of it. This reflect unified naming crateria. There is no benifit from make the category name defferent from its main article. That's all. Regards-- مصعب ( talk) 23:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Last night comments were quite rushed, I have tried to clarify my concerns at the ANI now, but you might want further clarification, I would be only too pleased to explain further if necessary. JarrahTree 03:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Just need to talk to old timers not threaten them.. Lets look at what your doing...does merging a talk page template and article template make any sense to you or anyone for that matter? Does this seem like a valid request or a mistake on the nominator parts that has been explained to them.. So now we all wait for what ,,,for you to understand the mistake made ?-- Moxy ( talk)
There was no village in Israel by this name? I am trying to locate lands. Twillisjr ( talk) 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a serious misunderstanding in the article about Sephardi Jews.
At that time, Christians were divided between the "Nicene" or "Trinitarian" position (Jesus is of the same nature as God) and the "Arian" position (Jesus is subordinate to God). The Nicene position basically won, and was held by the Romans and Byzantines, and by most Christians today, apart from the Unitarians. That is what the article means by "orthodox Christians" and "Catholics". The Arian position was held by the Visigoths, until a later Visigothic king of Spain was converted to Catholicism. For as long as the Visigoths were Arians, they were reasonably tolerant of Jews. Once they became Catholic (i.e. Nicene) things became a lot tougher.
That is what the article was trying to say. As edited by you, it sounds as if "Arians" and "orthodox Christians" mean the same thing. Please read it again, both before and after your edit, and you will see that I am right. -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 16:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
What about 1RR do you think is optional? nableezy - 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit by Huldra and its edit summary "rm rubbish" are not indicative of her positive attitude. Debresser ( talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is some discussion of the topic [23].
I assume you are trying to say that the use of an IUD is a decision of both people in the relationship and thus it should be plural (more than one person) rather than singular? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Not being critical just curious, why the emphasis on existence over nature ie
There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.
There is no clear consensus on the existence or even the nature of God.
Shouldn't both have equal weight ? Unibond ( talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not use expletives on my talk page. Peace. ItaloCelt84 ( talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You're now at the limit of 3RR. You're invited to discuss the photo. I'll help. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Have a free meal for starting the AN/I thread. Their remark was offensive so I've handed them a warning not to refer to you as a misogynist and I've given them links to DRN and RfC. I don't fully get the meat of that discussion, but, if you can get your hands on some good quality images of Haredi women, then that may be more useful to you than edit-warring over it. Oh yes, slmost forgot, please avoid editwarring except to remove attacking, vandalizing, copyrighted, or other illegal materials. This trout is merely for fair representation. It's the equal outcomes approach ;). Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Going to the limit of 3RR, I see...
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
12:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for improving the article about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.I noticed you did a good job in preventing unhelpful edits from being introduced into the article. Eliko007 ( talk) 22:32, 15 December 2016 (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. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I notice you have tried to officially threaten me on my web page. Again, please show me how I have used name-calling and the sort. But again, my prime recommendation to you is to address with substance the problems with the Schneerson article with reasonable sources. I have no fear that my sources back up what I have stated, and I have no doubt also that this article is marked by recurrent, ill advised biased editing. I have set up a complaint about the neutrality board, as you know from prior discussions, this is not a new problem for this article. Rococo1700 ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I notice you have used the vandalism template on my webpage twice. Well whoopee-doo. Is this like a magic trick, which if you say it three times it becomes true? My recommendation is that you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars before you template me, but better yet, I tend to view this as a sign that you are not having luck with finding reliable sources that prove your point on the Schneerson article. It must take a lot of energy to harass other people, when you could focus on the contents of the article. Oh by the way, I deleted your template again, please tell me when does the 3RR rule kick in for your vandalism templates on my talk page? Rococo1700 ( talk) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
is covered by the 1RR. And your edit violates the MOS. nableezy - 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Debresser,
Enjoy the
Winter Solstice and the
Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding
Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, —
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh |
Buzzard |
16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Greetings...not sure how much we may have interacted in the past, but regardless, I hope you're having a very happy holiday season!
I would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to review this ANI filing and consider weighing in. There hasn't been much participation thus far, and while the editor I reported hasn't made any edits for the past couple of days, they also have historically declined to discuss their edits, and I see no indication that that pattern will change if nothing is done. Pinging you as I saw that you warned the editor previously.
Thank you for your consideration, and again, I hope you have a very happy holidays! DonIago ( talk) 05:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 80px
Hello, I wanted to ask you for your thoughts and also give you some background on the reason for my edit which was reverted here. My concerns are that the word "hack", or to "to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows", is a verb being used in a negative connotation towards the Crusaders, of which have a controversial history within this area to begin with. I thought my change to "opened" did not lose any important factual information to this article but did refrain from any verbiage which may offer a connotation other than the fact that it is believed that the opening was created by the Crusaders. To prevent multiple revisions I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if there is another word you might find suitable that more directly correlates to what is known about the opening. Thanks! Garchy ( talk) 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw that someone closed it as a keep.🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, you have undid a revision of mine on 'Biblical archaeology' where I removed the Shroud of Turin from "disproved" Biblical artifacts. Your explanation was "Unexplained removal. Also made a plethora of minor technical edits." -- I would undo your edit, however your minor edits are helpful to the page and so I did not simply undo it. I in fact DID explain my removal of the Shroud of Turin in the Talk Page, and I still COMPLETELY disapprove of your re-addition of it. As I have shown in the Talk Page, the Shroud of Turin CERTAINLY isn't disproven. Simply because there is debate in it does NOT allow anyone to put it under the list of disproven Biblical artifacts -- so I am requesting that you remove your addition of the Shroud of Turin under the section if disproved Biblical artifacts otherwise I will have to do it myself as I did indeed bring this to the Talk Page. Thanks. Korvex ( talk) 23:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Eliezer Berland.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at
User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!
AnomieBOT
⚡
17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
Anomie
⚔
20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page. Andreas Mamoukas ( talk) 19:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer exists to allow non-administrators to stop AnomieBOT if it is making edits that are damaging the encyclopedia. You have been abusing that ability by posting to that page when the only thing "wrong" the bot has done is post a single message to your talk page informing you that a revert you made was inappropriate (note the linked revert is not this other entirely appropriate and correct revert). Please stop. Anomie ⚔ 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
All I did was add the categories that were already on the main article's page. I don't like the obvious double standard you are trying to apply to Jews vis a vis other groups in the Middle East, and apparent discomfort with calling us a Middle Eastern group at all (even though that is what we are, by any conceivable definition). I find that deeply worrying. There is enough revisionism of Jewish identity out there as it is. We don't need it on Wikipedia too. 2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 ( talk) 13:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
[24]-- Shrike ( talk) 21:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_9#Category:Jewish_agricultural_colonies_in_the_Russian_Empire. It's generally best not to close discussions in which one had participated and expressed an opinion, but as this one was withdrawn by the nominator, I am not here to make an objection about that. However, you forgot to sign your close. Also, I have done a couple of follow-up actions which are required after closing: to remove the CFD template from the nominated category, and to add a link to the discussion on the talk page. For future reference, these are listed at WP:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions ( WP:CFDAI). If you have the time and inclination to help again at CFD, that would be very welcome. Best wishes – Fayenatic L ondon 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_and_Sir_Joseph
The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello I've reverted your restoration of the information on the Jussie Smollett per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE please do not restore the information without first establishing a consensus. Thanks! -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I know we've been writing recently as opponents, but I was wondering if we could bridge some differences as fellow Lubavitchers with Torah. I know that I've been writing on WP mostly based on secular sources, because that is what WP tends to favor. However, my actual belief is that the truth is as things are in Torah. I think we are in agreement there, and that our differences might come mostly as a result of different understandings of Torah. So I would like to learn more about your understanding of Am Yisroel and Eretz HaKodesh.
To begin, Wikipedia is currently unfriendly to religious definitions, so I felt I had to act more as Yaakov, rather than as Yisroel. In other words, in order to realize the maila of ohr (Torah) min ha-choshech davka (WP), we have to present the Torah in terms that the choshech can swallow, dressing it up in hairy skins like Yaakov. Unfortunately, since the choshech only swallows secular sources, that's what we have to give it. But here, we don't need the hairy goatskins and we can talk straight. :-D
The underlying goal of my recent edits was to have WP recognize, or at least mention, the deep connection of every Yisroel with Eretz Yisroel. As it currently stands, the Yishmaelim are listed in the region, but not Jews. This implied heipech ho-emes, that Jews do not belong there. So the situation needs to be fixed.
When I saw from your user page that you were also a Lubavitcher, I asked some local shluchim what they thought, and their initial opinion indeed followed yours, especially when I mentioned the secular arguments I had been using. After all, Torah iz Emes, and any other definition is not. But those were just the goatskins.
When I mentioned the implications for us in Eretz Hakodesh, though, the shluchim quickly came to agree that Jews should certainly be listed similarly to the Yishmaelim. The senior shliach even said that this is the taineh of the goyim that Rashi mentions in Bereishis bara, as the Rebbe explains: The goyim say that since we are a spiritual people, what need do we have of a gashmiyusdikeh land? Gashmiyus is the domain of Eisav, and we're doing hasagas g'vul. That's their problem with us. Talmud loimar, Hashem created the world, and in order that the Yidden fulfill their—yes—spiritual mission, we need a land b'gashmiyus, and Hashem designated Eretz Hakodesh davka for that purpose. That is why we had to come from there to be an ohr lagoyim, and we daven to return there to do all of our mitzvos and fulfill our mission to make a dira b'tachtoinim—mamash with a physical world.
What do you think? Shavua tov, chodesh tov! Musashiaharon ( talk) 09:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying they're not of Jewish descent. The issue is that you can't say that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know if/when the Jewish/ME descent RfC is re-opened. I do not follow the topic area but I am interested in the RfC. Thank you. Jbh Talk 13:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from editing the comments of other users in communal spaces. If you disagree with the argument, respond to it in a rational manner. Do not delete comments, however difficult it is for you to find a coherent counter argument. Thanks 62.255.118.6 ( talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
http://www.quantummuse.com https://advertise.baltimoresun.com/portal/page/portal/Baltimore%20Sun/FAQ Zero talk 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Your heavy-handed reverting does you no credit. Twice you've reverted my edits to restore factually incorrect material that mischaracterises what the cited source says. In fact, to say almost the opposite of what the cited source says. Could you please actually read the source and stop behaving in a WP:OWN manner? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop with your patronising comments. They help nobody. Cassianto Talk 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at this edit and at Kohen Gadol. I can't figure out where the editor is coming from. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Dovid. This can certainly wait until after yom tov, but I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at something I've recently put together. I've never been happy with International Date Line#Judaism. It is written as if R' Heinemann's opinion is the beginning and end of the discussion (POV), and it additionally has always felt incomplete. So I cooked up something which you can see at User:StevenJ81/sandbox#International date line in halacha. I'd appreciate your advice/input/etc. (Even if you look Thursday, I'm going to sleep on it until after yom tov, so as I said before, don't feel in a hurry. Thanks, gut moed, gut yom tov. StevenJ81 ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
[1] - why not tag instead? This conduct is terrible. Chesdovi ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it help if you're both wrong? Chesdovi, your behavior is not acceptable, you do need to tone it down. Debresser, it's very common knowledge similar to the sky being blue that in Europe the dress was more colorful and Chofetz Chaim indeed still does colored shirts and feathers, etc. Not only that, the reason why the Chevron Yeshiva was sent to Chevron was because they were seen as too modern for Yerushalayim. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I undid your edit. Your edit summary "Completely irrelevant. See talkpage consensus." and your talk page comment "As a matter of fact, there are no quotation marks, so not a quot at all." are incorrect. It clearly is a quote. Wikipedia is taking a direct quote from the King James Bible version of Deuteronomy 31:26, and correctly uses quote marks. The Bible may not be using quotation marks, but we are quoting the Bible, and a specific version of it. I believe attribution is required per MOS:QUOTE. How is this an irrelevant objection? There was certainly no talk page consensus when you restored the edits since there were only two differing opinions on the talk page. You then added your flawed argument to the talk page. Two people have restored the attribution since it is a direct quote. The person who originally removed the attribution seems to be arguing WP:OSE and you think it the quote should be paraphrased, thus eliminating the need for attribution to a specific Bible version. That's not consensus. Your observation about paraphrasing eliminating the need for attribution is correct, but it's not a reason to remove the attribution while we are still using a direct quote. Meters ( talk) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Law of Moses has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. This is indeed a direct quote, with quotation marks, as was pointed out in the edit summary three times, on the article's talk page 4 times, and on your talk page. If you think that the attribution is not needed then discuss that issue, but don't vcontinue to revert with false edit summaries Meters ( talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Meters. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Really you template a regular for edit warring after only 2 well explained reverts and multiple attempts to discuss the edit on the talk page, and threaten to report me? Not even close. Meters ( talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Law of Moses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meters ( talk) 21:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: ). Thank you. clpo13( talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Seven Laws of Noah in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. TJH2018 talk 22:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Faith primary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. damiens.rf 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
There was no parameter until I added |number=
, which I later found to be a bad name. So now I changed it to |sortkey=
, and it is documented as such on {{
top icon}}. So please look further before reverting. I'm sorry if this adds extra work (which I'm willing to take off your hands), but this is better in the long run. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
<indicator>
is a lot easier.
StevenJ81 (
talk)
14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
<indicator>
. It ensures proper formatting of the icons. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
14:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Edokter, 1. Did you discuss this? I see no discussion that concerns preference of "sortkey" over "number"? 2. Why didn't you change all the documentation pages as well? 3. Did you ever hear of WP:BRD? 4. Did you ever hear of If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Debresser ( talk) 18:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|number=
on your user page, but an even older one that hasn't worked for over a year. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
21:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)<indicator>
two years ago, and sorting was disabeld in the proces (by the change in /core, not by me). I just now re-added that possibility, so why the flack? Discuss the parameter name on
Template talk:Top icon if you have to, but I won't stand being reprimanded by someone who doesn't see the bigger picture. Your reverts actually broke those templates and left a discrepancy with the 200+ other templates I edited. Yes, someone added the number parameter prematurely to those templates; I'm not on his back about it. I think long-term, and most people know that. I welcome any review. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
07:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC){{{icon-nr|{{{number|{{{sortkey|}}}}}}}}}
or something like that), and changing the documentation is something you definitely should do. Do you plan to do these two things?
Debresser (
talk)
08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
08:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
|icon_nr=
for a very long time, and they edit as if the topicon misordering is not a big deal anyway. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{number|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|{{#if:{{{icon-nr|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|}}}}
should do it? I remember there being an issue with if the parameter is defined (like | number = {{{number|}}}
) or not (like | number =
), that the latter is perhaps not found by this code?
Debresser (
talk)
07:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Yeah, I think it's similar to something like Special:Diff/720425195 without {{ Main other}} and addressing multiple named params. Again, it can be done, but I personally still honestly think it's getting a bit fussy to track this. I also take Edokter's absence as agreement with what I think as well. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Edokter: I am now working on the pages that are appearing in Category:Fix. I see no reason to use a more descriptive name for a tracking category, which I intend to remove within 24 hours. Debresser ( talk) 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way, somce interesting cases came up, like {{ PubMed indexed}}, {{ Virginia Tech ribbon}}, {{ WikiOgre}}, Wikipedia:WikiPlatypus/topicon, User:EWikist/WikiFun Police/WikiFun Police Topicon, {{ WikiProject Star Trek Top}}, {{ DOOM}}, {{ Template:Arbitration Clerk topicon}}, {{ Eventualist}}, {{ JLOWP}}, {{ Grump}}, {{ Pokeme}}, {{ WikiWitch-icon}}, {{ Olympicrings}}, {{ Pageprotection}} and most seriously User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon. Debresser ( talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We already have 870 cases, not counting the once I replaced already. 870! I think this should be a lesson for you not to replace parameters without providing backwards compatibility. What right did you have to render a parameter inactive that is in use on almost a thousand userpages? I am really angry at you for this. Debresser ( talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Done well over 1,000 instances. there are 26 pages left, all because of fully protected pages. I have dropped a request to some 5 editors, and there will be a few left that will need admin help. Debresser ( talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Perhaps you can help a bit more. There are 8 pages left with the old parameter. Perhaps you could edit the first four of them?
| icon_nr = {{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}}
that has to be changed to | icon_nr = {{{sortkey|{{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}}}}}
.{{
Adminhelp}}
I would like to ask any admin to fix the first four instances above, to finish this job. Over 1,000 pages were fixed, just 7 remain... Debresser ( talk) 07:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Debresser It is very likely that Lemongirl942 arrived the artcle by WP:STALKING my (other volunteer) edit summaries, as she did here, diff and then here, diff after she uncivilly attacked my paid work here. diff. The paid work had been up for 14 months and various other editors had contributed/reviewed without indecent/discourse. As a paid editor, I can't edit/restore the content in article space, and it can take months to get an edit request answered, so restoring even improved prose is no simple task. Her departure from the guidance (tagging, wholesale deletion, and then leaving the tag), established in WP:DT, which has been published since 2010, diff She practices disruptive editing on a daily basis imho.
I hope you will take the time to read WP:Local consensus, which cannot override Wikipedia-wide consensus. The local consensus here appears to support the passage I added in #6, yet of her own accord, Lemongirl942 again removed some of the content. [ diff] In an attempt to avoid having her disruptive editing technique -- disrupted.
I would not concern myself with the discussion about this Help page if it were not for the fact that it is being added to face of the tag templates. I appreciate that there is a "local consensus" in this discussion, I apologize for losing my cool with her, but other editors deserve to know why she is here and because of the Wikipedia wide visibility of this help page, the discussion is more important than inconveniencing a few electrons. Finally, I don't believe I've ever placed a banner tag in four years of editing, I use inline and section tags. 009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 19:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
(This wandered off topic from the Help page discussion, so I brought it here instead.) It's been two years since the Foundation's paid (declared) editing consensus, and a small group of editors has been allowed to sustain their POV into the matter. (Again, we are tasked to judge the content of the article, not the intent of the editor.) A recent instance I wish you could have seen, concerns a lack of integrity surrounding an AfD I stumbled into. The final version in article space had (pruned by at least 10?) fewer references than my version [2]. And I was warned not to add reliably sourced content back into the article after reverting a revert of my content. [3] Then, the involved editor (after voting and pruning) hatted conversations in the AfD, which included my list of the better references that apply to the subject. [4] This is not what I would call conduct that is congruent with the goals of the Foundation, especially for editors who primarily involve themselves with compliance issues.
As a declared paid editor, I do not work in, nor even visit the company offices. I am a buffer between the PR guy, who openly admits he cannot write neutrally (his background is marketing mine is tech), and the submitted (AfC) product. The idea that somebody who works in the office daily, with no knowledge of the guidelines, holds some kind of superior position among inferiors seems subjective. Finally, the writing is much like the job of a paralegal. The law (policies and guidelines) are primary when composing and knowing platform (similar to the old WordPerfect editor IMHO) is secondary, but another good reason to hire a specialist -- who is one-step removed. When I am confronted with an inferior understanding of the written guidelines, I can't take it to ANI or COIN and expect a neutral outcome (nor any outcome come to think of it). My only real recourse is to start an RfC to see if the local consensus reflects the wider consensus. For this I am accused of being an tendentious paid COI editor.
009o9
Disclosure
(Talk)
14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You should self-revert your 1RR violation. You can retain the "improvements". You should not misuse Wikipedia's narrative voice to say "Jerusalem" is in Israel. Wikipedia can't say that Jerusalem is in Israel because it is an NPOV violation. If you mean West Jerusalem say West Jerusalem. This has been discussed endlessly and please do not start another fire. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Notification: I opened an Rfc on this subject at Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser ( talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the help on my top icons! I have been away from Wikipedia and editing for over a year and came back to find that something had changed. I just couldn't figure out what it was. Nice surprise to log in this morning and find all of them back again. Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your tone saying "another undiscussed initiative that isn't a good idea". That's not very nice. No, Jews aren't a tribe, but they are a collection of tribes. The precedent is Samaritans, who are in Ten Lost Tribes (Tribes of Israel). Samaritans are three tribes, Ehpraim, Menasseh, and Levi. Something needn't be strictly one tribe to be in tribes of israel. Tribes of Israel as you should know is the analogous article to "Israelites".-- Monochrome_ Monitor 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:TPO. Modifying my comments is incredibly annoying. Please stop doing that. nableezy - 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought you had more respect for my work than this. If this had been a brand-new statement, you would (of course) have been correct to delete-and-then-justify. In fact, this statement had been stable for four years until Enigmaman came by, and there was a healthy discussion on the talk page already. With all due respect, you really should have let the discussion run its course. StevenJ81 ( talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to report that if it isn't reverted by the time I finish the report. nableezy - 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser nableezy - 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
As you were involved in the DRN, I thought I'd let you know about the current RFC on the Southern Levant talk page here Drsmoo ( talk) 09:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I only care to comment on content at specific articles. Sepsis II ( talk) 01:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sepsis II ( talk) 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not really an article, is it? It's more like a disambiguation page. The organisations mentioned each have their own pages. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this? There are editors I choose not to deal with, maybe you are more detached.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tel_Faher&diff=726571806&oldid=726550885
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ancient_synagogues_in_Israel&diff=725346956&oldid=725305993
For the second one: what about changing the title?
Land of Israel in stead of just Israel? There must be some accepted term. Israel and occupied territories might not please others :-) Common sense doesn't help much. "IAA-administered territories" would be my favourite. Cheers, Arminden
Arminden (
talk)
00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Basic distinction: "subjective" is bad if referring to EDITORS. The ALLEGEDLY subjective feelings of parties to a conflict are a hugely RELEVANT, and if proven: OBJECTIVE and ESSENTIAL part of the conflict. "Allegedly" ends where good sources are presented. Reverting as such doesn't bring much.
The Golan is not part of int'ly recognised Israel, nor of Palestine, and only in part or questionably of the Land of Israel as usually defined. "IAA-administered territories" was a joke, but a very serious one. Arminden
Arminden (
talk)
08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Debresser. No, no, that's what I figured. I would say that since EthniCelebs is, by it own admission, "for entertainment purposes only" and not to be used as a reference source, that adding it as a second source does hurt in that it can suggest to other editors that it's OK to use. Also, if the cite that's given is truly RS, we don't really need a second one, right? Thank you, by the way, for adding all those footnotes; I probably should have sent you a thanks as well. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
A user you dealt with in May has come back to do the same thing again. Just letting you know since you dealt with him/her before. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 22:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been following your discussion here and I agree with your points, but I would advise you not to call other editors "stupid" (even if they deserve it). It is against against Wikipedia policy and also not a logical way to argue. -- GHcool ( talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant 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/Southern Levant 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. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Widr and I have been kept pretty busy as Til keeps finding new IP addresses. A range block request is at ANI and MikeV blocked 71.246.144.0/20 for 48 hours. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I really dont understand the belligerence here. You seem intent on stoking some sort of conflict between us. You could have just included the two sentences agreed to, but rather than do that you choose to edit-war in the maximalist position. Thats fine, its up to you, but youre edit is against the policy objections of several editors, and I am going to file an AE report about it later. Or you can self-revert and seek consensus through an RFC or something. But edit-warring to include disputed material in a BLP probably isnt the wisest course for you. Up to you. I have dinner plans, so Ill check back on this later in the evening. nableezy - 23:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:AE#Debresser nableezy - 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
In Yiddish dialects#Varieties, I added the clarifying remark because the quotation itself is not very clear to a lay reader. It is hard to figure out what "period of reforms" might be meant; I'm still not sure what the intended period is. But from researching a little on Wikipedia itself, I came to the conclusion that the intended meaning can only be that Western Yiddish became extinct sometime in the 19th century (although the linked website presents evidence that may contradict this conjecture and that Western Yiddish might have survived longer, considering that there were still apparent semi-speakers in Orange County in 1997). I don't think Wikipedia should present readers with mystifying quotations like this absent any kind of clarification. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that you violated WP:1RR at Israelites. I notified Nishidani about the same violation I think he committed just before you. “ WarKosign ” 21:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for three months.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 05:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add this source after the sentence"The Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news." in Mandatory Palestine. I tried to look for sources for the recently removed statement, [10] but instead turned up with this. Debresser ( talk) 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
In mother nature’s dictionary (despite doing so in the dictionary of the prince), the word "child" never refers to anyone having begun puberty & simultaneously being at an age at which it is normal to be undergoing puberty. Oh & by the way, "child" is the most vile 5-letter word in the English language that can possibly be used to refer to an adolescent. It is (despite being used in many legal contexts, unfortunately), by any & every definition, a chronological slur. 65.129.128.18 ( talk) 03:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC) 65.129.128.18 ( Talk)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Rav shalom! I am most curious about your thoughts on this discussion and my original edits. Do you believe that my edits were "disruptive editing" and/or POV-pushing? I value your opinion. Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I am trying to understand why you cut out this as I thought it added richer information about Rosh HaShana and was also factually connected. Thanks for your time, IZAK ( talk) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser,
This "alleged" portrait is inappropriate as a portrait picture on the main page for Empress Myeongseong as it wrongly depicts the traditions and decorum of the Korean court. The queen did not leave an official portrait during her lifetime and the “alleged” portrait is a less credible variant of the picture that was first published by Rhee Seungman in the magazine 독립정신 (1910). This portrait was later described as being unauthentic and unrealistic by Moon Ilpyung (1888-1939) in his book 사외이문 (史外異聞) and has been widely discredited in recent years. The figure in the portrait is dressed in 적삼 (Jeoksam), a clothing that was worn by common people during Joseon dynasty; lacks any hair decoration that would accompany a Korean women of 양반 (Yangban) or higher status; and is not framed by any symbols of royal court. It is highly unlikely that the queen, who adhered strictly to the traditions of the court, would have posed in front of a photographer in a commoner's attire. To put this “alleged” portrait of the queen on her main page is both insulting and misrepresentative of the Korean tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.223.100.116 ( talk) 03:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Dovid. I've noted your technical fixes, and then your self-reverts. It's never passed through my mind to jump at such things to take you back to some administrative forum, and I just examined them to see what the problem was. Whatever the fucking rules say, I'd never think anybody but an utter arsehole would complain of fixing things like spacing, etc., as a violation of the ban (which, of course, it technically is). I'm not good at them myself, and appreciate such things when done. In any case, rest assured that the usual bad guys like myself are not going to worry you about such edits, whatever the letter of the law, since they are done in the right wiki spirit and do improve. If you have doubts,or think it safer to stick strictly to the 3 month T-ban, or see something that requires attention, you can notify me or Monochrome Monitor, or whoever, and I'm sure we'll fix it. Nishidani ( talk) 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
So, how sure are you that the editor who started that page is not another sockpuppet of this editor – as appears distinctly possible? And what is your reference for the date of birth you've restored to the article (it certainly isn't the one you've cited, which only gives the year). That appears to be a WP:BLP violation. Perhaps you'd be good enough to fix it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I've reviewed your request on my talk page along with the discussions we've had in other places. I don't see you as a POV-pushing editor or someone who's hopelessly tendentious. It's been only a short while, but I think you've proven yourself level-headed.
For the duration of the topic ban period (i.e., until 27 October, three months after it was imposed), you are under a 0RR restriction in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The topic ban itself is lifted and you're free to participate in edits to relevant pages and engage in discussions on relevant talk pages. However, you are not allowed to revert any other user's edit, except unambiguous vandalism (e.g. blanking a page, adding curse words, you get the gist). If you want to undo another user's addition, removal, or modification of text, you need to make the case on the article's talk page, but you yourself cannot do it. I, or any other uninvolved admin, may impose blocks of escalating severity for violations of this modified restriction.
If you have any questions, please ask me first prior to clicking the undo button. I believe this changed restriction gets at my original concern at AE while allowing you back into the topic. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 23:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Debresser (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that User:Purrhaps on Talk:Yom Kippur may not be mentally stable. What are your impressions? Debresser ( talk) 15:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This comes from my talk page as further evidence of my mental state: "Therefore, Sir Joseph's translation of Gen.6:14 must = Make an ark of gopher wood, don't COVER it, just ATONE it inside & out with ATONEMENT, not BITUMIN. ~ The ark won't float, but there will be a lot of thick, accusatory, obfuscatory SMOKE (& mirrors)" -- Purrhaps ( talk) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Q.E.D. = "which is what had to be proved" also applies to the LITERAL meaning of kippur & kaphar as demonstrated above. Now, please go back on your medication. :-) -- Purrhaps ( talk) 17:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to help you with your cry for help ("Some advice needed"). Please avoid ad hominem, character-assassination comments. They just reveal weakness of position & erode respect for you. I'm sorry to touch a sore spot, but "atonement" is not part of OLD or NEW Testament Scripture -- even though hard-to-accept, because it is a deeply-ingrained part of theological / vernacular vocabulary. -- Purrhaps ( talk) 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but not fairly, or as severely, & with "interesting" comment. -- Purrhaps ( talk) 09:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yom_Kippur -- Purrhaps ( talk) 02:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, wondering if you would like to respond here. I'm kind of confused, since it seems what you tried to do now is opposite what you said this month last year. Hope to see you there, and l'shanah tovah! Musashiaharon ( talk) 03:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The error in the holy anointing oil article concerning challah is being discussed and mirrored in other forums. I know of NOBODY who believes or practices giving the piece of challah to someone else as a starter.
I HAVE heard of giving away a piece of SOURDOUGH challah to enable others to create new sourdough loaves. But this is far divorced from customs concerning traditional challah.
WHY would you want this horribly inaccurate statement to continue on the internet? And WHAT IN THE WORLD does this have to do with holy anointing oil anyway?
The only reason I tried to rewrite it rather than just deleting it is because I knew you would accuse me of deleting a "whole section." No, what I rewrote was NOT worse than the horrible inaccuracy about challah. Someone DID add "according to traditional Jewish law, this piece may not be eaten under any modern day conditions" which attempt just furthered confusion as to why this paragraph even exists in the first place.
There is SO much in this article that needs redone. Ninety five percent of this article was lifted from an essay I wrote and published years ago along with errors I included when I was just young in my career. I also fought for years against cannabis users from turning this article into a commercial for the cannabis church.
I guess I will just have to be satisfied in allowing a blatant error about Jewish customs to live on.
A simple misunderstanding I am sure. May deal more with it later.
CWatchman ( talk) 20:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Participate on talk page, achieve consensus by arguing your point, THEN implement your change (see WP:BRD). You are attempting to enforce a change that does not have consensus (discussions from two years ago do not count, particularly in light of a more recent discussion justifying the retention of the categories in question) and which several editors have reverted you for. You don't have the right to do that. I have also removed your "warning" message from my page. If you do not participate in the discussion and build consensus, your protests will be ignored. Simple as that. 2601:84:4502:61EA:6CB6:9CB9:5B50:8147 ( talk) 01:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Some people might get offended.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 23:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I am User:ChronoFrog. I forgot my password so I've been using my IP address instead. You can take off the tinfoil hat now.
As for everything else, my stance remains the same. I won't allow you to remove the category unless you can show that your removal is justified. If the behavior I'm seeing right now continues, I will not hesitate to drag you before an administrator. 2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 ( talk) 11:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I have been following your edits as of late as a token of excellence I would to ask for your assistance improving Zeek Wikipedia article. I will be honest and come forward that I have a stated COI with the company but I feel the information presented in the article is notable. Any input from you regarding this matter would be amazing. Thanks, Eddard 'Ned' Stark ( talk) 20:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Debresser, I was wondering, since you are a Jewish rabbi and may know a lot of information about Jewish messianism, if you would like to help me undertake a task of improving articles related to messianism, which includes (but not limited to):
All the articles need improvement, by adding reliable sources and more information. The main Messiah article needs to focus more on the Abrahamic religions since that is where the Messiah(s) originated from (specifically Judaism/Hebrew Bible) and needs more information and sources. The messianism article should talk more about the concept of a savior/liberator/reedemer, not specifically the' Messiah(s) of the Abrahamic religions. The Messiah in Judaism needs clean up (too) and needs to be expanded, talking about the Jewish view of multiply saviors/kings as messiahs, and the two main messiahs, the suffering servant and king of the Jewish people. It also needs to talk largely about Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah (the most followed Messiah claimant in history) who is believed by Christians to fulfill the position of a suffering servant and king. The Messiah ben Joseph needs expanding, more information and sources, and the Messiah ben David could possibly be a new article, with Messiah in Judaism focusing on the two plus Jesus as Christ. The Christ article needs more information about how it originated from Judaism and became separate from it. This is just some of the things that need to be done to related articles.
If you are willing to help work on this project, please let me know. You don't have to if you don't want to, but it would be a wonderful help and project to undertake. Shalom. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Withdraw RFC as poorly worded". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 October 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Mediation on an Rfc? Debresser ( talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Withdraw RFC as poorly worded, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
A sweet 5777 to you and your family Dovid, and an easy fast. Regards, Simon. Irondome ( talk) 03:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
An Arbitration Enforcement case in which you participated has been closed with the following result:
All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, cmon, the article edit is sourced? He wrote in an article that Bill Clinton signed a Nazi like law. He used as a source a Holocaust museum source that never once mentions Bill Clinton. And he did it specifically because of the dispute at an Arab-Israeli article. You think that is anywhere near the bounds of acceptable behavior? I was legit shocked when I saw the edit to Clinton. nableezy - 04:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't my edit, but I noticed you reverted an edit on the Birthright Israel entry that linked out to Michael Steinhardt. From what I can tell it appears the link was correct, but I want to make sure I understand why you reverted it before I took any action of my own. -- LibraryGurl ( talk) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
He was banned at the time, he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Please do not undo those strike throughs. nableezy - 15:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing personal to me also. It just that wikipedia content should be maintained in the same manner that main article name should be combatible with the main category of it. This reflect unified naming crateria. There is no benifit from make the category name defferent from its main article. That's all. Regards-- مصعب ( talk) 23:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Last night comments were quite rushed, I have tried to clarify my concerns at the ANI now, but you might want further clarification, I would be only too pleased to explain further if necessary. JarrahTree 03:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Just need to talk to old timers not threaten them.. Lets look at what your doing...does merging a talk page template and article template make any sense to you or anyone for that matter? Does this seem like a valid request or a mistake on the nominator parts that has been explained to them.. So now we all wait for what ,,,for you to understand the mistake made ?-- Moxy ( talk)
There was no village in Israel by this name? I am trying to locate lands. Twillisjr ( talk) 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a serious misunderstanding in the article about Sephardi Jews.
At that time, Christians were divided between the "Nicene" or "Trinitarian" position (Jesus is of the same nature as God) and the "Arian" position (Jesus is subordinate to God). The Nicene position basically won, and was held by the Romans and Byzantines, and by most Christians today, apart from the Unitarians. That is what the article means by "orthodox Christians" and "Catholics". The Arian position was held by the Visigoths, until a later Visigothic king of Spain was converted to Catholicism. For as long as the Visigoths were Arians, they were reasonably tolerant of Jews. Once they became Catholic (i.e. Nicene) things became a lot tougher.
That is what the article was trying to say. As edited by you, it sounds as if "Arians" and "orthodox Christians" mean the same thing. Please read it again, both before and after your edit, and you will see that I am right. -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 16:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
What about 1RR do you think is optional? nableezy - 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit by Huldra and its edit summary "rm rubbish" are not indicative of her positive attitude. Debresser ( talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is some discussion of the topic [23].
I assume you are trying to say that the use of an IUD is a decision of both people in the relationship and thus it should be plural (more than one person) rather than singular? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Debresser. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Not being critical just curious, why the emphasis on existence over nature ie
There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.
There is no clear consensus on the existence or even the nature of God.
Shouldn't both have equal weight ? Unibond ( talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not use expletives on my talk page. Peace. ItaloCelt84 ( talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You're now at the limit of 3RR. You're invited to discuss the photo. I'll help. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Have a free meal for starting the AN/I thread. Their remark was offensive so I've handed them a warning not to refer to you as a misogynist and I've given them links to DRN and RfC. I don't fully get the meat of that discussion, but, if you can get your hands on some good quality images of Haredi women, then that may be more useful to you than edit-warring over it. Oh yes, slmost forgot, please avoid editwarring except to remove attacking, vandalizing, copyrighted, or other illegal materials. This trout is merely for fair representation. It's the equal outcomes approach ;). Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Going to the limit of 3RR, I see...
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
12:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for improving the article about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.I noticed you did a good job in preventing unhelpful edits from being introduced into the article. Eliko007 ( talk) 22:32, 15 December 2016 (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. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I notice you have tried to officially threaten me on my web page. Again, please show me how I have used name-calling and the sort. But again, my prime recommendation to you is to address with substance the problems with the Schneerson article with reasonable sources. I have no fear that my sources back up what I have stated, and I have no doubt also that this article is marked by recurrent, ill advised biased editing. I have set up a complaint about the neutrality board, as you know from prior discussions, this is not a new problem for this article. Rococo1700 ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I notice you have used the vandalism template on my webpage twice. Well whoopee-doo. Is this like a magic trick, which if you say it three times it becomes true? My recommendation is that you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars before you template me, but better yet, I tend to view this as a sign that you are not having luck with finding reliable sources that prove your point on the Schneerson article. It must take a lot of energy to harass other people, when you could focus on the contents of the article. Oh by the way, I deleted your template again, please tell me when does the 3RR rule kick in for your vandalism templates on my talk page? Rococo1700 ( talk) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
is covered by the 1RR. And your edit violates the MOS. nableezy - 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Debresser,
Enjoy the
Winter Solstice and the
Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding
Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, —
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh |
Buzzard |
16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Greetings...not sure how much we may have interacted in the past, but regardless, I hope you're having a very happy holiday season!
I would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to review this ANI filing and consider weighing in. There hasn't been much participation thus far, and while the editor I reported hasn't made any edits for the past couple of days, they also have historically declined to discuss their edits, and I see no indication that that pattern will change if nothing is done. Pinging you as I saw that you warned the editor previously.
Thank you for your consideration, and again, I hope you have a very happy holidays! DonIago ( talk) 05:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 80px
Hello, I wanted to ask you for your thoughts and also give you some background on the reason for my edit which was reverted here. My concerns are that the word "hack", or to "to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows", is a verb being used in a negative connotation towards the Crusaders, of which have a controversial history within this area to begin with. I thought my change to "opened" did not lose any important factual information to this article but did refrain from any verbiage which may offer a connotation other than the fact that it is believed that the opening was created by the Crusaders. To prevent multiple revisions I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if there is another word you might find suitable that more directly correlates to what is known about the opening. Thanks! Garchy ( talk) 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw that someone closed it as a keep.🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, you have undid a revision of mine on 'Biblical archaeology' where I removed the Shroud of Turin from "disproved" Biblical artifacts. Your explanation was "Unexplained removal. Also made a plethora of minor technical edits." -- I would undo your edit, however your minor edits are helpful to the page and so I did not simply undo it. I in fact DID explain my removal of the Shroud of Turin in the Talk Page, and I still COMPLETELY disapprove of your re-addition of it. As I have shown in the Talk Page, the Shroud of Turin CERTAINLY isn't disproven. Simply because there is debate in it does NOT allow anyone to put it under the list of disproven Biblical artifacts -- so I am requesting that you remove your addition of the Shroud of Turin under the section if disproved Biblical artifacts otherwise I will have to do it myself as I did indeed bring this to the Talk Page. Thanks. Korvex ( talk) 23:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Eliezer Berland.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at
User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!
AnomieBOT
⚡
17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
Anomie
⚔
20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page. Andreas Mamoukas ( talk) 19:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer exists to allow non-administrators to stop AnomieBOT if it is making edits that are damaging the encyclopedia. You have been abusing that ability by posting to that page when the only thing "wrong" the bot has done is post a single message to your talk page informing you that a revert you made was inappropriate (note the linked revert is not this other entirely appropriate and correct revert). Please stop. Anomie ⚔ 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
All I did was add the categories that were already on the main article's page. I don't like the obvious double standard you are trying to apply to Jews vis a vis other groups in the Middle East, and apparent discomfort with calling us a Middle Eastern group at all (even though that is what we are, by any conceivable definition). I find that deeply worrying. There is enough revisionism of Jewish identity out there as it is. We don't need it on Wikipedia too. 2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 ( talk) 13:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
[24]-- Shrike ( talk) 21:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_9#Category:Jewish_agricultural_colonies_in_the_Russian_Empire. It's generally best not to close discussions in which one had participated and expressed an opinion, but as this one was withdrawn by the nominator, I am not here to make an objection about that. However, you forgot to sign your close. Also, I have done a couple of follow-up actions which are required after closing: to remove the CFD template from the nominated category, and to add a link to the discussion on the talk page. For future reference, these are listed at WP:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions ( WP:CFDAI). If you have the time and inclination to help again at CFD, that would be very welcome. Best wishes – Fayenatic L ondon 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_and_Sir_Joseph
The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello I've reverted your restoration of the information on the Jussie Smollett per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE please do not restore the information without first establishing a consensus. Thanks! -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I know we've been writing recently as opponents, but I was wondering if we could bridge some differences as fellow Lubavitchers with Torah. I know that I've been writing on WP mostly based on secular sources, because that is what WP tends to favor. However, my actual belief is that the truth is as things are in Torah. I think we are in agreement there, and that our differences might come mostly as a result of different understandings of Torah. So I would like to learn more about your understanding of Am Yisroel and Eretz HaKodesh.
To begin, Wikipedia is currently unfriendly to religious definitions, so I felt I had to act more as Yaakov, rather than as Yisroel. In other words, in order to realize the maila of ohr (Torah) min ha-choshech davka (WP), we have to present the Torah in terms that the choshech can swallow, dressing it up in hairy skins like Yaakov. Unfortunately, since the choshech only swallows secular sources, that's what we have to give it. But here, we don't need the hairy goatskins and we can talk straight. :-D
The underlying goal of my recent edits was to have WP recognize, or at least mention, the deep connection of every Yisroel with Eretz Yisroel. As it currently stands, the Yishmaelim are listed in the region, but not Jews. This implied heipech ho-emes, that Jews do not belong there. So the situation needs to be fixed.
When I saw from your user page that you were also a Lubavitcher, I asked some local shluchim what they thought, and their initial opinion indeed followed yours, especially when I mentioned the secular arguments I had been using. After all, Torah iz Emes, and any other definition is not. But those were just the goatskins.
When I mentioned the implications for us in Eretz Hakodesh, though, the shluchim quickly came to agree that Jews should certainly be listed similarly to the Yishmaelim. The senior shliach even said that this is the taineh of the goyim that Rashi mentions in Bereishis bara, as the Rebbe explains: The goyim say that since we are a spiritual people, what need do we have of a gashmiyusdikeh land? Gashmiyus is the domain of Eisav, and we're doing hasagas g'vul. That's their problem with us. Talmud loimar, Hashem created the world, and in order that the Yidden fulfill their—yes—spiritual mission, we need a land b'gashmiyus, and Hashem designated Eretz Hakodesh davka for that purpose. That is why we had to come from there to be an ohr lagoyim, and we daven to return there to do all of our mitzvos and fulfill our mission to make a dira b'tachtoinim—mamash with a physical world.
What do you think? Shavua tov, chodesh tov! Musashiaharon ( talk) 09:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying they're not of Jewish descent. The issue is that you can't say that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know if/when the Jewish/ME descent RfC is re-opened. I do not follow the topic area but I am interested in the RfC. Thank you. Jbh Talk 13:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from editing the comments of other users in communal spaces. If you disagree with the argument, respond to it in a rational manner. Do not delete comments, however difficult it is for you to find a coherent counter argument. Thanks 62.255.118.6 ( talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)