![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Debresser,
Should you place another template warning on a veteran editor's page, you will be reported.
— Ynhockey ( Talk) 06:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dovid - how are you?
The link to our extended IZAK-me corresondence is here:
Best Wishes April8 ( talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have mentioned your action at Palestinian rabbis at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding! How does my clarification not meet standards?? From the information that you kindly sent to me:
I glanced at your personal page; Jewish? Frum? Chasidish? Please check the halacha before undoing my emendations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koheintzedek ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi ( talk) 22:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain why you restored the parameters to {{ London Gazette}} in this edit? They're deprecated and there are no instances of calls to London Gazette that use these parameters any more, so why keep them around? – RobinHood70 talk 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
linkeddate
and notarchive
that are deprecated, but still in use. –
RobinHood70
talk
22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)I do disagree with that move - as you most likely noted, I have not edited the page, and it is not a single user's draft. It is a community draft to hold expected changes until they become effective on August 1 2011. There are disadvantages to moving it to user namespace as it is less likely to be edited by other users and now it appears to be "my" new proposed page rather than a community proposed page.
But more than all that - with all the other things that need to be fixed on the different Wikipedia page, why would you choose to make this change? It hurts nothing, doesn't violate policy, and doesn't sent a bad precedent for anything. Seriously, why spend the time to make the change and inform me about it? -- Trödel 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I do disagree with you unilaterally changing the location of the subpage. We've done a subpage like that every year for as long as I've been editing WP. The reason for the subpage was to make it easier to implement the changes to the actual page when the changes become effective in August. The subpage, set up as a talk page, made it very easy for that to be done. You should have commented on the talk page before unilaterally making such a change. I can't speak for all WP editors, but I would have liked to be involved in this decision before it was made. WP is about users working TOGETHER, not one user changing things on a whim without discussion. Please reverse this change. If you feel it is valid, please comment on the above-mentioned talk page BEFORE making this change again. -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 13:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI - we did consult with other editors the first time we wanted to create a draft and were told we should not do so in the article namespace - like many things at wikipedia - things changed. Unfortunately we forgot to remove(or comment out) the category text so they talk namespace things showed up in categories. See for example the page history for the main page (the August 2010 history being merged with the main page in August by me) and you'll see in May 2010 the categories were commented out. Having talk pages in a namespace category should not happen and needed to be cleaned up - while a request first would have been nice, it was easily fixed - and now we know the "current" policy on where drafts should be placed for next year but I'm sure it will be different in 2013. -- Trödel 13:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, what's up? Why are you doing what you are doing? Lotje ツ ( talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An invitation to join us! If you are already a member of WikiProject Judaism, disregard this message. | |
Hello Debresser/Archive 8, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! ___________ -Invited on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta. |
Hi
Those edits were perfectly acceptable, especially the summaries. For you to put "unexplained" is both ridiculous and insulting.
As for the content, Asimov was not a practising Jew and so I changed it to ethnic to differentiate. There was nothing wrong with that as the current text is misleading and could lead readers to assume that he was a practising Jew when we all know he was atheist. That sentence which is ref'd does not say he is a practising Jew, it simply says that he acknowledges he is a Jew, in the same way I would acknowledge I am English, or that I am of Catholic descent, even though I am atheist.
Why should his name be included in Hebrew? (in other words, if in Hebrew, why not French, German, etc.)
I would remind you that someone added that, I have reverted it and we should now be at the discussion stage, something which you should have followed as an experienced editor.
It is ridiculous that such a large amount of the article and talk page is harping on about his Jewishness when he was an atheist. Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Point Valid.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Point Valid, with Catherine Asaro.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You have the "This user is a carnivore" and "This user eats cheese" boxes too close together. You need at least hours of separation after a meat box before a cheese box. That's a joke, but in all seriousness, you should put in a "but not at the same time" or something like that.
On the other subject, Chabad has decided that the documents are authentic, not forgeries, and has posted them on its website, which means it accepts them as genuine. I do not believe that you intended to accuse the Chabad.org website of posting false documents, so I assume that either you did not check the references or you meant the documents were inaccurate, not that they were counterfeit.
Interestingly, some of his enemies have written that he lied about his date of birth to avoid military service (when he was a young man, it was right to lie to avoid serving the Czar or the Communists, but one biased source claims that he lied to the U.S. draft as well and notes that he should have told the truth to the U.S. and volunteered to serve in the war against Hitler). Since there is no real, conclusive evidence either way, I did not think that allegation should be included. On the other hand, your point about the date his parents married is a worse Lashon Hora. [You may notice that I am using the word "he", rather than a name, because I do not want everyone reading this to know who is being discussed.]
I assume the "fringe theory" to which you refer is the idea that he actually was born in 1895, but the article never said that he was. The really interesting point was that he said that he was. The fact that he said it is both "verifiable" (Wikipedia's standard of proof) and something "everybody knows" (your standard). His statement (like everything he said) is noteworthy for the fact that he said it, even if it is not otherwise significant.
The difficult part (which really needs to be handled delicately, not through an edit war) is how to include the fact that he said this (which is significant in its own right), without either calling him a liar or calling his parents something worse. I assume you know what I mean.
See if you can think of a good way to do this. Remember, Wikipedia requires that the decisions about what dates to include must be based on what is "verifiable", not what is common knowledge, so we need a good, verifiable source for saying that 1902 is the correct date (preferably something secular, and definitely something more than "everybody knows" or "his parents were not married"), and we need a way to present the fact that he told the Russian and U.S. governments the 1895 date, in a way that makes sense even without an explanation for the contradiction (unless there is a verifiable way to tell his reasons).
71.109.153.175 ( talk) 03:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Debresser ( talk) 10:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
Fine that You are interested in my works. It is clear that You, but, will still have some problems to read my novella Top Secret, as it is written in German. I would be happy to have it translated into English by somebody. If You know anybody who could take care of that, just tell me! You can contact me via my e-mail address hansdunkelberg@gmail.com. I could explain You a little more thoroughly my aims, principles, and preferences regarding science fiction, then. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for telling me. I imagine many hours of discussion have gone into that policy :). PiCo ( talk) 04:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this page is an orphan, I tested to give a link on matzo but you deleted it and said "that's spam!"...
Can you help me for this page?
Thanks, -- Vivavanier ( talk) 21:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's getting a bit tiresome now, isn't it? Why don't the two of you head for mediation? It may not succeed, but, who knows, you might be able to find some common ground. Or at least a measure of mutual respect. Are you up for it? -- Dweller ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid making edit summaries in Russian, like this one. I know you already know, but things might slip once-in-awhile :p. I understand how multi-languages gets you confused sometimes. Take care and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam talk 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bully tactics by User:Debresser. Thank you. — JaGa talk 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
For your convenience, I have copied my response below:
I hope this solves the problem. If not, drop me a talkpage message, as I do believe mediation is the answer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the {{
Wikipedia category}} does not seem to line up nicely with the other centre boxes as it once did. Any ideas?
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC).
Hello. I've moved your question about the bot to my talk page, hope you don't mind. I've also replied. - EdoDodo talk 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Maar ik val niet zo maar voor een grove opmerking. Bullying, was het woord geloof ik dat tegen jouw gebruikt werd in een recente AN/I-procedure. En zo klonk jouw aanval op mij ook... Night of the Big Wind talk 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but could you explain why that information from a perfectly good source, was irrelevant. To a Muslim, the defencelessness of their position at sojud constitutes a very important element of the narrative. Thanks in anticipation Nishidani ( talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I mean, I'm not troubled by this sort of detail in many pages. E.g.
Contrary to your belief, I do know how to make edits to templates. All thatI did was remove the need for specifying the date that the template was inserted, by using Magic Words that are substituted. To reflect the need to no longer add the date, I properly removed that specification from the template's documentation. The template is running perfectly normal, and I have made it easier for people to use it. Can you please explain to me (on my talkpage) how my edits constitute "bad" and "BS" edits. I truly do apologize for any inconvenience that I've caused you, and I sincerely hope this does not in anyway impair our ability to work together in the future, Magister Scienta 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magister Scienta ( talk • contribs)
Was the example too long? I can shorten it if need be (plus add other historical-illustrative examples). April8 ( talk) 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, it's me again. I write to you about are frayed relationship, should I ever try to make a run for administrator I assume that you would be one of the few people, if perhaps the only person, who vote "strongly oppose" or "oppose" for that matter. In short, what can I do to win back your trust and respect? I have through all your user-boxes and I am quite impressed with you, both on and off Wikipedia. I think we share many of the same goals and I truly believe it is far better for us to be friends than enemies. So again, what can I do to mend our current...status? Magister Scienta talk (3 August 2011)
All these projects are being attempted by me in the midst of enormous personal chaos, only because people better qualified aren't doing it! Consequently, they take a long time to emerge. Still, I intend to move the section about On the Essence of Chasidus from Hasidic philosophy to Atzmus some time soon, developing it there, and replacing it with something better and more concise instead. Tell me if you have any views on this necessary move.
Also, the page
Atzmus will need sensitive discussion of the central tenet in Hasidism of the Divine soul of Jews. This axiomatic issue in the topic of Atzmus cannot be avoided, and anyway is mentioned on
Kabbalah page "Criticism" section. I think the best way of doing this is to link to the Kabbalah page section on the Atzmus page, and describe the contribution the concept of Atzmus makes in reducing the difficulty of the issue: eg. in a talk I went to of Adin Steinsaltz, he was introduced by a Modern Orthodox Rabbi who said that he was put off the path of Jewish mysticism by this issue. Adin replied in his speech that from the perspective of Hasidus (Atzmus), spirituality and physicality are equally far from G-d. Consequently, the Kabbalistic difficulty is reduced as it implies no superiority in holiness (Ruchniyus) for Jews. The difference only emerges from concealment in innate Jewish inclination of martydom rather than commit idolatry, even from the sinners of Israel, as the Tanya explains. Also, where Kabbalah's categorisation of this difficulty relates to Divine manifestations, the present metaphysical description of reality, Hasidism's concept of ultimate Atzmus in the Era of Ressurection reveals the Atzmus unity Divinity of every created being - the Jew would have a pre-eschatological head start on this, as in the preparation for ultimate Atzmus, Israel has the hierachical task of "Light to the Nations". Ultimately, all would reveal Atzmus, even if Israel retains some ultimate differentiation in this. The Rebbe says something similar (Hasidus doesn't usually concern itself with defining non-Jewish spirituality for reasons of present utility) in his Messianic Maamarim about Jews, when he explains that Mitzvot-Divine Will-Sovev Kol Almin is a necessary preparation to transcend these levels ultimately in Atzmus.
From April8 - I got logged out. I'll re-edit my signature
April8 (
talk)
18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow (Saturday) I will do my best to be at the entrace to Hecht House at 18:00, and we can take it from there. Does that suit you?
Rich
Farmbrough,
05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC).
You recently added this new wikipedia policy. It has big implications because the vast majority of wikipedia living persons have not "publicly self-identified with the belief in question". This will mean a major clean-up operation where we have to remove the religious affiliations from thousands of articles. I just realized about this issue during an edit dispute on Bashar al-Assad when a user told me about WP:BLPCAT. Hence, don't you think the criteria you added is a little too strict? Pass a Method talk 05:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I won't be involving myself in this, but I thought I should tell you in case you weren't aware of it.— Biosketch ( talk) 12:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've written up the issues I have with the Erusin and Nisuin articles, matters in which you were involved. This has always been a sore point with me, because I put most of my work here into this, and a lot of it was deleted. I wrote a great deal, and I know you are busy, but perhaps you can find the time to read and commet from time to time. (I've waited a long time on this; I can wait longer.) Good luck with the Taglit; I had another editor over at my place for a few days, and edior who went on Birthright, and it had quite an effect on him. Mzk1 ( talk) 14:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the categories that Isaac Asimov was in either because they overlapped with other categories, or in the case of the Belarusian ones because they are wrong. Asimov emigrated from Russia, not from some country that had barely come into existence at the time of his death. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that people in Category:Jewish American sportspeople do not need to also be in Category:American Jews or is this another case of non-diffusion? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Ellen of the Road's response to you on Wikipedia talk:ANI was completely out of line. Joe Chill ( talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
So I got greeted by a "helpful" sack of generic, patronising crap with your name on it, that ultumately boils down to you complaining about capitalisation in a comment to an editing tag. A comment you only get to see if you start editing. That's really helpful, in fact just about as helpful as that "test edit" you did on the same page you complained about but did not improve. While I'm returning the "being helpful" favour, let me point out that underneath every article editing box there are a couple of notes, one of which says: "If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead." Physician, heal thyself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.106.88 ( talk) 08:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
See here: [3]. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Just letting you know I saw that conversation about User:Johnpacklambert on ANI and the remarks going on about your personal views. I wanted to let you know I support you fully--there's quite a bit of, erm... shitstorm going on in that whole conversation. -- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Debresser. I am somewhat worried about the project-wide disagreements between yourself and Chesdovi ( talk · contribs), and that fact that we still seem to be miles away from any form of consensus. This is not going away until some form of discussion takes place, and I am increasingly of the view that an RFC would be the best step forward, rather than letting this explode and requiring intervention from the Arbcom.
Despite what Chesdovi suggested on my talkpage, I am actually unbiased on the issue. Still, I am not going to offer to mediate just yet, mainly because I am just a tad too busy. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that it's not your first language, but snide comments like this are completely unacceptable, especially for something so trivial. I've got the better part of 20,000 edits to templatespace, and do not appreciate at all having my competence questioned so casually. if you have a bigger problem with my editing style then make it public properly, rather than through the quite cowardly forum of edit summaries. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
הייתי בטוח שאסור לכם להשתמש באינטרנט? אתה באמת חרדי? (אני לא מתכוון להעליב או משהו)-- Someone35 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. -
FASTILY
(TALK)
00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
FASTILY
(TALK)
00:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1. I made my next edit before I received the warning. 2. Blocking editor is wrong about his ruling on Wikipedia:AN3, since he ruled "No violation" because there was no 3 reverts, but I specifically reported for edit-warring in a phase before getting to the 3rr, which is a specifically stated purpose of that noticeboard, apparently unbeknown to this admin. Debresser ( talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The critical component missing from this unblock request is the part where you state you will cease the disruptive behavior; I must be missing that in the request and in the discussion below. Getting into a edit war on the edit war notice board seems a poor tactic; as does personal attacks in edit summaries. Kuru (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ok. I'll have to sit this out then. But I would still like to know why an admin who doesn't know the purpose of a noticeboard is allowed to rule there. Debresser ( talk) 01:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for some sage advice over at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Chesdovi ( talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 26#Ashkenazi intelligence
Take 2. Chesdovi ( talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
[7]? Chesdovi ( talk) 13:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you continue to enforce your edits after consensus has been attained, I have no option but to report your behaviour: [8]. You are right, it makes no difference that this is at DRN. Chesdovi ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently I started a discussion on the Elazar Shach talk page, entitled "Regarding quotes from the book "Al HaTorah V'al Ha'Temurah". Do you think Winchester2313 is correct that the book is not fit for Wikipedia? Yonoson3 ( talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Simeon the Yemenite: Why are you basing "some" or "many" on 3 primary sources? Are these the only three opinions on the matter in the whole wide world? J Emden is not "some" Rashi and OB do not account for "many". We don't support the use of such terms on how many times we know something exists in Jewish texts. We base it on the academic secondary sources. Get real. Chesdovi ( talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi david; how do you feel about the recent edits to Impurity of the lands outside of Israel?-- Marecheth Ho'eElohuth ( talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (t)
(c)
18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC){{Adminhelp}}
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Kuru
(talk)
15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block was administered by the admin in spite of the fact that I asked him to explain which edit of mine he wanted me to revert. I have shown in the discussion that I am willing to consider my mistakes and undo them.
Decline reason:
Per discussion below. — Daniel Case ( talk) 16:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Per additional arguments. I made three edits after the unblock reuqest was denied at 19:45. Admins are being too hasty in deciding while discussion is still ungoing. This is true both for the original block, as well as the denial of the unblock request.
Decline reason:
You just came off a block for edit warring, and you edit warred again. Looking in this request and the above conversation, it seems clear you did edit war, and for some reason you can't see it. Therefore the block is needed as a preventative measure to stop you from edit warring again. Since you've been repeatedly blocked for edit warring in the past, one would think you would understand what it is by now. Don't get all hung up on 3RR, which is just one point of the policy, but rather try to understand the underlying intent behind the policy, which is that edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. It never helps resolve anything and it will get you blocked. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In addition, it is common practice to bring Jewish sources as references. You should not try to singlehandedly change this without seeking prior consensus. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. As a Dutch-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the Dutch-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some Dutch-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.
If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=nl. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB ( talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
|alt=|link=
Re
this revert, adding the empty parameters |alt=|link=
to a image inclusion prevents it from being linked (which may, of course, only be done with public domain images) and prevents the standard
alt text (the filename) from being added to the HTML img tag. Both of these changes are advantageous for users using screen readers, as it prevents them from having to hear useless recitation of the link target and alt text for the decorative icon.
Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Links and attribution has a bit more information.
Anomie
⚔
17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Gam L'cha.
Shanah Tovah vmikatev! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
But we already have WikiProject Judaism banner there. Adding Religion seems like overtagging, just like the Judaism article should not have a religion category (because Judaism category is a subcategory to Religion category). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. My knowledge of Yiddish is more or less limited to what's in Mel Brooks' movies. At List_of_ethnic_slurs#S the word schvartse is mentioned as a "derogatory term for someone of African descent." The source for the definition has rotted. Do you agree with that evaluation?
This weird interpretation of מצוות ישוב ארץ ישראל has crept into the Jewish land purchase in Palestine article. Do you know of a better – i.e. more recent, less misleadingly worded – source that can be used in place of the 1967 edition of Isaac Herzog's treatise?— Biosketch ( talk) 08:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as
vandalism, such as the edit at
Black Swan (film), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can
discourage newer editors. Please read
Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a neutral website. Soldiers are captured. Not kidnapped. Whether you like it or not, Shalit was captured in a tank in a battle. He's not a civilian. --98.221.192.218 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC) -- 98.221.192.218 ( talk) 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Note that your input to that thread can be placed here on this talkpage, with {{ adminhelp}} tag used to ask for it to be copied over ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bwilkins wants to block both me and Chesdovi, but in a previous discussion all other most editors opposed this. See the discussion he himself refers to in
his reply at the
WP:ANI archive. In addition, he refers in
a new WP:ANI thread to
WP:AE, but that is incorrect, since all have ruled that the edits of Chesdovi are not under the
WP:ARBPIA restrictions.
Also, there is simply no reason to block us on all of Wikipedia. The issue of contention is very specific. A two-week topic ban, or even a mutual promise not to edit pages related to this topic, would be enough.
In addition, I would like to point out, that I am not the aggressor in this whole story. And in that discussion some editors have shown sympathy for my position, trying to defend the project from Chesdovi's aggression, and being punished in "reward".
Decline reason:
I think BWilkins has summed it up pretty well below: "You have a pattern: you get your wrist slapped, things work fine for awhile. After a short period of time, you're back at each other." You say you'll stop your disruption, but you've said similar things in the past. I've seen indefinite blocks for far less. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Debresser ( talk) 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no
WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage).
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
09:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste For well over 24 hours nobody has looked into my unblock request. Where I think I make a strong case that my block is based upon a misunderstanding, unjust and overkill. I am quite unpleasantly surprised that nobody, including the blocking admin has yet replied to the arguments I mention> Just saying that the situation is problematic, is not a reason to block me. In reaction to Pablo: if you'd care to do some research, you'd find that I am indeed the defender. I have, with very rare exceptions done nothing but protect this project from the aggression of Chesdovi, who has been trying to push his opinion with hundreds of edits throughout all namespaces. Just check all those 349 pages that Bwilkins mentions, and see for yourself, who made the first edit on them.
Debresser (
talk)
23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Yes, adding the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" or "Land of Israel" - in general not adding any ethnic or geographic description - to articles (main article namespace only, I mean) about Jewish sages - and more generally Jews - should do it. There simply is no reason for a broader ban, because Chesdovi is already topic banned under WP:ARBPIA, and I don't edit such articles, as my contributions show. The ban should last until centralized (really central, not like before) discussion has reached a consensus. I think that discussion should be opened by somebody other than us. Perhaps Malik Shabazz would agree to open it. In order to avoid that discussion turning into a debate between the two of us, I think we should be restricted to 1 edit a day in that discussion. In addition I'd ask for my (or our) block(s) to be lifted, because from that moment on the block(s) would be only punitive. (That is in addition to the arguments I have mentioned before. In all earnest, I would really like to know how editors like Bwilkins and Pablo think I should have acted to defend the project from Chesdovi's edits in a way that would not have lead to my being blocked here repeatedly. You are invited to write me on my talkpage about this.)
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Pablo, please be a little less hostile and accusing. The accusations of WP:OWN are strange in view of the fact that I hadn't edited almost any of those articles before Chesdovi came along and made his usual (read tendentious) edits on them. Did you do your homework? I recommended you to check all those articles and see who of the two of us made the first edit. Perhaps after that, you'll change your tune.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste No, Bwilkins. I ran into his edits in various places. Some of them he posted triumphantly on WT:JUDAISM, until people told him in no fine language that they had enough of that. Other articles I had on my watchlist. His talkpage was (and is) on my watchlist as well, since I posted there a few times. Sometimes I would notice an edit in one article, and check his contributions to see whether he made any more such edits. But I would not regularly check his edits, no. I have a distinct feeling there is a lack of assuming good faith from a few editors here... And in view of your lack of good faith and the unjustified block (you have not replied to any of my arguments), let me add. When will you understand I was (and am) only trying to protect the status quo on this project from the onslaught of one disruptive editor who has made many attempts to push his tendentious edits, but never gained consensus for them? Have you checked that such is indeed the case? Please do. Never in all the discussions he started (and I won't even go into his behavior in those discussions) has he gained consensus for his point of view. Always a majority of editors have preferred other expressions. So why did WP:ANI admins allow him to go unpunished when I posted here all those times before now. So in a way you yourself (including a few of the other admins who have partaken in this thread) are responsible for this escalation. So please be so kind, and do not turn me into your scapegoat. I have posted a fair proposition above. Let's go with it, and move things from their present unfortunate state.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
14:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Have you checked what I asked you to check, or haven't you? Instead of asserting you did the right thing blocking me, perhaps you start looking into what happened. You have never defended your decision to block me, although I have been implored you to look into the facts, point you to the relevant places. After all, admins are supposed to give account of their actions as well, when asked to do so. Other admins are likewise invited to see the facts for themselves. Also I find it less than helpful that you do not reply to my proposal about how to get out of this mess. That is what I would expect an impartial and wise admin to have foremost among his priorities, rather than gloating about his blocks.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste This post is very unfortunately belated because I made a typo in the adminhelp template. This is more or less what I proposed as well. With one exception. I see no reason to exclude us from talkpages. To the contrary, I think a centralized discussion about this subject should be started by some editor other than us. And after that discussion has come to a conclusion, the topic ban can be lifted. The only restriction I would think fair is that we should not be allowed to post more than one post a day in such a discussion, to avoid it becoming a discussion of two people only.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
08:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ Adminhelp}} My previous post was added to the wrong section of that discussion, admittedly because I didn't specify to which section to add it. Please move it from the section it is in now to the correct one (which is just a little lower on that page). Debresser ( talk) 12:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might have some insight on the discussion here. Jayjg (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please post this {{Talkback|Debresser#Discussion_on_which_you_might_have_some_insight}}
on Jayig's talkpage.
Debresser (
talk)
23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea you had been blocked, if so I would not have added [طهارة and טהרה and WP:naming conventions (use English)] re your Oct 1 edit on to the Judaism Project discussion. I came here to note, but then saw this, so will go back there and ask to postpone 2 weeks. Sorry, and best regards. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Add explanatory preface to Danel#Danel_and_the_Danel_of_Ezekiel. Note Yechezkel 14:14. 14:20, and 28:3.
Remove dead link from Joanne_Kelly#External_links.
Add http://www.catrunmovie.com/#/home to Cat Run.
Your user page states you speak nine languages. Is this true? Im asking because it seems quite unlikely because it is extremely rare for someone to speak so many languages. Pass a Method talk 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Following the outcome of this ANI thread I am unblocking you under the following conditions, which are to be taken both as community sanctions and discretionary sanctions as put forth at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29.
If you breach any of these bans you will be blocked for one month. The outcome of any later breaches will be longer blocks, swiftly lengthening to indefinite. These sanctions will be posted at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2011_2. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess you preferred being blocked ... that's easy enough to do. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste I see. I would like to ask to lift this block on the ground that I had no idea this was part of the interaction ban. In my mind, I wasn't interacting ''with'' him, I was reporting ''about'' him. I had no idea that wasn't allowed under an interaction ban. I admit that the above is explicitly in WP:IBAN (as #3), but I hadn't read that, because I thought that since I understand the meaning of '''inter + action''' that would be clear enough.
into the discucion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:IBAN was straightforwardly wlinked above when I posted the sanctions. I dare say you should have read it. You were blocked not because you reported the interaction, but because you then went further and made a comment about the editor which had nothing to do with the interaction as such ( here's yet another link to my AN comment as to why you were blocked). Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is to confirm that I have received your email. Your IRC message must have been lost when my computer automatically restarted from installing updates. Silly Windows....
I am considering it and will respond soon. T. Canens ( talk) 00:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the article Crime Spree, add brackets around the name of Depardieu, like this: Daniel Foray ( Gérard Depardieu) is the leader etc. and remove the second time his name is mentioned, since that is superfluous.
- Archive this talkpage. First prepare for archiving.
- Add a Fact tag to Relations_between_Catholicism_and_Judaism#Efforts_by_Pope_John_Paul_II, and move up the references section.
- Add Unsourced tag to Escape from Sobibor.
- Remove capitals from headers and move down the further reading section in Nominative determinism.
- Fix capital in H._G._Wells#Other_Endeavours, and rephrase reference to Warehouse 13.
- Another capital in Peter_Lattimer#Skills_and_Abilities. And below in Episode 2 Season 3.
- Thank you for also processing the templates at Category:Items_to_be_merged. I took longer than a week to think of reminding you as you asked, and you were then "otherwise occupied" :-) Mark Hurd ( talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
After checking with Gwen Gale, I'm reducing the block to time served. Note that this is the last time I'm going to reduce a block on you for this kind of reason - it is your responsibility to ensure that your edits conform to the term of the restrictions. If you violate the restrictions again, even simply because of carelessness, it's likely that you'll serve the entire duration of the block. T. Canens ( talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edit to Ritual washing in Judaism with the editsummary "I'm making this change in a line which seems to claim that touching *any* tamei item requires washing." Actually, it nowhere implied only tamei animals. Which leads me to the conclusion that the reason for this line would be related to something else. Perhaps this is analogous to having to wash your hands after scratching ones hair. Debresser ( talk) 08:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Welcome back :) In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
I did check for myself. I have just closed a couple dozen TfDs and the date format given in the instructions does not work, it results in redlinks. Spinning Spark 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, you helped an editor out on this article--problem is, they are restoring the article to an earlier, exceedingly problematic version. I have every reason to believe that the editor in question, LittleOldManRetired ( talk · contribs), is none other than Michael Paul Heart ( talk · contribs). It's not socking, strictly speaking, since Heart hasn't edited in months. Nonetheless, Heart has a history of socking, and I think they are up to their old tricks, turning the article into a massive collection of trivia and OR. Please see Heart's talk page and the article talk page archive for details. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen the revert Drmies did at Tachash? He didn't give any reason, but he said he gave his reasons on the Tachash talk page (there weren't any). What do you think? -- LittleOldManRetired ( talk) 04:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the above from the top of your talk page, after clicking [New Section], so I hadn't seen Drmies comments above before submitting my comments. He hasn't actually identified what he thinks is trivia and OR. At this point, I have no idea what his motivation is. I just know from checking the sources cited in the material I sorted, sifted, retrieved and restored that none of it seems to be irrelevant or trivial. It sure isn't OR! It's apparently the very info that another editor said should be restored after the article was reverted. I checked it out. That kind of substantiating research was a part of my job, before I retired. I don't know what to think. Ideas? Suggestions? Best regards. -- LittleOldManRetired ( talk) 04:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Userbox deletion discussions go to WP:MFD, for future reference. So I've closed that TfD discussion. (I deleted this template anyway, under CSD T3 unused, redundant template.) ~ Alison C. (Crazytales) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you be interested in accepting a nomination for adminship? It would be an honor to nominate you and I feel confident the RfA would go in your favour. Cheers, Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 01:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I just closed this discussion. It would be great if you could take care of the merger. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And the same for this discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Debresser, thanks for asking. As a closing admin and having been following a fair number of related discussions over the last month, I was uncomfortable with the tenor of the discussion in this one and chose to invoke: RM Move Protect advice. The Move protection does no harm and I would remove it in a minute if the need arises in the next 30 days. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
On SigmaWP ( talk · contribs)s talk page, you were talking as if it was him who made the template. I have no problem with that, but I want to let you know that it is me whom manages the template most of the time. Just thought I'd let you know. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Hi. When you recently edited Lurianic kabbalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sefiroth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with
Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Why did you create this template? It's not in use anywhere. (no transclusions) — Train2104 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you consider that worthy of a personal message says quite a lot... Happy new year! -- Imladros ( talk) 00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this change, that is currently the only undated category using the prefix "All" as though it were part of a monthly cleanup category set. Osiris (temp) ( talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article, Lawrence Troster, has been nominated for deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_15#Lawrence_Troster for more information. Soosim ( talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Best Jokey Dutch Poem |
You understand the Dutch way with, um, words! TheSchmerl123 ( talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
I'd love to get your help, the new article I wrote. Jewish views on marital relations. If you can help me, I'd love if you turn me to someone else, who looks as if he could help me. If you can correspond with them in Hebrew, it would be great, because my English is very weak. This sentence was translated by Google Translate. Yosichen ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Shoeloum Dovid! A groyse skoyech voor je aanpassing van het onderschrift. Ik zie dat we dezelfde talen zo'n beetje spreken. Waar in ארץ ישראל woon je? Anyways, kol tuv en שבוע טוב! Metzujan ( talk) 10:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is an Israeli Wikipedia society, with pretty frequent meetings. Haven't gone to any yet. I'm not sure I want to support the Israeli wikipedia, given some of the things I've seen, including the Judaism and sexuality article and the Haredi article. At one time I thought they were quite better than us on Jewish subjects, and asked in the project about translating without rechecking sources. But now I'm questioning this.
I'm at work; I'll take a look at your comments later. Mzk1 ( talk) 06:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, Pope John Paul II is being peer reviewed - so it might be worth having a look how it fares in terms of Menachem Mendel Schneerson undergoing a similar process. Being completely neutral on an article can be useful in giving an impartial view. The biggest reason I got into pushing everything I did to GA or FA is that you get a "stable version" so instant recall when articles get eroded like sandcastles at the beach..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not synthesis, but unsourced material. I intended to leave the edit summary "Removed unsourced material per WP:V/ WP:NOR", which I typically do for such material, but because I got rid of synthesis from a few dozen articles on January 24 and 25, when I typed in the letters r-e-m in the summary, autocorrect brought up "Removed synthesis by 74.232.66.13 per WP:SYNTH" as the more commonly-used summary by me, which I didn't realize until after I saved it. This really frustrates me, because having the former brought up by autocorrect when typing in those three letters was very useful to me, since I used it so commonly, whereas the "synth" one was only for a bunch of articles I fixed a couple of days ago. I'm hoping it doesn't stay at the top of autocorrect's list of summaries.
Please do not add unsourced material to that or any other article. This includes dates of birth, which can be a point of contention for many BLP subjects, as I have discovered while photographing them for the Commons and Wikipedia. If you want to re-add that material, I ask that you please accompany it with a reliable source per WP:V, WP:CS and WP:IRS. (And remember, sites with user-generated content like imdb are not permitted under WP:USERG.) Thanks. ;-) Nightscream ( talk) 05:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a warning to both Dr. Persi and Debresser that you could be blocked and the page locked from editing if you continue as you are. Take all concerns to the article's talk page, and obtain consensus before proceeding with changes. Risker ( talk) 08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The use of {{
DMCA}} that I removed, {{DMCA|||{{{category}}} articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction}}
, caused {{
In-universe}} to incorrectly place pages into
Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template if someone used a bad value for |category=
. If someone wants a tracking category for bad values of |category=
, they can make one named correctly for that purpose.
The version you put back in, {{DMCA|{{{category}}} articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction}}
(note it passes the category as parameter 1 instead of parameter 3) is basically equivalent to my version using {{
main other}}, although yours uses a few more resources as measured by the NewPP limit report. And IMO, it's strange and confusing to use the "dated maintenance category" template to add non-dated categories.
Anomie
⚔
23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
was just because it was useless: having it there caused {{
DMCA}} to be called on the template page, but since DMCA does nothing when transcluded in the Template namespace it was additional complexity for zero purpose.
Anomie
⚔
01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Debresser I found the unexplained Aguddah in an article and created a redirect to Agaddah in good faith, you then left this personal attack in the edit summary:
NB. That stick your nose in it? is really offensive. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.
Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah ( talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Debresser,
Should you place another template warning on a veteran editor's page, you will be reported.
— Ynhockey ( Talk) 06:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dovid - how are you?
The link to our extended IZAK-me corresondence is here:
Best Wishes April8 ( talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have mentioned your action at Palestinian rabbis at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding! How does my clarification not meet standards?? From the information that you kindly sent to me:
I glanced at your personal page; Jewish? Frum? Chasidish? Please check the halacha before undoing my emendations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koheintzedek ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi ( talk) 22:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain why you restored the parameters to {{ London Gazette}} in this edit? They're deprecated and there are no instances of calls to London Gazette that use these parameters any more, so why keep them around? – RobinHood70 talk 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
linkeddate
and notarchive
that are deprecated, but still in use. –
RobinHood70
talk
22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)I do disagree with that move - as you most likely noted, I have not edited the page, and it is not a single user's draft. It is a community draft to hold expected changes until they become effective on August 1 2011. There are disadvantages to moving it to user namespace as it is less likely to be edited by other users and now it appears to be "my" new proposed page rather than a community proposed page.
But more than all that - with all the other things that need to be fixed on the different Wikipedia page, why would you choose to make this change? It hurts nothing, doesn't violate policy, and doesn't sent a bad precedent for anything. Seriously, why spend the time to make the change and inform me about it? -- Trödel 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I do disagree with you unilaterally changing the location of the subpage. We've done a subpage like that every year for as long as I've been editing WP. The reason for the subpage was to make it easier to implement the changes to the actual page when the changes become effective in August. The subpage, set up as a talk page, made it very easy for that to be done. You should have commented on the talk page before unilaterally making such a change. I can't speak for all WP editors, but I would have liked to be involved in this decision before it was made. WP is about users working TOGETHER, not one user changing things on a whim without discussion. Please reverse this change. If you feel it is valid, please comment on the above-mentioned talk page BEFORE making this change again. -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 13:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI - we did consult with other editors the first time we wanted to create a draft and were told we should not do so in the article namespace - like many things at wikipedia - things changed. Unfortunately we forgot to remove(or comment out) the category text so they talk namespace things showed up in categories. See for example the page history for the main page (the August 2010 history being merged with the main page in August by me) and you'll see in May 2010 the categories were commented out. Having talk pages in a namespace category should not happen and needed to be cleaned up - while a request first would have been nice, it was easily fixed - and now we know the "current" policy on where drafts should be placed for next year but I'm sure it will be different in 2013. -- Trödel 13:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, what's up? Why are you doing what you are doing? Lotje ツ ( talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An invitation to join us! If you are already a member of WikiProject Judaism, disregard this message. | |
Hello Debresser/Archive 8, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! ___________ -Invited on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta. |
Hi
Those edits were perfectly acceptable, especially the summaries. For you to put "unexplained" is both ridiculous and insulting.
As for the content, Asimov was not a practising Jew and so I changed it to ethnic to differentiate. There was nothing wrong with that as the current text is misleading and could lead readers to assume that he was a practising Jew when we all know he was atheist. That sentence which is ref'd does not say he is a practising Jew, it simply says that he acknowledges he is a Jew, in the same way I would acknowledge I am English, or that I am of Catholic descent, even though I am atheist.
Why should his name be included in Hebrew? (in other words, if in Hebrew, why not French, German, etc.)
I would remind you that someone added that, I have reverted it and we should now be at the discussion stage, something which you should have followed as an experienced editor.
It is ridiculous that such a large amount of the article and talk page is harping on about his Jewishness when he was an atheist. Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Point Valid.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Point Valid, with Catherine Asaro.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You have the "This user is a carnivore" and "This user eats cheese" boxes too close together. You need at least hours of separation after a meat box before a cheese box. That's a joke, but in all seriousness, you should put in a "but not at the same time" or something like that.
On the other subject, Chabad has decided that the documents are authentic, not forgeries, and has posted them on its website, which means it accepts them as genuine. I do not believe that you intended to accuse the Chabad.org website of posting false documents, so I assume that either you did not check the references or you meant the documents were inaccurate, not that they were counterfeit.
Interestingly, some of his enemies have written that he lied about his date of birth to avoid military service (when he was a young man, it was right to lie to avoid serving the Czar or the Communists, but one biased source claims that he lied to the U.S. draft as well and notes that he should have told the truth to the U.S. and volunteered to serve in the war against Hitler). Since there is no real, conclusive evidence either way, I did not think that allegation should be included. On the other hand, your point about the date his parents married is a worse Lashon Hora. [You may notice that I am using the word "he", rather than a name, because I do not want everyone reading this to know who is being discussed.]
I assume the "fringe theory" to which you refer is the idea that he actually was born in 1895, but the article never said that he was. The really interesting point was that he said that he was. The fact that he said it is both "verifiable" (Wikipedia's standard of proof) and something "everybody knows" (your standard). His statement (like everything he said) is noteworthy for the fact that he said it, even if it is not otherwise significant.
The difficult part (which really needs to be handled delicately, not through an edit war) is how to include the fact that he said this (which is significant in its own right), without either calling him a liar or calling his parents something worse. I assume you know what I mean.
See if you can think of a good way to do this. Remember, Wikipedia requires that the decisions about what dates to include must be based on what is "verifiable", not what is common knowledge, so we need a good, verifiable source for saying that 1902 is the correct date (preferably something secular, and definitely something more than "everybody knows" or "his parents were not married"), and we need a way to present the fact that he told the Russian and U.S. governments the 1895 date, in a way that makes sense even without an explanation for the contradiction (unless there is a verifiable way to tell his reasons).
71.109.153.175 ( talk) 03:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Debresser ( talk) 10:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
Fine that You are interested in my works. It is clear that You, but, will still have some problems to read my novella Top Secret, as it is written in German. I would be happy to have it translated into English by somebody. If You know anybody who could take care of that, just tell me! You can contact me via my e-mail address hansdunkelberg@gmail.com. I could explain You a little more thoroughly my aims, principles, and preferences regarding science fiction, then. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for telling me. I imagine many hours of discussion have gone into that policy :). PiCo ( talk) 04:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this page is an orphan, I tested to give a link on matzo but you deleted it and said "that's spam!"...
Can you help me for this page?
Thanks, -- Vivavanier ( talk) 21:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's getting a bit tiresome now, isn't it? Why don't the two of you head for mediation? It may not succeed, but, who knows, you might be able to find some common ground. Or at least a measure of mutual respect. Are you up for it? -- Dweller ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid making edit summaries in Russian, like this one. I know you already know, but things might slip once-in-awhile :p. I understand how multi-languages gets you confused sometimes. Take care and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam talk 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bully tactics by User:Debresser. Thank you. — JaGa talk 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
For your convenience, I have copied my response below:
I hope this solves the problem. If not, drop me a talkpage message, as I do believe mediation is the answer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the {{
Wikipedia category}} does not seem to line up nicely with the other centre boxes as it once did. Any ideas?
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC).
Hello. I've moved your question about the bot to my talk page, hope you don't mind. I've also replied. - EdoDodo talk 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Maar ik val niet zo maar voor een grove opmerking. Bullying, was het woord geloof ik dat tegen jouw gebruikt werd in een recente AN/I-procedure. En zo klonk jouw aanval op mij ook... Night of the Big Wind talk 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but could you explain why that information from a perfectly good source, was irrelevant. To a Muslim, the defencelessness of their position at sojud constitutes a very important element of the narrative. Thanks in anticipation Nishidani ( talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I mean, I'm not troubled by this sort of detail in many pages. E.g.
Contrary to your belief, I do know how to make edits to templates. All thatI did was remove the need for specifying the date that the template was inserted, by using Magic Words that are substituted. To reflect the need to no longer add the date, I properly removed that specification from the template's documentation. The template is running perfectly normal, and I have made it easier for people to use it. Can you please explain to me (on my talkpage) how my edits constitute "bad" and "BS" edits. I truly do apologize for any inconvenience that I've caused you, and I sincerely hope this does not in anyway impair our ability to work together in the future, Magister Scienta 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magister Scienta ( talk • contribs)
Was the example too long? I can shorten it if need be (plus add other historical-illustrative examples). April8 ( talk) 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, it's me again. I write to you about are frayed relationship, should I ever try to make a run for administrator I assume that you would be one of the few people, if perhaps the only person, who vote "strongly oppose" or "oppose" for that matter. In short, what can I do to win back your trust and respect? I have through all your user-boxes and I am quite impressed with you, both on and off Wikipedia. I think we share many of the same goals and I truly believe it is far better for us to be friends than enemies. So again, what can I do to mend our current...status? Magister Scienta talk (3 August 2011)
All these projects are being attempted by me in the midst of enormous personal chaos, only because people better qualified aren't doing it! Consequently, they take a long time to emerge. Still, I intend to move the section about On the Essence of Chasidus from Hasidic philosophy to Atzmus some time soon, developing it there, and replacing it with something better and more concise instead. Tell me if you have any views on this necessary move.
Also, the page
Atzmus will need sensitive discussion of the central tenet in Hasidism of the Divine soul of Jews. This axiomatic issue in the topic of Atzmus cannot be avoided, and anyway is mentioned on
Kabbalah page "Criticism" section. I think the best way of doing this is to link to the Kabbalah page section on the Atzmus page, and describe the contribution the concept of Atzmus makes in reducing the difficulty of the issue: eg. in a talk I went to of Adin Steinsaltz, he was introduced by a Modern Orthodox Rabbi who said that he was put off the path of Jewish mysticism by this issue. Adin replied in his speech that from the perspective of Hasidus (Atzmus), spirituality and physicality are equally far from G-d. Consequently, the Kabbalistic difficulty is reduced as it implies no superiority in holiness (Ruchniyus) for Jews. The difference only emerges from concealment in innate Jewish inclination of martydom rather than commit idolatry, even from the sinners of Israel, as the Tanya explains. Also, where Kabbalah's categorisation of this difficulty relates to Divine manifestations, the present metaphysical description of reality, Hasidism's concept of ultimate Atzmus in the Era of Ressurection reveals the Atzmus unity Divinity of every created being - the Jew would have a pre-eschatological head start on this, as in the preparation for ultimate Atzmus, Israel has the hierachical task of "Light to the Nations". Ultimately, all would reveal Atzmus, even if Israel retains some ultimate differentiation in this. The Rebbe says something similar (Hasidus doesn't usually concern itself with defining non-Jewish spirituality for reasons of present utility) in his Messianic Maamarim about Jews, when he explains that Mitzvot-Divine Will-Sovev Kol Almin is a necessary preparation to transcend these levels ultimately in Atzmus.
From April8 - I got logged out. I'll re-edit my signature
April8 (
talk)
18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow (Saturday) I will do my best to be at the entrace to Hecht House at 18:00, and we can take it from there. Does that suit you?
Rich
Farmbrough,
05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC).
You recently added this new wikipedia policy. It has big implications because the vast majority of wikipedia living persons have not "publicly self-identified with the belief in question". This will mean a major clean-up operation where we have to remove the religious affiliations from thousands of articles. I just realized about this issue during an edit dispute on Bashar al-Assad when a user told me about WP:BLPCAT. Hence, don't you think the criteria you added is a little too strict? Pass a Method talk 05:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I won't be involving myself in this, but I thought I should tell you in case you weren't aware of it.— Biosketch ( talk) 12:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've written up the issues I have with the Erusin and Nisuin articles, matters in which you were involved. This has always been a sore point with me, because I put most of my work here into this, and a lot of it was deleted. I wrote a great deal, and I know you are busy, but perhaps you can find the time to read and commet from time to time. (I've waited a long time on this; I can wait longer.) Good luck with the Taglit; I had another editor over at my place for a few days, and edior who went on Birthright, and it had quite an effect on him. Mzk1 ( talk) 14:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the categories that Isaac Asimov was in either because they overlapped with other categories, or in the case of the Belarusian ones because they are wrong. Asimov emigrated from Russia, not from some country that had barely come into existence at the time of his death. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that people in Category:Jewish American sportspeople do not need to also be in Category:American Jews or is this another case of non-diffusion? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Ellen of the Road's response to you on Wikipedia talk:ANI was completely out of line. Joe Chill ( talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
So I got greeted by a "helpful" sack of generic, patronising crap with your name on it, that ultumately boils down to you complaining about capitalisation in a comment to an editing tag. A comment you only get to see if you start editing. That's really helpful, in fact just about as helpful as that "test edit" you did on the same page you complained about but did not improve. While I'm returning the "being helpful" favour, let me point out that underneath every article editing box there are a couple of notes, one of which says: "If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead." Physician, heal thyself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.106.88 ( talk) 08:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
See here: [3]. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Just letting you know I saw that conversation about User:Johnpacklambert on ANI and the remarks going on about your personal views. I wanted to let you know I support you fully--there's quite a bit of, erm... shitstorm going on in that whole conversation. -- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Debresser. I am somewhat worried about the project-wide disagreements between yourself and Chesdovi ( talk · contribs), and that fact that we still seem to be miles away from any form of consensus. This is not going away until some form of discussion takes place, and I am increasingly of the view that an RFC would be the best step forward, rather than letting this explode and requiring intervention from the Arbcom.
Despite what Chesdovi suggested on my talkpage, I am actually unbiased on the issue. Still, I am not going to offer to mediate just yet, mainly because I am just a tad too busy. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that it's not your first language, but snide comments like this are completely unacceptable, especially for something so trivial. I've got the better part of 20,000 edits to templatespace, and do not appreciate at all having my competence questioned so casually. if you have a bigger problem with my editing style then make it public properly, rather than through the quite cowardly forum of edit summaries. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
הייתי בטוח שאסור לכם להשתמש באינטרנט? אתה באמת חרדי? (אני לא מתכוון להעליב או משהו)-- Someone35 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. -
FASTILY
(TALK)
00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
FASTILY
(TALK)
00:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1. I made my next edit before I received the warning. 2. Blocking editor is wrong about his ruling on Wikipedia:AN3, since he ruled "No violation" because there was no 3 reverts, but I specifically reported for edit-warring in a phase before getting to the 3rr, which is a specifically stated purpose of that noticeboard, apparently unbeknown to this admin. Debresser ( talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The critical component missing from this unblock request is the part where you state you will cease the disruptive behavior; I must be missing that in the request and in the discussion below. Getting into a edit war on the edit war notice board seems a poor tactic; as does personal attacks in edit summaries. Kuru (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ok. I'll have to sit this out then. But I would still like to know why an admin who doesn't know the purpose of a noticeboard is allowed to rule there. Debresser ( talk) 01:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for some sage advice over at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Chesdovi ( talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 26#Ashkenazi intelligence
Take 2. Chesdovi ( talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
[7]? Chesdovi ( talk) 13:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you continue to enforce your edits after consensus has been attained, I have no option but to report your behaviour: [8]. You are right, it makes no difference that this is at DRN. Chesdovi ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently I started a discussion on the Elazar Shach talk page, entitled "Regarding quotes from the book "Al HaTorah V'al Ha'Temurah". Do you think Winchester2313 is correct that the book is not fit for Wikipedia? Yonoson3 ( talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Simeon the Yemenite: Why are you basing "some" or "many" on 3 primary sources? Are these the only three opinions on the matter in the whole wide world? J Emden is not "some" Rashi and OB do not account for "many". We don't support the use of such terms on how many times we know something exists in Jewish texts. We base it on the academic secondary sources. Get real. Chesdovi ( talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi david; how do you feel about the recent edits to Impurity of the lands outside of Israel?-- Marecheth Ho'eElohuth ( talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (t)
(c)
18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC){{Adminhelp}}
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Kuru
(talk)
15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block was administered by the admin in spite of the fact that I asked him to explain which edit of mine he wanted me to revert. I have shown in the discussion that I am willing to consider my mistakes and undo them.
Decline reason:
Per discussion below. — Daniel Case ( talk) 16:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Per additional arguments. I made three edits after the unblock reuqest was denied at 19:45. Admins are being too hasty in deciding while discussion is still ungoing. This is true both for the original block, as well as the denial of the unblock request.
Decline reason:
You just came off a block for edit warring, and you edit warred again. Looking in this request and the above conversation, it seems clear you did edit war, and for some reason you can't see it. Therefore the block is needed as a preventative measure to stop you from edit warring again. Since you've been repeatedly blocked for edit warring in the past, one would think you would understand what it is by now. Don't get all hung up on 3RR, which is just one point of the policy, but rather try to understand the underlying intent behind the policy, which is that edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. It never helps resolve anything and it will get you blocked. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In addition, it is common practice to bring Jewish sources as references. You should not try to singlehandedly change this without seeking prior consensus. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. As a Dutch-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the Dutch-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some Dutch-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.
If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=nl. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB ( talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
|alt=|link=
Re
this revert, adding the empty parameters |alt=|link=
to a image inclusion prevents it from being linked (which may, of course, only be done with public domain images) and prevents the standard
alt text (the filename) from being added to the HTML img tag. Both of these changes are advantageous for users using screen readers, as it prevents them from having to hear useless recitation of the link target and alt text for the decorative icon.
Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Links and attribution has a bit more information.
Anomie
⚔
17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Gam L'cha.
Shanah Tovah vmikatev! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
But we already have WikiProject Judaism banner there. Adding Religion seems like overtagging, just like the Judaism article should not have a religion category (because Judaism category is a subcategory to Religion category). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. My knowledge of Yiddish is more or less limited to what's in Mel Brooks' movies. At List_of_ethnic_slurs#S the word schvartse is mentioned as a "derogatory term for someone of African descent." The source for the definition has rotted. Do you agree with that evaluation?
This weird interpretation of מצוות ישוב ארץ ישראל has crept into the Jewish land purchase in Palestine article. Do you know of a better – i.e. more recent, less misleadingly worded – source that can be used in place of the 1967 edition of Isaac Herzog's treatise?— Biosketch ( talk) 08:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as
vandalism, such as the edit at
Black Swan (film), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can
discourage newer editors. Please read
Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a neutral website. Soldiers are captured. Not kidnapped. Whether you like it or not, Shalit was captured in a tank in a battle. He's not a civilian. --98.221.192.218 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC) -- 98.221.192.218 ( talk) 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Note that your input to that thread can be placed here on this talkpage, with {{ adminhelp}} tag used to ask for it to be copied over ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Debresser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bwilkins wants to block both me and Chesdovi, but in a previous discussion all other most editors opposed this. See the discussion he himself refers to in
his reply at the
WP:ANI archive. In addition, he refers in
a new WP:ANI thread to
WP:AE, but that is incorrect, since all have ruled that the edits of Chesdovi are not under the
WP:ARBPIA restrictions.
Also, there is simply no reason to block us on all of Wikipedia. The issue of contention is very specific. A two-week topic ban, or even a mutual promise not to edit pages related to this topic, would be enough.
In addition, I would like to point out, that I am not the aggressor in this whole story. And in that discussion some editors have shown sympathy for my position, trying to defend the project from Chesdovi's aggression, and being punished in "reward".
Decline reason:
I think BWilkins has summed it up pretty well below: "You have a pattern: you get your wrist slapped, things work fine for awhile. After a short period of time, you're back at each other." You say you'll stop your disruption, but you've said similar things in the past. I've seen indefinite blocks for far less. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Debresser ( talk) 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no
WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage).
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
09:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste For well over 24 hours nobody has looked into my unblock request. Where I think I make a strong case that my block is based upon a misunderstanding, unjust and overkill. I am quite unpleasantly surprised that nobody, including the blocking admin has yet replied to the arguments I mention> Just saying that the situation is problematic, is not a reason to block me. In reaction to Pablo: if you'd care to do some research, you'd find that I am indeed the defender. I have, with very rare exceptions done nothing but protect this project from the aggression of Chesdovi, who has been trying to push his opinion with hundreds of edits throughout all namespaces. Just check all those 349 pages that Bwilkins mentions, and see for yourself, who made the first edit on them.
Debresser (
talk)
23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Yes, adding the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" or "Land of Israel" - in general not adding any ethnic or geographic description - to articles (main article namespace only, I mean) about Jewish sages - and more generally Jews - should do it. There simply is no reason for a broader ban, because Chesdovi is already topic banned under WP:ARBPIA, and I don't edit such articles, as my contributions show. The ban should last until centralized (really central, not like before) discussion has reached a consensus. I think that discussion should be opened by somebody other than us. Perhaps Malik Shabazz would agree to open it. In order to avoid that discussion turning into a debate between the two of us, I think we should be restricted to 1 edit a day in that discussion. In addition I'd ask for my (or our) block(s) to be lifted, because from that moment on the block(s) would be only punitive. (That is in addition to the arguments I have mentioned before. In all earnest, I would really like to know how editors like Bwilkins and Pablo think I should have acted to defend the project from Chesdovi's edits in a way that would not have lead to my being blocked here repeatedly. You are invited to write me on my talkpage about this.)
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Pablo, please be a little less hostile and accusing. The accusations of WP:OWN are strange in view of the fact that I hadn't edited almost any of those articles before Chesdovi came along and made his usual (read tendentious) edits on them. Did you do your homework? I recommended you to check all those articles and see who of the two of us made the first edit. Perhaps after that, you'll change your tune.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste No, Bwilkins. I ran into his edits in various places. Some of them he posted triumphantly on WT:JUDAISM, until people told him in no fine language that they had enough of that. Other articles I had on my watchlist. His talkpage was (and is) on my watchlist as well, since I posted there a few times. Sometimes I would notice an edit in one article, and check his contributions to see whether he made any more such edits. But I would not regularly check his edits, no. I have a distinct feeling there is a lack of assuming good faith from a few editors here... And in view of your lack of good faith and the unjustified block (you have not replied to any of my arguments), let me add. When will you understand I was (and am) only trying to protect the status quo on this project from the onslaught of one disruptive editor who has made many attempts to push his tendentious edits, but never gained consensus for them? Have you checked that such is indeed the case? Please do. Never in all the discussions he started (and I won't even go into his behavior in those discussions) has he gained consensus for his point of view. Always a majority of editors have preferred other expressions. So why did WP:ANI admins allow him to go unpunished when I posted here all those times before now. So in a way you yourself (including a few of the other admins who have partaken in this thread) are responsible for this escalation. So please be so kind, and do not turn me into your scapegoat. I have posted a fair proposition above. Let's go with it, and move things from their present unfortunate state.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
14:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste Have you checked what I asked you to check, or haven't you? Instead of asserting you did the right thing blocking me, perhaps you start looking into what happened. You have never defended your decision to block me, although I have been implored you to look into the facts, point you to the relevant places. After all, admins are supposed to give account of their actions as well, when asked to do so. Other admins are likewise invited to see the facts for themselves. Also I find it less than helpful that you do not reply to my proposal about how to get out of this mess. That is what I would expect an impartial and wise admin to have foremost among his priorities, rather than gloating about his blocks.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste This post is very unfortunately belated because I made a typo in the adminhelp template. This is more or less what I proposed as well. With one exception. I see no reason to exclude us from talkpages. To the contrary, I think a centralized discussion about this subject should be started by some editor other than us. And after that discussion has come to a conclusion, the topic ban can be lifted. The only restriction I would think fair is that we should not be allowed to post more than one post a day in such a discussion, to avoid it becoming a discussion of two people only.
into the discussion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
08:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ Adminhelp}} My previous post was added to the wrong section of that discussion, admittedly because I didn't specify to which section to add it. Please move it from the section it is in now to the correct one (which is just a little lower on that page). Debresser ( talk) 12:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might have some insight on the discussion here. Jayjg (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please post this {{Talkback|Debresser#Discussion_on_which_you_might_have_some_insight}}
on Jayig's talkpage.
Debresser (
talk)
23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea you had been blocked, if so I would not have added [طهارة and טהרה and WP:naming conventions (use English)] re your Oct 1 edit on to the Judaism Project discussion. I came here to note, but then saw this, so will go back there and ask to postpone 2 weeks. Sorry, and best regards. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Add explanatory preface to Danel#Danel_and_the_Danel_of_Ezekiel. Note Yechezkel 14:14. 14:20, and 28:3.
Remove dead link from Joanne_Kelly#External_links.
Add http://www.catrunmovie.com/#/home to Cat Run.
Your user page states you speak nine languages. Is this true? Im asking because it seems quite unlikely because it is extremely rare for someone to speak so many languages. Pass a Method talk 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Following the outcome of this ANI thread I am unblocking you under the following conditions, which are to be taken both as community sanctions and discretionary sanctions as put forth at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29.
If you breach any of these bans you will be blocked for one month. The outcome of any later breaches will be longer blocks, swiftly lengthening to indefinite. These sanctions will be posted at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2011_2. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess you preferred being blocked ... that's easy enough to do. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please paste I see. I would like to ask to lift this block on the ground that I had no idea this was part of the interaction ban. In my mind, I wasn't interacting ''with'' him, I was reporting ''about'' him. I had no idea that wasn't allowed under an interaction ban. I admit that the above is explicitly in WP:IBAN (as #3), but I hadn't read that, because I thought that since I understand the meaning of '''inter + action''' that would be clear enough.
into the discucion at
WP:ANI.
Debresser (
talk)
21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:IBAN was straightforwardly wlinked above when I posted the sanctions. I dare say you should have read it. You were blocked not because you reported the interaction, but because you then went further and made a comment about the editor which had nothing to do with the interaction as such ( here's yet another link to my AN comment as to why you were blocked). Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is to confirm that I have received your email. Your IRC message must have been lost when my computer automatically restarted from installing updates. Silly Windows....
I am considering it and will respond soon. T. Canens ( talk) 00:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the article Crime Spree, add brackets around the name of Depardieu, like this: Daniel Foray ( Gérard Depardieu) is the leader etc. and remove the second time his name is mentioned, since that is superfluous.
- Archive this talkpage. First prepare for archiving.
- Add a Fact tag to Relations_between_Catholicism_and_Judaism#Efforts_by_Pope_John_Paul_II, and move up the references section.
- Add Unsourced tag to Escape from Sobibor.
- Remove capitals from headers and move down the further reading section in Nominative determinism.
- Fix capital in H._G._Wells#Other_Endeavours, and rephrase reference to Warehouse 13.
- Another capital in Peter_Lattimer#Skills_and_Abilities. And below in Episode 2 Season 3.
- Thank you for also processing the templates at Category:Items_to_be_merged. I took longer than a week to think of reminding you as you asked, and you were then "otherwise occupied" :-) Mark Hurd ( talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
After checking with Gwen Gale, I'm reducing the block to time served. Note that this is the last time I'm going to reduce a block on you for this kind of reason - it is your responsibility to ensure that your edits conform to the term of the restrictions. If you violate the restrictions again, even simply because of carelessness, it's likely that you'll serve the entire duration of the block. T. Canens ( talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edit to Ritual washing in Judaism with the editsummary "I'm making this change in a line which seems to claim that touching *any* tamei item requires washing." Actually, it nowhere implied only tamei animals. Which leads me to the conclusion that the reason for this line would be related to something else. Perhaps this is analogous to having to wash your hands after scratching ones hair. Debresser ( talk) 08:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Welcome back :) In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
I did check for myself. I have just closed a couple dozen TfDs and the date format given in the instructions does not work, it results in redlinks. Spinning Spark 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, you helped an editor out on this article--problem is, they are restoring the article to an earlier, exceedingly problematic version. I have every reason to believe that the editor in question, LittleOldManRetired ( talk · contribs), is none other than Michael Paul Heart ( talk · contribs). It's not socking, strictly speaking, since Heart hasn't edited in months. Nonetheless, Heart has a history of socking, and I think they are up to their old tricks, turning the article into a massive collection of trivia and OR. Please see Heart's talk page and the article talk page archive for details. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen the revert Drmies did at Tachash? He didn't give any reason, but he said he gave his reasons on the Tachash talk page (there weren't any). What do you think? -- LittleOldManRetired ( talk) 04:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the above from the top of your talk page, after clicking [New Section], so I hadn't seen Drmies comments above before submitting my comments. He hasn't actually identified what he thinks is trivia and OR. At this point, I have no idea what his motivation is. I just know from checking the sources cited in the material I sorted, sifted, retrieved and restored that none of it seems to be irrelevant or trivial. It sure isn't OR! It's apparently the very info that another editor said should be restored after the article was reverted. I checked it out. That kind of substantiating research was a part of my job, before I retired. I don't know what to think. Ideas? Suggestions? Best regards. -- LittleOldManRetired ( talk) 04:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Userbox deletion discussions go to WP:MFD, for future reference. So I've closed that TfD discussion. (I deleted this template anyway, under CSD T3 unused, redundant template.) ~ Alison C. (Crazytales) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you be interested in accepting a nomination for adminship? It would be an honor to nominate you and I feel confident the RfA would go in your favour. Cheers, Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 01:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I just closed this discussion. It would be great if you could take care of the merger. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And the same for this discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Debresser, thanks for asking. As a closing admin and having been following a fair number of related discussions over the last month, I was uncomfortable with the tenor of the discussion in this one and chose to invoke: RM Move Protect advice. The Move protection does no harm and I would remove it in a minute if the need arises in the next 30 days. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
On SigmaWP ( talk · contribs)s talk page, you were talking as if it was him who made the template. I have no problem with that, but I want to let you know that it is me whom manages the template most of the time. Just thought I'd let you know. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Hi. When you recently edited Lurianic kabbalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sefiroth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with
Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Why did you create this template? It's not in use anywhere. (no transclusions) — Train2104 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you consider that worthy of a personal message says quite a lot... Happy new year! -- Imladros ( talk) 00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this change, that is currently the only undated category using the prefix "All" as though it were part of a monthly cleanup category set. Osiris (temp) ( talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article, Lawrence Troster, has been nominated for deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_15#Lawrence_Troster for more information. Soosim ( talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Best Jokey Dutch Poem |
You understand the Dutch way with, um, words! TheSchmerl123 ( talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
I'd love to get your help, the new article I wrote. Jewish views on marital relations. If you can help me, I'd love if you turn me to someone else, who looks as if he could help me. If you can correspond with them in Hebrew, it would be great, because my English is very weak. This sentence was translated by Google Translate. Yosichen ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Shoeloum Dovid! A groyse skoyech voor je aanpassing van het onderschrift. Ik zie dat we dezelfde talen zo'n beetje spreken. Waar in ארץ ישראל woon je? Anyways, kol tuv en שבוע טוב! Metzujan ( talk) 10:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is an Israeli Wikipedia society, with pretty frequent meetings. Haven't gone to any yet. I'm not sure I want to support the Israeli wikipedia, given some of the things I've seen, including the Judaism and sexuality article and the Haredi article. At one time I thought they were quite better than us on Jewish subjects, and asked in the project about translating without rechecking sources. But now I'm questioning this.
I'm at work; I'll take a look at your comments later. Mzk1 ( talk) 06:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, Pope John Paul II is being peer reviewed - so it might be worth having a look how it fares in terms of Menachem Mendel Schneerson undergoing a similar process. Being completely neutral on an article can be useful in giving an impartial view. The biggest reason I got into pushing everything I did to GA or FA is that you get a "stable version" so instant recall when articles get eroded like sandcastles at the beach..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not synthesis, but unsourced material. I intended to leave the edit summary "Removed unsourced material per WP:V/ WP:NOR", which I typically do for such material, but because I got rid of synthesis from a few dozen articles on January 24 and 25, when I typed in the letters r-e-m in the summary, autocorrect brought up "Removed synthesis by 74.232.66.13 per WP:SYNTH" as the more commonly-used summary by me, which I didn't realize until after I saved it. This really frustrates me, because having the former brought up by autocorrect when typing in those three letters was very useful to me, since I used it so commonly, whereas the "synth" one was only for a bunch of articles I fixed a couple of days ago. I'm hoping it doesn't stay at the top of autocorrect's list of summaries.
Please do not add unsourced material to that or any other article. This includes dates of birth, which can be a point of contention for many BLP subjects, as I have discovered while photographing them for the Commons and Wikipedia. If you want to re-add that material, I ask that you please accompany it with a reliable source per WP:V, WP:CS and WP:IRS. (And remember, sites with user-generated content like imdb are not permitted under WP:USERG.) Thanks. ;-) Nightscream ( talk) 05:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a warning to both Dr. Persi and Debresser that you could be blocked and the page locked from editing if you continue as you are. Take all concerns to the article's talk page, and obtain consensus before proceeding with changes. Risker ( talk) 08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The use of {{
DMCA}} that I removed, {{DMCA|||{{{category}}} articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction}}
, caused {{
In-universe}} to incorrectly place pages into
Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template if someone used a bad value for |category=
. If someone wants a tracking category for bad values of |category=
, they can make one named correctly for that purpose.
The version you put back in, {{DMCA|{{{category}}} articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction}}
(note it passes the category as parameter 1 instead of parameter 3) is basically equivalent to my version using {{
main other}}, although yours uses a few more resources as measured by the NewPP limit report. And IMO, it's strange and confusing to use the "dated maintenance category" template to add non-dated categories.
Anomie
⚔
23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
was just because it was useless: having it there caused {{
DMCA}} to be called on the template page, but since DMCA does nothing when transcluded in the Template namespace it was additional complexity for zero purpose.
Anomie
⚔
01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Debresser I found the unexplained Aguddah in an article and created a redirect to Agaddah in good faith, you then left this personal attack in the edit summary:
NB. That stick your nose in it? is really offensive. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.
Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah ( talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)