This is an archive of past discussions with User:Debresser. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I thank you. Please be assured that although I think the page should not have been protected in the first place, I value your integrity in handling this case. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Judaism
I made a change to your edit and feel you deserve to know why. I am willing to accept religion as opart of a compromise, but I think other terms need to be included too. Fortunately, the Encyclopedia Judaica has a nice line that includes "religion" plus other terms that satisfy me, and this is a reliable source. Since your edit seemed basically just to add the word religion, and since my edit keeps the word religion, I hope you will not object. Slrubenstein | Talk00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems like WP:CIVIL doesn't matter. I've noticed it many times before. It really hurt me when admins defended someone that kept on calling me a troll. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have an online copy of David Weber's "A Mighty Fortress" that you could send me? Debresser (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have never received or responded to a message in Wpedia, so I hope I am doing this right. I have a link to my fileshare, and a PDF of "A Mighty Fortress". Baen Books, Weber's publisher, operates a library site, where their authors can voluntarily post some or all of their books for free. These are the books David Weber has chosen to share, ten in all. I believe all of them are complete. I hope this helps.
Q: The treatment of Jews in "Mighty Fortress" is very complex - is that what inspires you to read it now?
I didn't even know it mentioned Jews. I read all of his books, in the Safehold series as well. That is why I want to read it. Even if I really don't have time to read books nowadays. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I checked all pages that transclude {{Cite ynprcn}} and non use the deprecated date fields (accessyear). I removed the tracking category. I guess you might be watching this template. –droll[chat]21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
this edit was over the line on personal attacks on the article talk page. Please discuss issues in a less confrontational and less abusive manner with other participants going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't you ashamed of yourself? After the verbal abuse and disciminatory comments by User:Bali ultimate there, I am not allowed to say that a certain commentary is stupid? I mean, the guy is a dullhead... He just rants on about his perceived COI (which he confuses with POV, even if that were to be true), and writes these long diatribes that are not related to anything. The guy is just nuts, ranting on like a nutcase. It is not without reason that ArbCom decided to close the case he opened without taking any special measures. BTW, note that I use my talk page to write a little more freely. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if you "use your talk page to write a little more freely"; if you refer to him as "a dullhead" again you will be blocked for making personal attacks.
Just don't do it. If you can't treat other Wikipedians with a reasonable amount of respect please refrain from editing until your anger passes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is it all the slack is awarded other people? Anyway, I have nothing more to say, but that what I said above is the sad truth. I am not angry, but I do think IZAK is a POV editor with a problem, and not an asset to Wikipedia (at least on Chabad-related articles). Debresser (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to warn you. You've reverted me three times in a row on Niddah. If you do it again, you'll be in violation of 3RR. This past time, you actually reverted my edit even though I gave a source. I really don't recommend that you revert it again. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems like Talk:Moses is a ghost town with dry winds and lots of empty space. Maybe you can stop by here and plant a few green thoughts to brighten the place up, when you have some time. If you know anyone else, it's now an open invite with the RfC posted. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Judaism
I do not understand your comment here. I thought you did not want to change the hatnote. And here I am, saying the hatnote should not be changed. Yet now you seem to be disagreeing with me - does this mean that you now think the hatnote should be removed? If you agree with me that the hatnote should not be removed, why are you arguing? Or do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing?
If you actually do agree with me, which is what I expected, would you mind removing your comment? I ask because if we are in agreement it is only disruptive, the section is meant to discuss what to do with the history section, not the hatnote, and your adding this comment just derails the discussion. If you agree with my comment, you should have just inserted your comment right after mine, and something like "Agreed about the hatnote." That is all you need to say, I really do not understand your desire to argue.
Of course, if you actually have a comment on what this section is about, I would welcome that whether you do or do not agree with my proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk10:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope it is clear to you that this is not what i am advocating. But the hatnote says that people should look to the other article for historical information. You seem to agree with that - yet THIS article has a whole section (7) on historical information! It seems only consistent and logical that it be moved to where we say it is, or the history article. I hope you will express your view on the actual issue 9if you have one), Slrubenstein | Talk18:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Death penalty
On your User Page you write that the death penalty should be used for certain crimes. I wonder what is your opinion of Schopenhauer's statement: "Those who would like to abolish it should be given the answer: 'First remove murder from the world, and then capital punishment ought to follow.' "? It appears in his The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. 47 and is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Schopenhauer, in the "Punishment" sub–section.Lestrade (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
If you are asking my personal opinion, I think that the death penalty could (and perhaps should) be used not only to punish murder, but also other very serious crimes. I guess that means I would not agree with Schopenhauer. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
In the same chapter, he wrote: "It should be inflicted even for the definite attempt at murder, just as for murder itself; for the law's desire is to punish the deed, not to avenge the result."Lestrade (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
To wander into moral philosophy, I have always had doubts about a system that punishes people on their efficiency in carrying out their criminal intent rather than the intent itself. This would imply that the punishment is pragmatic rather than a matter of justice. RichFarmbrough, 10:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
Cite errors
I have started Phase III and am in the process of breaking the help into separate pages, starting with the most prevalent errors. Please review and comment:
Yes I was going to drop you a note. I am quite pleased with the progress, most parameters can now be dropped altogether. RichFarmbrough, 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
I felt sure you were going to do something like that sooner or later. If you need any help, please tell me so. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
OK I have done a bunch - of course a few little problems were thown up. Basically if you delete any of the "ususal" parameter values you should be safe, all that has to be done is to create the message page if the template has no message (I have been creating them using {{Null}}). Better of course to copy the message there - and I have just created a new message at Template:Monthly_clean_up_category/Messages/Articles_with_peacock_terms using a template that can be cut-and-pasted usefully (supports up to 6 un-named parameters). Rather nicely it has propagated though all the historic cats such as Category:Articles with peacock terms from September 2007.
Remaining "gotcha"s: if the cat name starts with a proper noun (Wikipedia) or an acronym (NPOV) it may be best to leave the "type" parameter - although there is a mechanism to create an over-ride here too.
It is historic. Maybe the refresh button belongs somewhere else, or isn't needed. (I built the original to cope with all the varieties out there, so that I wouldn't get complaints about "features" vanishing. There's no reason it can't be simplified to some extent now.) RichFarmbrough, 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
Certain monthly cats you had to tweak a message or a supercategory when you created them. This should not happen now - July's cats should be the same as June's. RichFarmbrough, 12:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
I noticed that! But although I could add a solution, I decided not to - I don't copy the interwiki's forward, since there is no guarantee the corresponding, item exists - let the interwiki bots re-add it. But the other part of the equation is that I set up the creation page using the latest monthly version so it was the latest version - least to change, year usually the same etc. If it doesn't change it can be pulled from a model page. RichFarmbrough, 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
It's supposed to sit alongside the blue bars, and balance the progress table a little. It could go to the left of the TOC. RichFarmbrough, 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
Why did you change "Jewish People" at the Judaism article? I think you were wrong to change what I wrote, and I changed it back. If you still do not understand why this is correct please let me know and we can discuss it, but please do not revert me. thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Frankly speaking I quite dislike that you so often make changes after only minimal discussion. I'll revert you, and you discuss it! Debresser (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I gave my explanation, and you still have not responded to it - other than to revert me without discussion. Discussion takes two. I have provided my explanation. So who is edit warring? Slrubenstein | Talk14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In addition, you have a tendency of making edits without discussion or minimal discussion, and then start screaming at everybody who reverts you that he is edit warring. Please decist from that unfriendly editing attitude. It is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deletion from Talk Page
I am not going to make a big deal of it, but I really don't think you had a right to delete a talk page comment (I checked the guidelines), even if you considered it constructive.
I had made the comment mainly to learn two things:
If he was working with you, so I could adjust for that.
You are right, and I had no right to do that. I relied on you to agree with my removal. Since you don't, please feel free to restore it. I was just hoping to avoid a potential conflic there. Please don't take offense. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's in my edit summary for the reversion and in the protection log. Punkox is a long-term block evader from Peru, generally editing with anonymous Peruvian IP addresses. Since he's defacto banned, I revert all of his edits. With the extremely long term evaders, I semi-protect any articles they touch.—Kww(talk) 05:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I read that policy page, and it doesn't say it is such a bad idea. On the other hand, although this was a "normal" edit, it wasn't such an obvious improvement either, so I guess I can live with your revert. Debresser (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If you ever see me doing that (and if you look at my edit history, you will see that I sometimes do several hundred in a day), there's no problem with you undoing a revert if you think the banned editor made a clear improvement. When you do that, though, you are taking responsibility for the edit yourself, so you should verify its accuracy, compliance with guidelines, etc. I'm used to seeing people undo a few of my reversions, and it doesn't bother me.—Kww(talk) 06:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes vandals register as a way of getting around a protection, and I really wanted just to drive them away. But if you think a lower level would work, I will lower the protection, Slrubenstein | Talk10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your note at my Talk, do whatever you please. I'm "retired", only log in very rarely to fix truly blatant vandalism. I don't know why you object to "loopback", and with all due respect I just don't care anymore. I served my time debating with editors who presume others understand their motivations, and am content I did my share. Pete St.John (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
See here. I don't think there will be a problem having it deleted. I had planned to make a pass through the other templates in that category and either (a) refactor them to call {{infobox character}} and/or (b) nominate them for deletion after replacement. There are just so many of them that it make take some time. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
First, the current text is from a critical-historiacal source, and says that the bride was purchased FROM THE FATHER. ALWAYS. This is in direct opposition to the traditional view. I meant to revise and quote the Gemara "Et Biti Natati".
Second the paragraph you removed is mostly sourced and and was in my original. You did not remove it then, please note. Of course it is POV, it is meant to balance.
The sources the article brings there are bibleverses. That can hardly be described as a "critical-historical source". If you meant another one, then just add it as a reference. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you will agree that you cannot use a primary source, unless it clearly states the matter, without reasonable fear of contradiction. For this reason, I would just remove it. But I presume that the author, probably NewmanLuke, was actually referring to the later statement, that the article quotes from the Biblical Encyclopedia. Therefore, I did not remove it, but jsut qualified it.
I have to admit that your "extreme POV" statement shook me, because I got the same statement from a Charedi-hater over at the Haredi Judaism page. I do not, BTW, deny my POV/COI, but I believe that I know how to edit accordingly. Unfortunately the other gentleman claims to be unbiased, a very dangerous attitude.Mzk1 (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I am biased, but I try not to let it influence my editing. But calling a berse from the Bible "biblical criticism" (which is very much despised by religious people), is not ok. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? NewmanLuke had a tendency to "wikify" his quotes, and the actual source was often something else. In this case, it was the Biblical Encyclopedia. When editing his stuff, I would look for his sources in the JE, often even looking at articles he did not cite. (So much for a POV/COI keeping you from doing proper editing.) If we ignore that and stick to the verse, then we should just remove the paragraph, because then it is improper use of primary sources and OR. Now, please tell me, what is wrong with my reasoning?Mzk1 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, again. I'm sure one of us has misunderstood the other. I value your opinion as an editor, and I certainly don't want to get into an edit war. What if I correct the quote to refer to the ACTUAL source (a critical-historical one), and THEN modify it. I would prefer not to delete material because the editor's references are misleading. Of course, if I could get consensus, I would happily delete the whole section.Mzk1 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Removal might not be a bad idea. It is a shame that there are few (if any) other editors interested in this article, and that I don't have time for making serious edits. But still, I do not see why you would want to call the source biblical criticism. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is the source: This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "MARRIAGE", a publication now in the public domain.
Encyclopaedia Biblica is indeed a critical-historical source. But one that is not up to the standards of present day biblical science. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't. I'd give the reference without adding any qualifiers to it. Qualifying references, other than with tags, is not our job on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am finding this somewhat frustrating. As a long-time Wikipedia editor, how do you show that these are two differing points of view? Unlike before, the claim here is that adult children were sold by their fathers. That is clearly against ANY traditional POV's. So I think it needs SOME qualification, because right here it appears to be an NPOV statement of fact. How about, "according to some views"?
outdentIMHO the best thing would be to find an additional source, which should be more specific, and then attribute it as you indicated with specific mention of source. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
And replace the original? BTW, what is the rule regarding content previously added by NL? Is it supposed to be removed unless you certify it yourself? Or is it like any other content?Mzk1 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved the discussion "Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism", which you recently participated in, to the talk page of WP Judaism's MOS. This is an important subject and needs to be incorporated into the MOS once we reach a consensus. -shirulashem(talk)18:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I am well aware of that, and since I have reverted you only twice, and you are making a provocative non-consensus edit, not to mention that you are a tendentious editor, I'll revert you again, and post you on WP:ANI as well. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hrs for the 6RR edit warring
I'm sorry, but WP:3RR and WP:EW clearly forbid the conduct you engaged in here.
Having a strong opinion in a content dispute and assuming bad faith about other contributors do not excuse edit warring, especially and particularly past the point of 3RR.
I was not involved here at all, but I saw your question here so I reviewed the page history myself. Regrettably, I did find five reverts in a 24 hour period [1][2][3][4][5]. The count of 6 does not seem right; probably two edits in a row were counted as 2 rather than 1 revert. I'm sorry to bring bad news. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I appear to have miscounted. For the record, 3RR violations are blockable, and the apparent actual 5RR is 2 past that point, so the difference of 5 vs 6 doesn't change the underlying issue.
I can only say I was convinced I made only 3 reverts. If I indeed made more, and I'll check that right away, I admit to have been at fault, and severly regret my oversight. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I just checked it, and I saw two reverts of one edit, and 3 reverts of another. Do they add up according to 3RR? Debresser (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
From the text of the guideline "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." and "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." it would seem so. Sorry, never knew. I was sure it applies to reverts of one and the same edit only. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I found it a reasonable edit. The present text makes very serious statements, I'd say allegations even, without bringing any sources. The new text seems more reasonable to me. Reasonable or watered down may be a matter of point of view, of course. Nevertheless, perhaps you could find some sources for the present text, that would be the best. Debresser (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I was addressing a different subject from a few sections higher. Please excuse me if I interfered in anything. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't so happy about that move in the first place. I had the feeling you were trying to push things at too high a pace. Evidently, other users feel the same. Perhaps that be a lession for you. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you please follow up on this one re. the IP users request? I'm sure you'll understand my reasoning re. the {{editsemiprotected}}, and perhaps you can make the edit if/when appropriate? Cheers, Chzz ► 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
On the page for Spherical Harmonic, where I had the mathematics link that you changed, I was trying to set it up so the link would go to the section titled mathematical Fiction on the Asaro Wiki page. Do you know how to do that? All I could do was get it to go to the top of the Asaro page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.127.25 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see my note on the "Musar Literature" talk page. I'd make a case for adopting the former spelling on the Wikipedia page -- not just because there's no dagesh in the samech, but also because this is the way that academics spell the phrase. Thanks! Moreh405 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Templates for merging: What is it really?
Hi, Dovid. I just came across Category:Templates for merging, which you created in October 2009. Its banner claims that, "this category contains templates which have been listed for deletion." However the category is in reality filled with more than 35,000 article pages. It doesn't really contain any templates (okay, it appears to contain exactly one, Template:Tfm-inline, plus two template/doc pages), or template messages (per the redirected link).
I'm inclined to take it over to CfD, but figured there must be something to this cat that I don't know about, so I thought I'd ask you and maybe Koavf (who just recently hid the category) about it first. What is this thing really? What's it do for us? I'm watching your page if you want to answer hereRegards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk)02:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a simple matter. Just need to make a small edit. Then wait a few days, and the category will empty. Cfd is not the issue. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I did it right away. The category is slowly emptying now on its own, as you can check by making a nulledit to any article in it. Debresser (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I also didn't know about these things two years ago. The idea is that there is a working load distribution that causes changes to categories to take effect only after some time (the larger the category and the higher the work load at a given time, the longer it takes. What you can you is pick an article from the category, open it and save it without any changes (a "null-edit"). That will force the categories to update. Then reopen the category page, and you'll notice the article isn't there any more. That is sure prove that in due time, all articles will disappear from there. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine. I just don't understand what they're doing in there. The category is for templates, and it's filled with non-template pages. How did they get in there? Don't worry about answering; if you're not worried about it I needn't worry either. I don't usually fiddle with categories much anyway. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)14:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The template which is deprecated receives the category from the {{Tdeprecated}} template. Because of an omission in the coding of {{Tdeprecated}} this category was imparted further upon all articles using a deprecated template. I fixed that. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Rabbi Debresser! I worked on Template:Kabbalah, to its previous full format, but notice it has recently been collapsed and redesigned. What is your opinion of these last changes? I'm not necessarily fully against the collapsed format, especially if that is wikipedia policy, but have the following concerns:
I designed the Template:Jewish philosophy to be the same dimensions as the Kabbalah template, in order to hilight the alternative parallel between the two tradition systems of Mysticism and Rationalism in Judaism. If Kabbalah template is to be collapsed, then it would be preferable for Jewish philosophy template to also be collapsed - without compromising its present design.
I think the additional redesign of the Kabbalah template does greatly compromise its ease of use and appeal: The text in the collapsed sections has been reformatted to extend down over a greater length, with only one or two items per line. Compare this with the previous continual text sections, and I think it is clearly harder to scan and absorb the information, and less appealing. Also, I think the small images could be reinstated within each collapsed section. Therefore, it's less informatively-visually helpfull, potentially longer, and less attractive.
Alternatively, if you think the non-collapsed format was better in principle, then tell me. I am automatically open to that view - a similar format, for example, to the Chabad template. If one can get away with it, I would actually far prefer it - I mainly go along with collapsing it, as I guess it's unlikely others would leave it like that, in view of likely wikipedia policy. However, I do wonder why the wikipedia community (rightly) leaves the Chabad template uncollapsed!
Whether or not all the entries merit inclusion within the template is a separate issue, but I notice that the Jewish philosophy template has a similar number of direct and contextualising entries. I sent a copy of this also to User talk:IZAK#Kabbalah template, in resonse to his compliment of the Jewish philosophy template, to see his opinion! What do you think? With best wishes April8 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I do understand your concerns, but personally I find either way satisfactory. Thanks for asking my opinion. :) Debresser (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please explain I don't know why you reverted my edit to {{Filmr}}; isn't it useful to have these in a tracking category? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC
WARNING
If you have a problem with the English that is fine however don't determine relevancy based on the number of Messianic Jews. Messianic Jews outnumber Karaites by a huge margine yet I bet you wouldn't maginalize the tzaddikim. I am reverting my addition to Posekem.(I didn't revert)
Please tone down your way of talking. No need to throw around warnings. Neither is it advisable to revert material that is being questioned. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you might want to "sign" you comments, that is to leave four tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end of a comment on a talk page, so that the reader might know, who left the comment. Try it, it works nicely. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I hate arguing, just isn't my cup of tea. I do small tweaks and edits. Every once in awhile I will throw in a paragraph or something. If it sticks it sticks, if it doesn't then, oh well. I've had my fair share of edit wars and I don't like them at all. :p --Teacherbrock (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
AFD notification for Significance of numbers in Judaism
Based on my experience with a certain user and the ensuing WP:ANI discussions, I am completely within my rights here, especially on my talk page. You may read this as a warning to IZAK to refrain from posting sanctimonious posts on my talk page, if you please. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi-Just wanted to let you know that the reason why I put the noinclude tags into the directions was due to this problem at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vpt#.7B.7Btfm.7D.7D_help_needed . When someone didn't put the noinclude tags on the {{see also category}} template, it was placing template pages that transcluded "see also category" into the "templates for merging" category, i.e., template:vandalism information was in there, because it transcludes template:see also category on its /doc pg. My thoughts were to remind editors to use the tags, so this doesn't happen, confusing everyone (including me!) to which template is supposed to be merged. Apparently, the transculsion problem only applies to template/doc pgs, and you can see at the templates for merging category, that there are numerous pages in there, that haven't been flushed out from before "see also category" had the tfm put inside of the noinclude tags. Is there a way to prevent the auto-categorization on transcluded template pages?? I know there has to be a code out there, somewhere! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
We had 35,000 pages there once. There is no intrinsic problem with pages being there for a week or so while they are under nomination. Although I also would be more happy if the template could be coded somehow so that that wouldn't happen. I know an editor how is an expert in this field, and I'll approach him right now. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
OMG! 35,000? And you wonder why no one might attempt to help clean out the category??!! Yes, I think contacting a code expert is a great idea. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Although he is on sick-leave from Wikipedia. He'll get around to it. As I said, the problem is only temporary, and usually in small numbers. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
There's just one problem with your edit: [7], it wasn't stress, it was italics. Since there's no linking on the pagename pg, the italics are to set off the bold text of the template name, otherwise, the whole first sentence would just be bolded, with no way to tell what the template name is. Also, this edit: [8] is a bit problematic, since it reverted the updates for the redirects, and the removal of the live code that is causing the /doc pg & other pgs to be auto-categorized into Templates for merging. In fact, there are editing notes on the pg, where someone has fixed 2-3 of the live codes, but there are still about 3 remaining. If the tfm-inline template had a transclusion demo parameter like the tfd template, that would probably solve the problem. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This could probably be solved with a #switch:{{PAGENAME}} around the category, but I'm not familiar enough with {{Tfm}} to be comfortable making the change myself. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy100020:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have asked the maintainer of the uncategorized articles list to update the programming so that {{uncategorized stub}} is recognized as being "tagged" — but until he actually does so, the issue is that {{uncat}} gets an article off the "untagged" list, while "uncategorized stub" does not. I've been trying, more or less singlehandedly, to manage a backlog which was over 42,000 articles two months ago — and it simply doesn't help to have articles which are tagged with "uncategorized stub" reappearing on the list every day.
Please also be aware that while the categorization project certainly prefers that "uncategorized stub" be used instead if an article has a stub category, the rules explicitly state that "uncat" is also okay. The latter template isn't ideal, but it's not inappropriate or unacceptable either, as stub categories don't count toward an article being considered categorized. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Good news...finally got the change implemented, so pages tagged with {{uncategorized stub}} don't get listed as "untagged" anymore. So I can finally start using that template properly! (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Your threats are not the way to go on WP
You should know better by now than to make threats [9] against others rather than engaging in constructive discussions. In light of your past violations of WP:NPA against me I ask you to either withdraw your threat or apologize. In the discussion at Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group" I have indicated that you have a history of this. To make it clear that you get this message I am re-posting it here for you: Debresser, your open threats violate WP:CIVIL (viz WP:THREATEN) and undermine WP:AGF as you now openly violate WP:NPA and WP:EQ rather than engage in constructive discussions that while they may be WP:BEBOLD are very necessary and legitimate. In all my years at WP I have always adhered to WP:NPOV in the creation and editing of articles and categories, I would have heard from others by now if this was an issue. On the other hand on talk pages I like to frankly discuss more issues. You have constantly refused to show any basic decency as you keep up your crass and vulgar insults, as you do here by insulting me yet again with allegations about "tendentious editing and wild accusations that have no connection with reality" as you have in the past, see (until January 2010) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs, especially point 9 where you resort to: "violations of WP:NPA by repeatedly calling into question the "sanity" of the nominator: "mentally ill", [10], [11], inserts "FBI", [12], "Food for psychiatrists", [13], "insane ranting", [14], [15]." So what are you going to say, that you are "innocent" and anyone who disagrees with you is "guilty"? Your time would be better spent by involving yourself in the content of this discussion than by indulging your tendencies to do the wrong things. IZAK (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1. That was a warning, not a threat. 2. Nor is making paranoid accusations the right thing to do on Wikipedia. 3. I asked you to stay off my talk page. Debresser (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1. It was a threat and not a warning and by its language it also clearly violates WP:STALK (you show up in the middle of discussions that do not involve you, and instead of joining the discussions positively, you start making threats against me) that you are keeping records of my edits. 2. You violate WP:NPA by yet again using a derogatory word and insult such as "paranoid". 3. Your tone and attitude violates WP:CIVIL and I have no other way to communicate with you directly and therefore I hereby warn you that your violations will not be tolerated. I see that pro-Chabad POV warriors User Zsero (talk·contribs) has been permanently blocked and User Shlomke (talk·contribs) has not been heard from in a long time, all since the last Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. You would be well-advised to either retract your threats or apologize for them. IZAK (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just stop your religious persecution of Chabad, and I will know you are capable of editing on Wikipedia like any normal person. Until such time, you are warned (stress this word) to stop trying to censor Wikipedia either through your edits, or indirectly by scaring off Chabad editors. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no "religious persecution" and no "censorship" and no "scaring" of any kind. How funny you say this!!!! It is actually working in the other direction, that pro-Chabad POV warriors have taken over anything to do with Chabad on WP in violation of WP:OWN, even when many other Judaic editors who know something about the subject and can back it up wish to edit. IZAK (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Debresser: Could you point me to the place on WP where a broad "consensus" was reached to reduce the Mussar movement article by one "s" and make it into "Musar" since there is no record of any such discussion on the Talk:Musar movement page where it should have been or at least noted. I have started such a discussion at Talk:Musar movement#Musar or Mussar. Please contribute to that discussion (instead or running around making all sorts of wild threats against me, try positive discussions). Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Debresser: Please stop removing the names of notable and even famous poskim without further discussion. Simply because some poskim may not be be known to one, is no grounds to wipe names off WP articles and lists without at least some discussion, perhaps even at WP:TALKJUDAISM. See Talk:Posek#Notable Poskim where this could be discussed now. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I made some small edits there. Don't think I can do anything more. But I did leave a few comments on the talk page, which might lead to discussion and eventual edits. Be there. Debresser (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet engaged in countless edits overnite without any sources. Can you assist here and support my balanced edits. They dont comment or reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not write me on my talk page with all kinds of requests. Use the talk page of the article for those. In addition, I already wrote there where you should go with such allegations. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello - I came across the page titled Jewish theology of love and thought that I might be able to help fix it. It was in pretty terrible shape, mostly consisting of a personal essay regarding Franz Rosenzweig. I tried reformatting the article a bit, especially by adding material from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on love. I left the material on Rosenzweig at the end of the article, though I think that this should probably be greatly condensed. Anyhow, I then saw that you had suggested the article should be deleted, which it probably should have been. Now that I've put some work into it, though, I'd like to think it may be salvageable. If at any point down the line you want to help me salvage that page, I'd appreciate the help. I also thought that maybe it should be retitled "Jewish views of love" rather than "Jewish theology of love," since not all relevant views might be "theological" in character. Lkjowa (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I now worry that maybe I was supposed to post only on the talk page for the article rather than on your talk page. I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia! Lkjowa (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Posting on the talk page of a more experienced editor is always a good idea. :) I'll have a look. But it is unlikely I'll have time to make any serious edits. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
A matter of opinion. I see beauty in templates. But the sentence you wrote was completely unacceptable, because it does not conform to Wikipedia standards of encyclopedic language, with its reference to a reader. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, Nurse Echo, the issue of those meaningless "fame and fortune" names is resolved. Now, how to make the rest of that cast list more orderly and meaningful. Any thoughts? Drmargi (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The other editor seems to have picked up his/her toys and left in a huff, so there's an opportunity to make some major fixes. I'd at least like to separate the police command structure from the cast. As it is, you can't tell who matters from who doesn't. Drmargi (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that 1. All non-major characters should be treated in the "Other characters" section, even if they are part of the command structure. 2. Fay Furillo and Joyce Davenport should be treated more extensively. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I took a first stab at some sort of reorganization, however temporary, designed to at least help readers identify the main cast and major players. It's only a placeholder. I'd submit we need to cull the list first, then figure out how to organize what remains. I do think the command structure is useful, but needs significant pruning. I agree that, in addition to that, we need discussion of the major players, particularly ones like Frank, Joyce, Larue, Belker and Bates who had major storylines the whole life of the series. To get that article in shape is a major undertaking.
Meanwhile, Tumadoireach has put the issue on the notability notice board. Since he/she is such a self-proclaimed expert on all things Wikipedia, I reminded him/her to put a reminder in a few key spots, which merited a sarcastic welcome to Wikipedia statement on my talk page. Is is me, or is the Wikipedia becoming increasingly burdened with "win at all costs" types? Drmargi (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi There -article talk page annex ? hmmmm i am delighted to see that here at least you both can bear to refer to it as a cast list -now why is that not acceptable in the article ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A list of characters that includes the names of the actors portraying them is,by definition, a cast list. What is more interesting than that fact is your horror at the notion of using the word. last gasp cast aspersions asperity -aspirin needed ! --Tumadoireacht (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that combining "officers" and "cast" under the heading of "characters" is like grouping "kings" and "castles" under "royalty". Debresser (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A herculean leap would be to just call it the cast list then like any theatre program sensibly does or simply "cast" with subdivisions for ranks and for hollywood stars even. I am still wondering how a character list that includes the actors names can be called anything BUT a cast list unless by James Joyce or someone on acid--Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
ANI is apparently mostly for for death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats and suchlike Drmargi -but you presumably already knew that. I have looked at it prompted by your mentioning it. One to bear in mind. Thanks for the info.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I enjoyed you homepage/user page with all the colourful and informative lozenges about your interests and tastes. I must get around to learning how to do that.
Just a thought on the subject of taste; Civilian Palestinian, Gazan, or Lebanese editors or readers who have lost adult relatives or children to Israeli gunship helicopter invasions might find your humour on the subject offensive.
You may be unaware that sales of this helicopter to Israel were blocked recently by the USA over concerns about civilian deaths and its ongoing threat to Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. "During the recent war, Israel made considerable use of the Longbow, and there were high civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip" per the Wikipedia article about the war use.
For those of us who have lost close ones to suicide it is never a subject for humour or mockery.
The assertion in the photo caption that the helicopter does its killing within Israel may be additionally problematic for obvious reasons concerned with territory definition and could be seen as additionally offensive.
Would you consider removing it either on the grounds of good taste or civil? After all civility really IS one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, unlike, say, Notability. The penguin photo, on the other hand is very funny.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am glad yo appreciated my userpage. Please feel free to have a look at its code, to understand how you could do the same.
As for that specific picture. I didn't make up the text myself. I too found it this way on somebody's userpage, and had a good laugh. The suicide it is referring to are the suicide bombers, with whom nobody is likely to associate himself, including those who have lost relatives through suicide, or even come into contact with attempted suicide.
Black humor and political jokes are always likely to be less appreciated by some, especially by those who hold the specific view that is being mocked. Nevertheless, comedians continue drawing full houses with it. Please notice that I have also had favorable reactions to this same picture both on Wikipedia and outside of it.
Sincerely, Dovid.
One man's humour is another man's genocide. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. To my eyes it is as offensive as Holocaust Humour. The Nazis thought such statistical bon mots hilarious too.In fact they loved statistics.
I did see a humourous definition of a terrorist: once a "terrorist": is a man with a bomb but no helicopter. Are you aware of suicide rates amongst Gazan civilians and Gazan teens in particular ?[1] The question of what territory the attack helicopter does its killing in is also a cause for distress. The inference in the "funny" caption is that the country(ies) where it does its killing also belongs to Israel. Could it be considered to constitute an "attack page" per Wikipedia policy? WP:ATTACK and an image for speedy admin deletion if so referenced? In a spirit of promoting peace I am asking you to remove it --Tumadoireacht (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I stuck an anonymous description of the photo and caption listing the arguments above on the talk page of "Attack pages". Here [16] to get some feedback on whether I am being a bit precious about this.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Let's see some reactions there. I from my side do not consider this picture's text to be offensive, and especially not since the section is explicitly intended humorously. I will not remove it willingly, and consider your request as an infringement on my freedom of speech and a demonstration of your lack of sense of humor. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
A request is no infringement and freedom of speech is controlled everywhere but especially here on WP as I know well !-as for humour-old Sigmund maintained a joke is always to some degree at the expense of the listener and more often at the expense of the subject. Check out the Tommy Tiernan controversy--— TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk09:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Much as it pains me to agree with our aquatic friend, Debresser, I can see that this could be taken as Not Funny At All in some quarters. In the interest of WikiHarmony, would you please consider removing it? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I considered it, and decided not to. I think it is humorous, and so did other editors and outside visitors of my userpage. Nobody should take offense, and if anybody does, then I consider his sensitivities misplaced. But thanks for approaching me. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Two! Basically I was reading your userpage, got down to that part, wondered which two userboxes the statement referred to, clicked the link and nothing happened. DH85868993 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Extra spaces between category end and stub start
Hi, a while back you asked this question [17] at WP:Stub querying why the guidance said that an extra blank line should be inserted after the categories and before the stub. I have read the ensuing discussion and it seemed like more editors agreed with you that there appeared to be limited justification for this, although the discussion did then get quite technical about asbox and CSS, and seemed to end with Rich Farmborough asking some 'asbox experts' about the ramifications. You chased things once but you do any further chasing beyond what's in the thread. You may be aware that the MoS has a link to your thread when justifying the use of the double line [18]. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making this change. I have since posted a thread at AWB [19] regarding minor changes made with AWB that you may find of interest. I do plan to respond to the last post made there, although you will see the thread has not had much comment and is slipping down the post list. Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. Thanks for making a post at AWB, although unfortunately there has been no further follow-up. Like yourself it seems, I often get irritated by the number of bot and tool edits to articles on my watchlist, most of which are very minor and cosmetic, and some of which may have no basis to be made at all e.g. the double white space issue. Another issue came up for me today regarding a 'dash script' and I posted a thread at [20]. You can see that my queries are raising wider questions on the use of bots and tools in a more integrated way, and you can see a response was made suggesting raising the issue at Village Pump. The recent responses on this I've made have tended to be at the technical bot users themselves rather than wider comment, so perhaps it would be useful to try and obtain further views. I was wondering if you'd sought any wider input on this before, and whether VP or something like RfC is the best start? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I just don't think it is worth the trouble. If any specific user would be making onlyy such edits, he'll get a slap on the wrist. Otherwise we all sometimes make such edits. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. Yea, those categories are only populated by templates, and they are pretty convoluted because they seem to add articles to multiple categories, and many template populate one of the categories making this category overpopulated. I am not savvy with the documentation, so I hope my brute work can help the cleaning.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not so clear-cut. In any case, the spirit of it certainly applies. Using capitals in headers is just a bad American habit. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So are you assuming bad faith. And for the record, I am canadian. And this is a personal preference. Please, if you are having a Bad Day, don't take it out on me.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Just for the reference, the following is quoted from the 1st sentence of wp:mos which says it applies to articles (this includes categories and templates, but excludes talk pages and userpages):
The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting
Why would I be assuming bad faith? Or having a bad day? Or take it out on you even if I had a bad day? That is assuming bad faith. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. You might consider looking around on non-content pages, like the Wikipedia guidelines themselves, and see that you are definitely going to be an exception here. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In using capitals where they should not be. Because, and let's just get that straight, they have no right being there. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Contemporary American English differs sharply in many respects from other dialects and is coming to dominate Internet English- damn the herd Bernolákovčina be yourself,"diacrtitics and all" ! Kurt Hummel had it right--— TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk04:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The lovely sussuration of Consensus flowing in the wikiuniverse ( ♬Can you hear the drums Fernando ? ♬)
When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.
Oh, I am aware of WP:BRD. That does not mean that such is the only or even the best way of establishing consensus, as you can read in that essay itself. In your case though, you are trying to push things that are more or less against consensus, which is a different thing altogether. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yours is the only dissenting voice so far on Attack Captions and Images[[21]], but I am delighted that you have the good sense and magnanimity to now acknowledge, with the aide-memoire of the flow chart, that such edits ARE at least one of the ways to work,revising the opinion you offered in your stern 'warning' of this morning.well done.--— TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean that mine "is the only dissenting voice so far"? Nobody has reacted written any commentaries in those two sections there apart from you and me!
I know that being Wikipedia:Bold is one way of editing Wikipedia, but being bold on Wikipedia policy pages is something else than making non-consensus edits in order to push your point of view. That is called Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, or even worse, and will get you blocked or otherwise sanctioned if you continue doing so. So I was completely correct in waring you on your talkpage this morning. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you missing a label after 'called' ? I re-read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing A single edit is not tendentitious per the article.By definition a tendency is a process not an event. This morning you thought the edit not acceptable,then recanted when shown proof of error, this afternoon it has become tendentious-what will it be this evening ?-I can hardly contain myself waiting for the pronouncement.Is there an unmentioned tendency here?--— TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You say local problem.I say local opportunity. You never disappoint, but for the present, arrests for anticipated crimes in the future, and thought crimes are only figments of Philip K. Dick's and George Orwell's imaginations. The movie has Tom Cruise.--— TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
as to your first question (why I added the no definition template), there's not much more to say than: There was no definition :-) I read the introduction and still had no idea what a parlement was, only what it developed out of. That's why I added the template.
As to your second question (whether your definition is correct): I have no idea -- if I'd known what a parlement is, I would have added a definition myself :-)
Thanks for adding a definition -- it makes the article much more intelligible to me. A further improvement would be to blend the first sentence with the definition into the opening paragraph -- as it stands, the following sentence is partly redundant.
Thanks for replying. I opted to have a strong first sentence, and not to touch the second sentence too much, in order not to step on the toes of somebody who might throw out the child with the bathwater and undo my edit. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Moving categories and templates
I did have chance to take part in the discussion on Template talk:R from other template before you moved templates and categories that I was watching. Please do not move things like that without a proper discussion at CFD or TFD, especially if the small discussion that did take place was not even on the talk page of a page that was moved. McLerristarr | Mclay115:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the discussion wasn't broad enough. On the other hand, all agreed there that something was definitely wrong, and it is not as if the difference between "from" and "to" is going to be essential to anything. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"That is no reason to remove a useful link. Why are you trying to own these template?" I'm not trying to own the templates. "What links here" counts any redirect page with a link as a redirect to that link. Redirect pages weren't designed to have extra text on them but then someone (not me) decided they should. If you look at the "What links here" page of WP:UBX (the redirect page), every page that has Template:R to userbox template transcluded on it is counted as a redirect to WP:UBX. To avoid this, it's easy to just not put links on redirects. There's already a link the category page, which should provide more information than the template and can contain any helpful links. McLerristarr | Mclay104:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I won't make a big deal out of it, but I definitely do not think your "What links here"-argument is a reason not to have a relevant link on a page. Pages like "What links here" exist to serve us, not we them. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The chances of a non-editor ever seeing a redirect template is highly unlikely. First they'd have to be on the actual redirect page, then view the current revision from the history. So links on redirects are not particularly useful anyway. McLerristarr | Mclay115:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a look at that discussion on your talk page, and at the page with examples. Seems to me that having one line is enough then, wouldn't you say so? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Er, no. One line is mere source formatting. Two lines creates the desired vertical space between a navbox and the stub tag. RichFarmbrough, 01:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
You reverted my change here saying there was no discussion. The reason you didn't see my discussion here was probably because it got archived by MisraBot II here.
There was no discussion over there. You posted, and nobody replied. I still need to see some discussion first. Especially since you agree yourself that it is "important advice".Debresser (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Armenia Map (edit warring)
I really don't understand how it is edit warring on my behalf. Another user has been putting inaccurate maps of Armenia, and I've been changing them as a result. I'm only protecting the integrity of the article. The map that I am putting up puts Armenia in a Europe context, which is very accurate as politically Armenia is aligned with Europe. Second, the similar sized and positioned Caucasian countries (Georgia and Azerbaijan) all have this pro Europe map, and I really don't understand why Armenia should be any different. It too like them is aligned with Europe politically. One must understand that this is not a geographic map, but a political one, and political is supposed to show with what part of the world the country in question is politically aligned. So, I am not the one at fault here, it this other user (Kentronhayastan) that is changing the map into something wrong. I will not rest until this is properly resolved, as I don't want inaccurate maps representing my country.MosMusy (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for the notification. There isn't much I can say to prevent the prod. I tried to look for sources, but couldn't really find any. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Erewhon (Honorverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not nominated for speedy deletion, it is a proposed deletion. As such, per WP:PROD, if you wish to contest deletion, just delete the deletion tag. As it's been up on PROD for a few days, deletion tag expiry will occur before your one-week deadline on merger occurs. So the closing admin may choose to delete the article at that time. It'd be easier if you just removed the PROD tag. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Just wrote this up to say you have an excellent page Dovid, and glad to see a brother on wikipedia. I've taken a few tips from your page and edited my own. I'm very happy now with mine. Yours is very inspiring and well-organized. I had all of my userbox(es) in the Babel box before tonight lol. Hope your Purim is great "next month" (Gregorian-wise), I'm really looking forward to it.--Smart30 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late reply. Please read the discussion before accusing me of edit warring and threatening to get be blocked. The original map was the orthographic projection, in use for about a year, and on all other language Wikipedia articles of Armenia. MosMusy decided to change the map without starting a discussion, and I reverted it back and asked for a discussion. Yet he continuously changed it back without coming to a mutual understanding with me. In other words, he began an edit war. Now that we have come to a consensus, I accept it (in fact, I even made the Europe map that we're using now, just to show that I wasn'T simply biased toward the orthographic projection). Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Should I remove William Allen Simpson's addition now? Honestly, it seems to me like five people disagreeing with all or part of his one-man consensus addition is enough to remove it (only one other person, retroactively, appears to agree with it). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
He is a very agressive editor. And doesn't give a fluke about consensus. But if you can show that there is clear consensus against him, write so on the talkpage and only then make the edit. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I left off with a comment along those lines. I feel if I revert he'll just revert me again... and after reverting, he'll report me for breaking 3rr (or rather, 0 rr or 1rr in this case, but that didn't stop him the last time). That's why I thought I needed back up of some sort. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Breaks
Typically I think breaks are frequently needed, especially when dealing with two or more portals, because I don't want the portal boxes to spill into the References/Notes sections. Remember that not everybody uses the same monitors, so what doesn't spill over on one monitor spills over on another. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If there are three see also's, I don't think that is likely to happen in most cases. The problem is that it leaves an ugly whiteline. In my opinion, that is at least just as bad as a spill over. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Armenia Page
Hello, I would like to turn your attention to two users, dbachmann and moreschi that have barged in and been changing the Armenia map, and other things in addition. Let me remind you that this issue had already been resolved and everything was going fine, until these people showed up. Given they are only pushing these changes for Armenia, I am rather suspicious of their intentions.MosMusy (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I find your comment rather depressing, Debresser.
You ask me to do a "proper discussion" of the question?
Then I should wonder what, in your opinion, I have done instead.
You will note, if you care to look at the talkpage, that I have discussed the issue, based on references, which is the entire point of this project. While, otoh, all MosMusy has done is yell at me in boldface and ignore the point.
So I am not sure what you think a "discussion" is supposed to look like, but it certainly bears no resemblance to anything I would consider worthy of a project to build an encyclopedia.
May I remind you that this isn't a forum, or a social community? If MosMusy has any kind of case to make, let him do that. But that is of course an academic point, as it is crystal clear that he does not. --dab(𒁳)19:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Prove to me that Armenia is politically not part of Europe and thus does not belong in the context of Europe. Prove to me why Georgia and Azerbaijan deserve Europe context maps, but Armenia deserves a middle east/asian map. The South Caucasus as a whole, deserve a Europe context map as that's where their sphere of influence, especially politically lies. MosMusy (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
lol, this user now came to my talkpage claiming that he is replacing the map because "Armenia is politically Europe". I invite you to google the width and depth of the internets for this insight: "Armenia is politically Europe". Oh yes, are two hits for it! Oh wait, they are google's cache of MosMusy's comment at Talk:Armenia plus one mirror.
Talk about abusing Wikipedia to push your personal opinion as WP:TRUTH.
But perhaps MosMusy was trying to say that "Armenia is politically in Europe" and is simply a little grammatically challenged? Let's "write for the enemy" and assume that's what he was trying to say. "Armenia is politically in Europe". Oh yeah! The wide, wide internet has one (1) occurrence of this statement. This deep and encyclopedic truth has been uttered by "Lord Mov" at twcenter.net/forums/ on April 12, 2010, 02:30 PM. It goes without saying that this discovery trumps our pathetic references, such as the UN, the CIA, and OUP, and clearly establishes that MosMusy is not only right, he is a gleaming gem of encyclopedic expertise, well worthy to be pampered with our full range of Wikipedia:Expert retention measures. --dab(𒁳)09:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You should read WP:MOSDAB, what you did adding the material now sourced is contraindicated by that. Moreover, you are labeling the various Pincus named people as bearing an Ashkenazic Jewish surname; does your labeling meet our standards of categorization of people and of WP:BLP. No, it falls well short. You have no sources that all those people bear that name, any more than one may assume anyone surnamed Lee is Korean (Robert E. Lee would be surprised for example were he alive). You should check your edits to make sure you comply with the consensus about how pages should look, what they should contain, and what they shouldn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen WP:MOSDAB recently, but please be more specific about that contradiction you mention. And to answer your question, it does seem to me that most of the people there on the page have an Ashkenazic Jewish surname. Debresser (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Seem? Is that your standard? Well it's not Wikipedia's. See WP:BLP. You may wish to label all them Jewish, but I suppose that applies neither to all of these people, and certainly not to the businesses such as the German brewery Pinkus Müller. Since you were unwilling or unable to create the surname page, I did that; perhaps you can expand it compatibly with WP:BLP. Further BLP violations will be reported and you may find yourself blocked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, man, your are paranoid. The name Pincus is a Jewish name, even if some instances of that name aren't. Definitely no BLP violations here. In addition, you might check the number of contributions I made to Wikipedia before using such strong words. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Primo Levi
The construction of Judaism as an Ethnic origin is partially rooted in anti-semetic ideology. Individuals may become Jewish, by deciding to observe Judaism. Primo Levi was a scientist, was not an observant Jew, he was labelled ethnically by the Nazi's as a Jew, and was persecuted for their unfounded belief in Judaism as an Ethnicity. He was born in Italy to Italian parents, spoke Italian, has the potential to have family history residing in Italy since Roman times. By simply refering to him as a Jew removes his equally important identity as an Italian which the Nazi Germans were able to effectively remove from him. As for it being a well known fact, Ethnicity is not something that is firmly rooted in scientific empiricism. With this said, placing Primo in this artificial category passively conveys an affirmation with Nazi-german ideology pertaining to eugenics. If you wish to describe his Jewish culture, I suggest adding another hearder, or adjusting this header. Leaving Ethnicity: Jewish in a web source where the ignorant go to learn about things, you are perpetuating an "truth" that is rooted in racist, Nazi ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.60.154 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
A lot of blahblah to make an incorrect point. He was Jewish, end of story.
You've misread the WP:Manual of Style (biographies):
2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Please self-revert.
Further, if you can quote a manual of style, you certainly could be expected to know how to use a talk page. Please keep that in mind. Jd2718 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Related: I think the Belarussian in the lead needs to go, esp. the claim that this is his original name. The Russian clearly should stay. Yiddish probably needs to be added - but I am neither capable of finding the correct spelling nor typing it on WP. I see you have some level of knowledge of Yiddish. Can you help, or perhaps find someone who can? (I've written the same comment and request on the article's talk page) Jd2718 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The misleading part is the word "Palestine". If that were "British Palestine" or "Ottoman Palestine" that would be a different story. There is a reason the parent category mentions "Land of Israel". Your choice to deviate from that wording, was a poor one, and as soon as editors (including me) started to protest this, you should have stopped. Instead you continue to create such categories and populate them, and that is anti-consensus behavior. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no way you will succeed it deleting all my Palestinian cats
Instead of telling me to wait for consensus, I advise you to hold your horses yourself. It will save us both a lot of time. Chesdovi (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Why? WP:BRD. You made a move. Now you are being reverted. In addition, you decide to create a whole system of categories, and to give it a name which was not previously in use and which is controversial. BTW, even if you are not persuaded by our arguments, you per force have to agree it is controversial. There is no reason the community has so endorse your poor initiative, and I feel sure the community will not do so in effect. So if you want to make a fuzz about it, go ahead, but it is your reputation that will suffer in the end. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"Editor seems blinded by some POV pushing of the term Palestinian, that he forgets the guy was Jewish". Being Palestinian and Jewish is not an oxymoron. Stop your rampage or face the consequences. Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say to me. In any case, who should stop with his edits is precisely the point of discussion on WP:ANI, so please do not make any empty threats here. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
That is just a content dispute, surely not a reason to "file complaints". Let me understand. I changed "Palestinian" to "living in the Land of Israel". You mean to say he didn't? I fail to see the big problem here. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I though you meant that one. :) So I replaced "Palestinian" by "Jewish". Isn't he Jewish? And isn't that more important than the accidental place of his birth? It is for precisely this argument that WP:MOSBIO says we should not generally mention countries of birth in the first sentence, and ethnicity only when it is relevant. So I think that was a good edit. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
That was a bad edit. You removed Palestinian and replaced it with Jewish in a flagrant act of censorship to suit you own irrational POV. Why do you insist on removing the fact that Jews who lived in Palestine can not be referred to as Paletinian? I have not got a satisfactory answer from you. This is how many sources refer to such people. Why cannot we not use this designation? You refuse to do so even with a source! Are you anti-Palestinian? Explain yourself once and for all. Are you some fanatic zionist who doesn't want to mention the word Palestine? What is it with you. Chesdovi (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why are you suggesting all kinds of things about me? I find this offensive. Please refrain from doing so in the future, and restrict yourself to neutral wording. Also please ask for explanations, ask and do not demand them. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
ARBPIA 72 hr topic ban
Debresser and Chesdovi are both topic banned from Israeli / Palestinian topic areas for 72 hrs due to disruptive editing and edit warring, with a healthy dose of personal attacks and incivility thrown in. This sanction is enacted under the Arbcom case sanctions and will be so logged.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
You claim that the Holy Land was not called "Palestine" during the 13th cent. or is referred to by that term nowadays. Please give the common english name of what the region was called during the 13th-century (1200-1299CE). Chesdovi (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I and another user have brought many arguments why the category you created is misleadingly named. Please do not suggest things I have not said with so many words, and try to consider all relevant arguments as a whole. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please give me a clear answer. What do you mean by posting on my talk page at 00:25 on May 1, 2011: "In addition, and specifically, during the 13th century, the place was definitely not called Palestine." Chesdovi (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The area you refer to as "Palestine" was then part of the Mamluk Sultanate ruled from Egypt. Is that reason to call Jewish scholars there "Egyptians", "Mamluks" or "Palestinians"? No it is not. At most they can be called "Rabbis living in Mamluk Palestine", analogous to "Rabbis living in Ottoman or British Palestine", with which category neither of us seems to have any fundamental problems. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You have answered you own query: "Palestine was then part of the Mamluk Sultanate ruled from Egypt." You see my freind, the region, ruled by the Sanjuk Turks, Mamluks, Ottomans or British remains, until '48, Palestine. Palestine is the regional name. And since this category categorises people by the region of their residence, and NOT ethnicity, its use is proper and correct. Palestine was under Egpytian rule, But IT WAS STILL KNOWN AS PALESTINE. That is what it is known in by all scholarly works on the history of that region. The Jewish encylopedia uses it, rabbis writing for gentile audiencs at the time used it, Lord Balfour used it, even Ben Gurion used it. It is Never called Turkey, Egypt, just because it was ruled by those nations. are Bohemian rabbis of Bohemian ethnicity? Catalan rabbis of Catalan ethnicity? No. Are Palestina rabbis of Palestinian ethnicity, no. It merely denotes the area of residence by which these scholars were known. YOU yourself have stated you wish to ignore numerous sources, some of which I have provided, on this issue and prefer to enforce you POV LOI instead. You have acted in a very patriarchal way indeed. We dont have rabbis in Nazi Germany. Rabbis in Napolean France. Rabbis in Likud Israel. The region always remains the common factor here, whatever the ruleing authority ove that region. You have got cnfused about what the name of this category insinuates. But you are wrong. Why is MM Shenrrson considered American, Does he dexcned for Red Indians? If you have a probelm with the word palestine, then take it up at the right palce, dont go ahed and literally undone hours upon hours of my time and effort creating what in my mind are perfectly sound and correct cats. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
As I and another user have explained to you many times now already. The fact that somebody lives in a region called "x" is not yest a reason to call the person an "x-ian". Especially if that name is not used by all, is ambiguous, and the person lives only part of his life in that region, etc. etc. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Well i'll take that as a clear answer that you now CONCEED that the AREA WAS KNOWN AS PALESTINE IN THE 1200'S since you did not address this at all in your previous response, but decided to change the subject.
Now the next problem: Who gives you the wiki RIGHT to expalin to ME what the paramenters for Rabbis of X cats are. Are you an expert on this? I don't have a wiki doctorate on it. Maybe you do? The sources are literally STACKED against you. DO YOU NOW CONCEDE THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE OF YOU FORCING YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT BELONGS WHERE OVER MINE? Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have experience with rabbis cats, do you?
I have populated many rabbis according to their rightful regional designations without any fuss for years. Ottoman rabbis, German rabbis, Catalan rabbis, English rabbis, Syrian rabbis, Iraqi rabbis, Bohemian rabbis, etc. I created Category:French Tosafists, Category:American Haredi rabbis, etc, etc. Why has my inuition now been the center of contention? It is some extreme political POV issue. Accept that fact. Have you noticed how only you and SD have been involved? Does that not say something? You keep on going on about the "community". One right-wing zionist and another right-wing pro-palestinian. Sure both content these cats for differeing issues, but can you not see how both of you are seriously impeded by your POV? For you to go ahead and depopulate so many pages without agreement is seriously problematic. If it turns that that you have anything to do with Pallomine who finihed off your grand job of depopulating Palestinian categories, that will be the end of you here. Chesdovi (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you call me a "right-wing zionist" (I understand that "right-wing pro-palestinian" wasn't about me)? Why do you insinuate that I'd have anything to do with Pallomine? I find your behavior offensive, and will add this to the WP:ANI link. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
RWZ because of your intolerance of the mere word Palestine on Jewish articles. Preferrng LOI, a term not nece. backed up by sources, for body and cats. Are you not the one who depopulted 50 pages in one fell swoop? After that massacre, you opted for imediate extermintion of the parent cat: [22] Agast, I reverted asking ou about what the rush and need there was to delted the cat. YOU then revert and when the page is left intact b/c it was "not currently empty", then mysteriously someone appears to "help you out" editing only those pages you have been crusdaing on the past day? suspicious or what? Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not use words like "massacre" or "crusading" in this context. I find that offensive. Nor do I have a problem with the word "Palestine" and its derivatives, when used properly, that is rightfully and unambiguously. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I did see you left Palestinian academy. But what do you mean by "rightfully and unambiguously". And why does your view trump? What is ambiguous here? Where exactly Palestine is located? Chesdovi (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I left that, because I thought that was its name. Like Palestinian Talmud. Even though in Hebrew it is called the Talmud Yerushalmi. Anyway, I have not resorted to accusing you of having a POV, and would appreciate it if you could return that courtesy. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Next time you come across a Jewish encylopedia, open it. You will see that all amoroaim are call Palestina. All Geonim are called Palestinian. Indeed, The Palestina Talmud, right up to the Palestinain Orchestar in the 30s. all Jews. This is the termed most commonly used in english for that region. Not some awkward Talmud Rabbi of the Land of Israel. Stop removing the word Paalestinian from Jews who lived there for centuries, trying to whitewash the Jewish connection to Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Try not to give me orders... And please, do not add the word "Palestinian" when it is not justified. Jews who lived in Palestine, are still first and foremost Jews. This is a good example of "tofes tafel umaniach ikar". Should I translate? Debresser (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If I feel the word is jusified I WILL ADD IT and continue to do so until you and I come to a soltion which is accepatble to both of us. Not one enforcing his view of what is just or not on the other, which you appear intent on doing. Chesdovi (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If you do so, then you will be banned or blocked again, until you can show consensus. It is all very simple, really. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Even after Chesdovi's edit, it still says "Palestinian rabbi and Jewish mystic". (Nevertheless, I just reverted it as redundant, because the sentence ends "in Ottoman Palestine".) Maybe I should have been clearer. I was speaking about the subject of your dispute at ANI—I don't have a preference concerning the categories. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
He did the same to another article, where the word "Jewish" was completely removed in favor of "Palestinian". I was positively shocked by that. See [23]. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
3 questions (and answers) and it not even seder night
You gave 3 reasons why the Palestinian rabbis category is not worthy here:
Q1)The fact that somebody is a rabbi in a country does not mean he has the local nationality, especially since many (or even most) of them were not born there.
A1)It seems from the sources that this very issue of residence does confer identity (or nationality) with a given region. We have Menachem Lonzano who was born abroad, yet upon living in Palestin, is called by RS Palestinian.
Q2)There is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location.
A2)This concern can be dismissed since the category is under the parent category which lists the nationality of Rabbis. Secondly, with all rabbis being of Jewish ethnicity, there can be no confusion about their ethnicity if they are being linked with a regional nationality. Would Ottoman Jews be a problem, lest we think they are Turkish and not Jewish? Should we not categorise Category:American rabbis as we may be confused to think they are descended from red indians?
Q3)During the 13th century, the place was definitely not called Palestine.
A3) That is an myth. And as you did not respond to my previous post about this I take you you now conceed there was. Chesdovi (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the fifth section you have created on my talkpage within the last 24 hours. Not to mention the initial discussion on your talkpage, the WP:ANI discussion, and the WikiProject Judaism talkpage. I think we should restrict ourselves to your talkpage, or the WikiProject Judaism talkpage. Especially since you don;t seem to want to listen to any of my arguments. So perhaps let other editors state their opinions as well. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I listen to your arguments and refute them to no avail. You do not rebut satisfactoraily. Your reasoning is begining to crack through now though, after your statement about using the term Palestinian for a Jew is antisemitic! I thought it may have been about this all along. You should have said so and it would have saved us all a whole lot of time. I am happy to use the WPJ Arizal section, but really do not want to rehash my points over and over again. Chesdovi (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You are again taking my comment out of context. The issue is what I have always stated. That specific edit was definitely outrageous and an affront to Judaism, and I so stated. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought you may have actually been referring to my cheeky edit summary. So you think me calling the Arizal Palestinian is offensive to Judaism. I suppose me saying you live in occupied west Jerusalem also is an affront to Judaism. Cannot you guys not separate Judiasm from Politics? Will you be breaking the sefira again this year to celebrate the founding of your anti-God state. If not, why not? The Arizal would for sure be against the zionist enteprise in the holy land. The fact that most haredim see it as a bedieved situation, all besides Chabad that is, surely shows that you have been wrong all along. Until moshiach comes, the real moshiach that is, the establishment of Jewish self governace without universal consent is against halacho. It is outrageous that you do not accept the common english usage term for a region on the project and go to such lengths to have your way. Fancy depopulating all those pages like that. Chesdovi (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from including me with "you guys" (whomever you may have meant by that). Or calling Israel "my" state. Try using some objective language for a change, and not to make any personal insinuations. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Zionism
I think I discern some anti-zionism in your edits, especially your last one. I would find it interesting to discuss that with you, completely regardless of our disagreement. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Really file an appeal at WP:AE. At ANI, you will probably just be continuously ignored in the house style of skimming over WP:TLDR back-and-forths between two editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Actually, it is not important enough for me, because I don't edit any articles related to WP:ARBPIA. Nor was this discussion related to it, as far as I am concerned at least. My protests are logged at WP:ANI. But perhaps I'll do it, just to make the point. I really think this was an exaggeration. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Since "a synagogue is always for Jews, formost locals, but actually any Jew from over the world can come and pray there", shall we removed the reference to "Syrian" in this article? Chesdovi (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Many churches and synagogues retain a specific character attributable to their founders. In the US, there are Polish churches, Irish churches and Italian churches - with none requiring parishioners to be Polish, Irish or Italian. There are Sephardic synagogues as well [24] and so on even a "Sephardic Lebanese synagogue" [25] ... where a synagogue was historically founded by the Syrian Jewish community, it would be silly to remove that sourceable fact. Collect (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem with the (numerous) references to Syria in that article. Please notice that the first internal link is to Syrian Jews, and another one mentions "SyrianJews". It is all a matter of stressing what needs to be stressed, and not giving undue weight to what is minor.
