Misplaced Pages

User talk:Debresser: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:27, 14 July 2017 editNo More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,461 edits →Nishidani is back - personal comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:20, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,989 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{| align="right" style="background:#F8FCFF;" {| align="right" style="background:#F8FCFF;"
|- |-
|{{archive box|] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]}} |{{archive box|] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]}}
|- |-
| &nbsp; <!-- whiteline --> | &nbsp; <!-- whiteline -->
Line 38: Line 38:
|- |-
| {{User:Debresser/What's up?}} | {{User:Debresser/What's up?}}
|-
| {{User:Debresser/What more's up?}}

|} |}
__TOC__ __TOC__
Line 60: Line 57:
::: Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. ] (]) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC) ::: Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. ] (]) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


* I now have over 10,000 favicons, and the number of orphans is down to 11! ] (]) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC) * I now have over 10,000 favicons on, and the number of orphans is down to 11! ] (]) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


== Special characters == == Special characters ==
Line 70: Line 67:
:::If there is, it's well hidden. --] (]) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC) :::If there is, it's well hidden. --] (]) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


::::] ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;'''''</span><sup>]</sup> 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ::::] ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;</span>'''''<sup>]</sup> 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


== Yitzchak Ginsburgh == == May 2021 ==


<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ]&nbsp;and for violating a topic ban, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 month'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the &#91;&#91;WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard&#93;&#93; or &#91;&#91;WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard&#93;&#93;. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.&nbsp;</p><sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following ] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
Need your help:
: Whatever. "If you believe this block is unjustified," I do. "please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing." and you'll understand that there is no chance an admin will admit they make unnecessary and biased blocks. Nothing personal. ] (]) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm new at Misplaced Pages but I noticed that the links to Martin Wagner's articles on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page are all broken. I am loathe to begin my Misplaced Pages career by getting into trouble removing them on such a page. I don't even know if it's the correct thing to do. It certainly seems to be what is necessary according to this, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."
:: Good for you. In my recent AN to remove an IBAN, I was subjected to bad faith and then told that since it's working, no use in removing it. Yet somehow I don't think the same people would say the same for people in prison, otherwise we'd have full prisons all over the world considering they don't commit crimes. This place is not what it used to be and why I'm semi-retired and probably will go full retired if things continue on the same path of toxicity and stupidity. Just look at the AE about JzG, someone who should have been blocked several times by now but of course nothing will get done. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you think? Can you do something about it? Thanks!] (]) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
::: I gave a lot to this project, over 10 years and over 100,000 edits. If some stupid, or biased, admin thinks that all of that should be thrown out of the window because of what he perceives as a minor problem, although I would disagree with calling my behavior problematic, especially when compared to certain other edits, then that is their problem, and this project's net loss. I have a life, and am not interested in fighting such shortsighted bureaucrats, nor do I think that it is feasible. ] (]) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


== ] has an ]==
: I just tagged it as a dead link. Without prejudice. ] (]) 00:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
:: {{To|238-Gdn}} I can only see one link to Wagner's work. Can you see more? Regarding the correct course of action, a dead link is not a reason to delete a source since there is no rule that sources have to be on the internet. A newspaper name and date is perfectly adequate without a url. But in any case the best thing to do with a dead link is to replace it by a working link. I just put the title into google and a direct link to the newspaper article was the first hit. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey? ==
:: You're right, of course. However, there are similar references to such articles on another (other) page(s). e.g. ] ] (]) 07:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello :)
== Categories ==
I am writing my MA dissertation on Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my or my , where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out ''before 8 August 2021.''


Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
Re: ...
Thanks so much,


Sarah Sanbar
In each case ] is a super-category category of an existing category, and ] is quite clear that "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". If you disagree with ] please raise the matter on ]. (There seem to be a few editors who are explicitly or ignoring or contradicting SUBCAT, so you might even get some support.) If you think that one or more categories should be ], then please place the appropriate template on the relevant categories so that editors know that the duplication is intended. Otherwise, please just follow the existing clear and generally-accepted guidelines for categorization. ] (]) 12:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 00:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
: In each of those cases I found the connection between the parent and child category not clear, so i restored the category. In addition, and as I have pointed out to you before on ], the placement of templates on non-diffusing categories has never been perfect, so my advice to you would be to stop implementing the rules indiscriminately and start using common sense. ] (]) 17:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::{{tq|the placement of templates on non-diffusing categories has never been perfect}} - That's true, but you could improve things a little by placing the appropriate templates ({{tl|Non-diffusing subcategory}}, {{tl|Non-diffusing parent category}}) on the categories where necessary - that's why they exist.
:: "Common sense" says that the categories would be a lot easier to understand if we all followed the same system - ie the unambiguous guidelines in ] - rather than individuals making ad hoc decisions. ] (]) 12:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


: {{U|Sarabnas}} Is this still relevant, or was the August 8 deadline absolute? ] (]) 15:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
::: I actually agree with you. There are two problems: 1. the imperfectness of the system shouldn't stop us from making the right decision in any individual case. 2. I often thought to tag categories with those templates, but (almost) never did it, because who am I to decide whether a category should be considered diffusing or non-diffusing. Not to mention that I am perfectly fine - on the theoretical level of Misplaced Pages guidelines - with categories being both, i.e. partially diffusing and partially non-diffusing, somewhat like the situation which exists in many cases today. ] (]) 19:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
::Hi, it's still relevant if you haven't yet filled it out and would like to! Thanks :) ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 16:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


== Redundant category == == Administrators' noticeboard ==


] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is ].&nbsp;The discussion is about the topic ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, thanks for your input on ] categories. Although ] is accurate, there is a sub] and a further sub], both of which the rabbi already belongs to. Since all Chief rabbis officiate from Jerusalem, adding Rabbis in Jerusalem here should warrant including every other Chief rabbi in that category. ] (]) 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
: But that is not self-evident. ] (]) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


== Maimonides ==
== '']'' ==


Hey Debresser, could you look at the proposed changes in ] and give your feedback? Thanks!] (]) 20:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about stepping on each other's toes. I just discovered this film and wanted to add some details. It is a rarity now and while released on DVD, it never was issued as a VHS so, for years, the only time it popped up was as a late-night feature. ] (]) 02:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


: "Unexplained removal". I did explain it, on the talk page. It is not at all clear that the section on the Thirteen Principles is not found in the Mishneh Torah (I pointed out the place it is found), therefore the section shouldn't present that as uncontested fact. It is better to state the matter as it is stated in the main article discussing the Thirteen Principles, which is what I changed it to - copying the quote from there, and that is more correct. ] (]) 18:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
: Sure. ] (]) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your reply. I now see that you must be referring to a discussion in the middle of the talkpage ]. Will look at it and will reply there. ] (]) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::: And I replied there too. ] (]) 22:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


== Haredi Judaism ==
== 1RR violation on Jewish Diaspora ==


Hey Debresser, Thanks for looking over content in Maimonides! Can you look over recent discussion on Haredi divorce?] (]) 16:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, edit violates 1RR ("Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."), wherefore I suggest you self-revert it. You have also not provided any reasons, why that would be the stable version and not the text that has been in the article for several years, indicating you perhaps do not understand what the concept of stable version means. Cheers, --] (]) 20:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
:Why would Jewish Diaspora be under ARBPIA sanctions? ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
:: "when in doubt, assume it is related" as the sanction itself provides. The way the diaspora came about has been a bone of contention as some people feel it relates to the strength of the Zionist case/ideology, which is probably why the "myth of exile" is bandied about to begin with, IMO. Anyway this isn't a huge procedural issue, since the source interpretation question itself is so bleedingly obvious. --] (]) 20:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
: That article is not under any WP:ARBPIA restriction. No room for doubt here. All I see here is an editor trying to game the system. ] (]) 20:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


== Could you help file a SPI ==
== You were reported to the edit warring noticeboard ==


Hey Debresser, it seems that {{u|Hipocrite}} may be a sock of Orchomen. However, as an IP it is difficult to file a SPI. Could you do it? Thanks!] (]) 01:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I you to the edit-warring noticeboard. --] (]) 18:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
: Hope you didn't forget to report yourself as well. ] (]) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Here are some diffs which show how Hipocrite only edited a page after Pipsally, the sock of Orchomen already commented. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1037319040
== West Bank ==


Hi. Don't you think is ]? An entire section based on a single (controversial) source?--] (]) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=One_of_Us_(2017_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1037264488 ] (]) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
: Don't waste your time Debresser, it's not me. I think you should be very careful asking for SPIs though 155... Boomerang!] (]) 06:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
: I turned it into a subsection, as I am sure such was the original intent and in any case, that seems to be the appropriate status of that paragraph. I don't have any more commentary on the paragraph at this stage. ] (]) 10:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


Not my cup of cake. ] (]) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
== Formal mediation has been requested ==
{{Ivmbox
| <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Jews - Origin section--->The ] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jews - Origin section". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. ] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the ], the ], and the ], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 March 2017.


:FYI, since Hipocrite has 22,000+ edits the likelihood of them being a sockpuppet is exceedingly low. Very much not worth your time.--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br>
<small>Message delivered by ] (]) on ] of the Mediation Committee. 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)</small> :: True as well. ] (]) 15:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
}}


== Haaretz ==
== Request for mediation rejected ==
{{Ivmbox
| The ] concerning Jews - Origin section, to which you were listed as a party, has been ]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the ], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the ] of the Committee, or to the ]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see ].


Hey Debresser, if you know any media outlets or reporters can you please bring their attention to the RSN? Some of these responses are not okay. If the only way to deal with this is through media attention, then so be it. All the best! pinging {{u|IZAK}} because page protection.] (]) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)<br>
: Nope. Not interested. ] (]) 22:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
<small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small>
}}
== Nomination for merging of ] ==
]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] (]) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
: Thank you. I remember a similar proposal from the past. I'll look it up and comment. ] (]) 16:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


== Query ==
==Disambiguation link notification for March 22==


Hello, how are you? hope you are well, can you review this article ] and if it's ok can you move it to mainspace thanks a lot !
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
: Reviewed, in short. Please see my edit and the edit summary. Feel free to write me here again afterwards. BTW, why did you choose to ask ''me'' to review this article. ] (]) 13:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
:: This user is globally banned; see ]. <b>] ]</b> 14:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
::: {{Ping|Ohnoitsjamie}} I see. What would that mean for the draft, which, frankly I was considering to move to mainspace after a few improvements? ] (]) 15:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
:::: The article was ] per a recent AfD. The user is an abusive ] and shouldn't be encouraged in any way. <b>] ]</b> 15:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
::::: I see. That discussion was indeed only a month ago. I also noticed ]. A shame, because I though the article was coming along nicely. ] (]) 17:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


== Are you a moderator ? ==
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


are you a moderator ?
: In this case I reverted to a previous version. A bit not useful to warn editors who didn't introduce the link, just reverted to it. ] (]) 17:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


if so can you please look over the article ]
== Strict reading ==


"The Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) (pronounced "jake") is an American organization on exploring the usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (particularly Edge computing), Network of Networks and AI-enhanced communication for use in actual combat."
Why do you think excising this qualification is more correct than what the source tells us? I'm not very familiar with this subject, but we're later noting that this point of interpretation has been a subject of debate, and by deviating from the source on this point we seem to be taking sides in this debate. ] (]) 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
: I didn't see it that way, because there was no indication in the article the debate had anything to do with a strict or non-strict interpretation. Neither did I notice such a correlation in any of the sources, although I admit I didn't read them in their entirety. Please point me to it, if I am wrong. ] (]) 19:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC) : Not really, no. I am more or less not interested in editing any more. ] (]) 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:: Non-strict interpretation of rabbinical law is what was used historically to justify application of capital punishment by later Jewish courts, e.g.: . We don't want to suggest that Jewish courts purposely violated Jewish law. ] (]) 20:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
::: It says "they were going beyond the biblical warrant for the death penalty". That is something different from the text I removed: "According to a strict reading of rabbinical law". ] (]) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
:::: Right, but the rabbis discussed in this book believed that capital punishment "could be justified by other considerations of Jewish law". So, by removing the qualification, we're taking initiative to state that these rabbis were wrong. There could be other ways to formulate a properly qualified statement, but we would need different sources for that. What's your objection to the phrasing used in the available source?


== Oolite ==
:::: I'd like to use this occasion to arrive at a summary that can also be used as lead in the main (mainly unsourced) article, which currently has none, and in ], which overuses primary sources. ] (]) 22:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
After some advice vis-a-vis the Oolite wiki. See your User: talk page there. Cholmondeley <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== ] has been nominated for discussion ==
:::: Looking at Elon's entry in the same Judaica article, it looks like the expression "strict law" may have a technical sense in Halakhic jurisprudence, based on how he glosses a responsum: "You know that the law applicable to criminal cases in these times when the government has granted criminal jurisdiction to Jewish courts is not the strict law , for jurisdiction over criminal cases has been abrogated." I'm guessing it means something like Talmudic law derived from the Torah, though I'm not sure. Actually, I would propose that we simply replace "rabbinical" with "Talmudic" in the sentence under discussion. The entry is called "Talmudic Law", the sentence simply says "strict law", and "rabbinical" was my own word choice. ] (]) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] ] 04:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
::::: "Strict law" carries the meaning of "according to the letter but not its spirit". Usually applied in cases where a person is pushed to be more giving towards another person than the letter of the law requires, as a good deed, so to say. I don't think that would apply here. ] (]) 04:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
::::: By the way, like your edits: formulated well and sourced. ] (]) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC) : Thanks for the notice. ] (]) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::: "Strict law" sounds like ''din'', which is usually contrasted to ''peshara'' (equity?), which is usually found in descriptions of civil cases. ] (]) 16:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::: Which is basically the same idea as what I said. ] (]) 18:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
== Template:Possibly empty category ==


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
I just noticed that you reverted the page page for ]. Why did you do this? I find your objection that there had been "insufficient discussion" lacking. There had been sufficient time for discussion and nobody cared. As the page had already been moved and there had been no objection for a week, all you did was create a bit of a tangle by doing a partial move. Since you only reverted the talk page and not also the template, I can now point out it has been three more weeks without objection to the new template name. If you have a real reason why the template should stay at the old name, please detail it on the talk page. If not, please undo the incomplete move by moving the talk page back to its new name. As the move has already been performed and no objections had arose, I think moving it back should have required a new discussion; or at the very least you should have announced your intent to revert so we could have discussed it. Contacting me would have also been appreciated. Now do we really want to go through a bureaucratic RFC with no underlying motivating reason? As one of the very few Wikipedians who does discuss changes and waits for user input related to category changes, often for months, I find it ironic how the act of proposing change is frequently self-defeating and generates more pushback than simply doing the change unannounced. ] (]) 10:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
: I had no intention of moving only the talkpage. I'll move the template back also. For the same reason: not sufficient discussion. Nobody supported your proposal. You don't just rename things, if nobody agrees. The fact that nobody disagreed is ''not'' enough reason. E.g. perhaps nobody saw the proposal, or didn't like it but not enough to reply. You need clear support for a rename. ] (]) 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
::Not true. ] is one of our guidelines. This may be in template namespace but I know the consequences of the rename and the guideline applies here. Further, although written with articles in mind, I see no reason why " no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit" wouldn't apply as part of the normal ]. Think about it: If our norms were otherwise, progress on fringe or obscure topics would grind to a halt because very often nobody responds to comments on those talk pages. I believe you are reverting because you are confusing our standards for changes ''to our policies and guidelines'' (which do lean towards requiring consensus and where no response is not justification for action so as to avoid instruction creep) with our "be bold" standard for ''the encyclopedia'' itself.
</td></tr>
::I have asked you once directly and you have had two opportunities to state a non-procedural reason to oppose this move. I would have been a very open ear to such a move. but it is fair for me to assume you currently have no substantial reason for the revert and are merely reverting for unjustified (as per above) procedural reasons. In other words, it's just being kinda obstructionist.
</table>
::PS I'm also pretty sure this is not the first time I've proposed this move and I proposed it somewhere else that I thought would be more visible. In fact, I was under the impression I had posted before on the template's talk page but apparently not and it was elsewhere. I spent a couple minutes now looking for my previous comment but so far didn't find it. Vaguely I remember waiting like a ''year'' or more for a reply. I mention this to point out that this discussion may not be nearly as new as it presently looks. If I find it I will link to it too. ] (]) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1056563210 -->
:::Do you agree or disagree with this? ] (]) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
:::: With what part of the above? That this is a case of being bold? No, I disagree with that. ] (]) 16:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yes, the part about being bold. You say you disagree but I fail to see how that is justifiable. Please elaborate. ] (]) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::: By the way, for purposes of keeping page history, you might want to do the move back in a more proper fashion than I as a non-admin can do. ] (]) 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Being bold is a good thing. Being reckless is another. This was a case of the latter. Maintenance templates are well-structured, and normally no changes should be made without first establishing consensus. Please also note that WP:TFD exists for rename discussions of template. ] (]) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::: If you had actually read the pages you are citing, the second sentence at ] says, "To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use ]" while the second paragraph at ''Misplaced Pages:Requested moves'' says, "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." So I would have been well within my bounds to make move the template even ''without'' starting a discussion. If you weren't persuaded that WP:BOLD was sufficient for the move before, it is now established again using the pages you reference. But I did not just perform the move. I started a discussion. Given that I did not need to start a discussion but I did anyway, your assertion that the move was "reckless" is not supported by the facts. If "reckless" can be applied here, it would apply to the editor who made an incomplete move and failed to notice/address the problem. I also do not appreciate you taking further action during this discussion in a way that tries to lock in your position. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: You don't have to appreciate it. You made an unilateral step that was then challenged and undone by me. You are hardly in a position to complain here. If you want a template renamed, take it to WP:TFD (and if that refers to WP:RM then take it there), but I don't want any more of your whining on my talkpage. ] (]) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


==ד"ש מחב"דפדיה==
== April 2017 ==
מה נשמע? יש עכשיו מיזם חדש של חב"דפדיה (האנציקלופדיה החב"דית הוירטואלית היחידה ברשת) ואנחנו נשמח אם תעזור בתרגם ערכים מעברית לאנגלית, האם תוכל לעזור לנו בזה? אשמח לתשובה! יחי המלך. (מפעיל מערכת בחב"דפדיה) ] (]) 01:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''31 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. &nbsp;], ], ] 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->
: אני לא כל כך פעיל יותר, ויש לי מה לעשות בחיים, כך שלא נראה לי שיש לי פאי לעזור במיוחד. אתך הסליחה.


== Hello ==
: I understand the reason for the block, however, I can't say I am much repenting. I have been blocked before for trying to protect this project from inferior edits. I ''am'' a bit disappointed that till today's other experienced editors, including ], have not taken a clearer stance on the underlying issue. All of this could have been avoided if even one uninvolved editor would have explained to Dailycare that contested statements are best mentioned with inline attribution. Just saying "let's not edit war", without addressing the reasons for that edit war, is not overly helpful. ] (]) 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


The reason that the S01 mention was made in a section heading—others have begun adding S02 content in the sections immediately above. The added S01 purpose, then, was twofold: (i) a "lane change" sort of signal to readers that we were back in S01, even though S02 was being discussed last, and (ii) to set the stage for others to create a separate section (or section with S01 and S02 subsections), when that same sort of S02 content begins to appear. Yes, with regard to the second aim, the appearance is yet premature. But with regard to the first (and the eventual utility of the second), having it there now may be advisable. ] (]) 21:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
: By the way, why 31? Why not 24? ] (]) 23:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
: It was indeed premature. Also, reception sections usually don't have different section for different seasons. Not that it would be a problem, but it usually doesn't happen. Most sections don't differentiate between the various seasons, actually, with the obvious exception of the episodes section. ] (]) 23:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


== On the position of Rav Moshe Feinstein z'l regarding the prayer for Medinat Israel and related issues ==
:: Of course, seriously contested statements should be attributed, but as I've repeatedly explained to you, you have not produced any evidence this would be a seriously contested statement. To the contrary, we have sources explaining this is the consensus view among historians. We do not attribute consensus views of scientists. --] (]) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello. I apologize in advance if I'm mistaken, but I have the impression that you are an Orthodox Jewish editor. Could you please take a look at ] regarding Rabbi Feinstein's opinion on the standard prayer for the state of Israel? I'm almost sure that, even if the rabbi himself prefered not to say it, he certanly gave his permission for those who wish to do so. I'm open to being proven wrong, of course. Thanks in advance.--] (]) 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::: Just be honest. I ''did'' provide evidence. You disagree with it. Remind you of ]? ] (]) 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


:::: Just to be completely honest, your evidence didn't even mention what reasons historians attach to the Diaspora. So, no, you didn't provide any evidence beyond your repeated say-so. --] (]) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC) : I haveמ't seen any sources that mention this. The article you mentioned just makes the claim, but does not give a source at all. ] (]) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
::::: Sources need not state their reasons. As long as they are reliable, that is all that is needed. ] (]) 23:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 11:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
: Thanks for the notification. ] (]) 17:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 06:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


=== For after block === == Levantine Arabic FAC ==


Hi Debresser,
<nowiki>** Definitely. ~~~~</nowiki>
I ]. As you contributed to ] in the past and given your knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. ] (]) 08:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
<nowiki>* Oppose per Ansh666: the criteria are very different. In addition, at Afd they relist a lot of articles. That is a way of hiding the backlog. Also keep in mind that categories are the backbone of the project, and oftentimes the arguments are quite abstruse. ~~~~</nowiki>
<nowiki>: Ha, Nomoskedasticity. I like this guys style. But he does have a point with the WP:OWN accusation. ~~~~</nowiki>
<nowiki>Regarding . Was yesterday your 60th birthday? :) ~~~~</nowiki>


:Thanks for your comment on ]. I agree with you that I also felt the situation was a bit unfair... But anyway, some people eventually reviewed the article, even for such an "esoteric" subject ;) (If you also have some time to read through the article, even if only quickly, and provide some comments, it would be awesome.) Cheers, ] (]) 09:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
== Request for help with filed arbitration request ==


== Mentioned at a noticeboard ==
Shalom, Nomoskedasticity has filed a request for arbitration regarding what he sees as violation of a 1RR rule on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page. If you see fit, I invite you to post your opinion ]. Thank you.] (]) 12:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Please see ]. ] (]) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
: I won't be able to do so for another few hours, but I see that things are going well for you there. Just follow their advice, make some general edits to various articles, to gain some more experience, and come back to this article later. I understand that this article is your goal, and I agree that the restrictions are unfortunate, but that is your best option at this moment. ] (]) 22:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
: This notice was removed since that specific report was malformed and declined. However, a ] was opened, and the other editor blocked for half a year. ] (]) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


== ] ==
:: I realized that you were blocked by hashgacha pratit. הכל לטובה.] (]) 06:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


Do you also agree with Necrothesp and disagree with the community regarding ], ], and ]? You believe each of these should be disambiguated too? Just trying to understand your perspective. —] ] 13:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
::: That's okay now. You have good luck editing too. ] (]) 23:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


: You should take it easy and allow people to disagree with you without trying to convince them again and again or asking about all kind of other issues (even related ones). This is becoming a bother. ] (]) 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
== Can you help correct the problem with the infobox on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page? ==
::Nice dodge. —] ] 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


== Impulse ==
I don't know why the word "created" appears in the infobox. I've tried various solutions to correct the problem but none has worked. Even if we put the Rebbe's name in the "Rabbi" space, it still comes up as "created Rabbi." I thought it might have something to do with a built-in bug that happens when the Rebbe's name appears in the box, but I've tried it with a neutral name and it still happens. Wierd. ] (]) 06:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


: It is part of the code of the template at ]. ] (]) 23:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC) How do I prove this, exactly? She says it in Episode 7 of Season 1, "He Said, She Said". I can find several sources that call it sexual assault-is that good enough?] (]) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
: The article already calls it attempted rape. I'd say that that is even clearer. ] (]) 14:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! ==
:: Thanks, I left a message there. ] (]) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
== No problem ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your work on ]. It’s a short, but informative article, and a pleasure to read. ] (]) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
|}


: {{Ping|Viriditas}} Are you sure you meant to give this barnstar to ''me''? ] (]) 16:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I was using the section edit buttons to make the two edits and didn't use the full page edit button at the top of the page which could have made it so I could have made both edits at once. ] (]) 17:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
:: ] (]) 23:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
::: Ah. I see now. That was 2009. ] (]) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::::Better late, than never! Thanks for your good work. ] (]) 09:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


== Strange Empire ==
== Edit request on David Ben Gurion ==


I thought that Kat said her father was Cree and her mother white, so neither is Métis, just her. Since that means people of mixed European and Indigenous descent, she's not half Métis but full. Or did I remember that wrong?] (]) 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
]--] (]) 05:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
: Episode 4 00:15:52,279 --> 00:15:53,410 I am Metis. 00:15:55,114 --> 00:15:57,030 Raised by my Cree father. 00:15:57,303 --> 00:15:59,178 My good Christian mother,
: {{Done}} ] (]) 05:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
: So yes, you're right. My bad. ] (]) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


== Disambiguation link notification for July 6 ==
== David Ben Gurion ==


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->. Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small>
Please look at ]. Ben Gurion himself said he believes in God.--] (]) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
== Unsourced ==


== Arbitration election RfC ==
] Please do not add or change content, as you did at ], without citing a ]. Please review the guidelines at ] and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 --> ] (]) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


Regarding : note that option 3d is proposing to allow sockmasters to have multiple votes. ] (]) 16:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].


== The stranger (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) ==
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


You have written (]) "Then you will see that there is only one stranger mentioned in the summary of the previous episode." Actually in episode 1 there is " discover a strange man inside a meteor crater.". "Strange" is not "stranger". ] (]) 19:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
: You are removing content that was agreed upon by 4 editors. You can not do that, however much you believe you are right. ] (]) 22:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
: Yeah, well, that is not a big difference, and it is that strange man the word "stranger" refers to, obviously. Was that so hard to understand? ] (]) 18:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
== Basics ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
]. ] (]) 04:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
:Next time, try {{]}}, like so: {{noping|Jytdog}}. ] 16:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
:: Thank you both. ] (]) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Talk page guidelines ==


If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
Please read ]. You '''cannot''' change comments you make after others have responded. ] (]) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
: You should wait a second to let people finish. Also, you can not restore what I removed (especially if it wasn't responded to yet), and you can definitely not remove a post of mine. ] (]) 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
: Also noted that in the "votes" section there should be '''no''' threaded discussion. So ] doesn't apply. ] (]) 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


</div>
== Category ==
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1124425182 -->


== Chabad ==
You might wanna write to my talk page first before beginning a mass-revert crusade. We already have a existing and more accurate category for that. The one I removed is basically a incorrect duplicate. --] (]) 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
: Please discuss your edits somewhere before ''you'' make mass edits: redirecting a category and deleting it from articles. Please point me to such a discussion, or start one, but repeating your edits will be met with swift administrative action. ] (]) 15:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Odd. I'm sure you are right but I've got the widget that colours dubious sources and Chabad is shown as "generally unreliable". I'll try to find out where it gets its information from. I thought it was RA/PS but evidently not. ] (]) 20:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
::You have recently been blocked due to edit-warring, I would advise you to not make the same mistake. Take a look at my contributions to this site - as you can see, I know my stuff and I don't need to justify everything before making simple edits like a little child. If you have questions, then come to me on my talk page, instead of mass-reverting. Again, I am going to repeat myself; We already have a existing and more accurate category for that . The one I removed is basically a incorrect duplicate . Also, some of my edits were quite logical, dunno why you would revert that. It's definitely not constructive, lemme tell you that. --] (]) 15:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
:The widget is ] but maybe I failed the sanity checks test. The article has rather too many external links and I saw an obvious candidate to reduce the list by one. It still does but I'll leave it to others to do a ] evaluation henceforth. --] (]) 21:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
::Chabad is listed at ] which is one of the sources for the script. It notes the RFC where it was discussed. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:: First of all, that Rfc was not closed. Secondly, it was a rather limited discussion. Thirdly, and mainly, it was not visited by even one Chabad editor, who could give some counterweight to some of the claims there. That makes any conclusion of that discussion lopsided. Frankly, I see two editors whose opinions are IMHO clearly a reflection of their biases, rather than fact. ] (]) 21:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


== Jewish genetic debate on Khazar hypothesis talk page ==
== Help with a table at ] ==


Dovid, since you're an active Wikipedian and you've talked about the genetics section of the Ashkenazi Jews entry in the past, I wonder if you would like to weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" (related to genetic evidence) at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to multiple currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources that could be summarized in some manner on the page ], which has restricted-access for editing. Only three longtime Misplaced Pages editors have responded with their opinions thus far. ] (]) 20:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve the ] page for clarity etc. and have adapted a table there to look like this:
: I do remember that there were significant POV concerns with this subject. But I won't be the fourth, since this is not a subject that I am overly interested in. ] (]) 13:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category:
! Left Axis
! Middle Axis
! Right Axis
|-
| '''Conscious intellect'''
| 2 '']'' - "Understanding"
|
<br/>3 '']'' - "Knowledge"
| 1 '']''- "Wisdom"
|-
| '''Conscious emotions'''
(Primary emotions)
| 5 '']'' - "Severity"
|
<br/> 6 '']'' - "Beauty"
| 4 '']'' - "Kindness"
|-
| (Secondary emotions)
| 8 '']''- "Glory"
| <br/>9 '']'' - "Foundation"
<br/> 10 '']'' - "Kingship"
| 7 '']'' - "Eternity"
|}
Netzach and hod should really be above yesod, but I haven't been successful in getting them there. Can you help tidy this up? (Any other suggestions for improvements there would also be appreciated). Thanks. ] (]) 21:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


== Edit summary ==
: I don't like this table, even if that could be fixed. Sorry. ] (]) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I see you're an experienced user, so I'm sure you know that it's not OK to call editors dicks in edit summaries. It's also OK to remove unsourced statements. Just restore it with a source as you did. Thanks ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
::Is your aversion to the content or the format? ] (]) 09:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
: It is completely okay to call other editors ] when they are indeed dicks. Editors have been called worse without impunity. I would say, if an editor doesn't want to be called a dick, they shouldn't edit like a dick. For me, an editor who removes information that can easily be sourced claiming the lack of a source as their reason - is a dick. I hope I have not offended you. ] (]) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::Well you are offending me by calling me a dick. I didn't know the source for the information and you can easily provide the source. If someone adds something without a source it may be reverted. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::: And you need to do absolutely everything that you are allowed to? You could have add a {{Tl|Citation needed}} tag, for example. You could have looked for a WikiProject or editor to help out with finding a source. That would have been better. But please don't be offended. ] (]) 00:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree, in my limited time editing wiki, I have found too many dicks deleting as unsourced, where they could add citation needed. ] (]) 02:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
::: The format. ] (]) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 12:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


== RoP audience response ==
::::Ah, you had me worried :-). Can you suggest a better format? ] (]) 11:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


I appreciate you trying to find a solution to this but adding unsourced details to the article isn't ideal. The lead should summarise what's in the article body, and the series article does not discuss the audience response. I am open to including a section on the audience response at the series article, but it needs to be an accurate and well-sourced summary of the season article's section. That is going to be difficult due to how complex and controversial the audience response has been. My preference would actually be to have some sort of note in the series article's reception section pointing readers to the season article where they can get full details on the audience response. I'm not sure if there is any precedent for that sort of thing that we could follow. - ] (]) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
== Fixuture edit in Israel ==
: {{Ping|Adamstom.97}} I agree with your words. In my opinion the audience response should be in the series article as well. Then, the short sentence (which I copied from the season article), would be summarizing the article.
: Moreover, I would move a lot of stuff from the season article to the series article. In my experience and opinion, the season article is not often necessary, but if it exists, it should be specific to the season, while the audience response is mostly connected to the series as a whole (which at the present happens to be only one season, but that is incidental).
: What I think is <u>not</u> right, is the previous situation, where there was no mention of the audience response. That is leaving out important information, and gives the impression of somebody censoring the article. ] (]) 10:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::The season information definitely should not be all duplicated on the series article. The audience response we are talking about is for the first season only, we currently do not know how the second season will be received. Our options are to only mention the audience response on the season article, or include a brief summary of it at the series article as well. - ] (]) 00:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::: The later, obviously, at this stage. ] (]) 02:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


== Comment about unspecified article ==
Hello. I wanted to let you know that ] reinstated an that was rejected in February, despite there was no consensus for it, not then, not recently.--] (]) 03:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi ]. Pleased to meet you.
== Why both general and specific category? ==


In the film there are also Andrea Scarduzio and Salvatore Ruocco, why are you removing them from me? ] (]) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
One question in connection with ]: There's a principle, that ''<q>]</q>'' Why should this not apply to ], which is a sub-sub-category of ]? Greetings, --] (]) 12:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


: I see that you are referring to ].
: Hello Shlomo. After giving it some consideration, I expected this reply. Which in essence is correct. I still have a problem with it though, and more than one. As has been pointed out on the category talkpage, the English terms are "commandments" and "prohibitions", while these categories use "Positive/Negative Mitzvot". The usage of non-standard terms, partially in Hebrew, makes it less than evident what the category is about and that it logically is part of the "Jewish laws and rituals" grandparent category. A second argument is that the articles are often about more than the mitzvah aspect of the subject. E.g. the payot article is not only about the mitzvah, but also about various customs surrounding it, which is more fit for "Jewish laws and rituals". In addition, I think that ] applies. ] (]) 13:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
: Please review ], especially where it says "blue links". That is why in my edit summaries I wrote "Remove redlinked." ] (]) 20:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


== Nefesh B'Nefesh and Rabbi Yehoshua Fass articles ==
== Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ==


Hi Debresser, based on your extensive interest in all things Jewish, would you please take a look at the ], the founder of Nefesh B'Nefesh, I posted in my userspace? Following the ] resulting in a redirect, I updated the draft for the Wiki community to consider for an independent article.
Yo, I wasn't going for condescending , and certainly didn't want to cause you distress. I didn't look at when you joined when formulating that reply, my only inputs were the cited guideline and that talk page section. To answer you, though, IMHO a 3:1 majority isn't obviously consensus. In this case, the 3 !votes included yourself, who seemed on the fence and who was the only editor that even attempted to discuss in the context of the relevant guideline. So it was 3 weakish !votes vs one guideline-based reasoning, making a claim of consensus not very strong. Thanks, and kind regards! ] (]) 15:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


: I can agree with that. For the record, I really believe that the category should be on the page, as relevant neutral and sourced. For the rest, no worries. ] (]) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC) I would also appreciate your consideration of my ] for the ] page. Thank you very much! ] (]) 06:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


::Heard. I posted another reply with a bit more discussion just now, but Kingsindian's recent advice there about discussion progress is also sound. BTW, I was thoroughly entertained at the fact that I missed my own !vote, too. Peace! ] (]) 02:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC) : I appreciate you coming to my talkpage, however I am not very active lately on Misplaced Pages and have a lot of real-life obligations taking up most of my time. ] (]) 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


== Topic ban ==
== Dispute resolution noticeboard ==


Just a reminder, that needs to be lifted for you to edit in the ARBPIA topic area. Which ] is in. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
I have posted our disagrements on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. ] (]) 15:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
: Thanks for the notification. Link: ]. ] (]) 17:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) : Hadn't thought of that. In any case, a technical edit, of no import. ] (]) 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 12:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
::: A minor talkpage discussion. Come on guys, this is so old news. ] (]) 16:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::That was four days ago, and you are banned from talk page discussions on the topic. You can either appeal your topic ban or you can respect it or you can be reported the next time. Im removing the ban violation per ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
::::: I meant the ban itself when I said "old news". These things should expire after a year or so, let alone a few years. Remove whatever you want, just check if there is no interaction ban against it. ] (]) 16:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::That's not what indefinite means, but I dont have an interaction ban with anybody. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
::::::: I would be happy to see you support the lifting of my topic ban. Much water has flowed in the Jarden river ever since, as the Israeli saying goes, and I feel it is about time to lift this restriction, that is not - nor was it ever - in the best interest of this project. ] (]) 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Gilabrand was just indeffed for edits like ]. Either appeal your ban or abide by it, but you keep pushing this like this its gonna end with an indef. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
::::::::: The system is flawed. I see nothing wrong with this edit. An innocent edit to an article that I read out of personal interest. I see that you understand me. I do refrain from more serious edits, because of the ban. ] (]) 19:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Either appeal your ban or abide by it. But ] is yet another violation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
: The page simply is of personal interest to me. I noticed a missing "i" and made the edit. You see perfectly well that I do not make other edits, although there have been plenty of times I wanted to do so. I think you could say "thank you", or simply let this go. No personal vendettas, please, even if your correct. ] (]) 18:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
::no personal vendetta or i would have reported you. but you cannot keep disregarding your ban because you feel like it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
::: Let me make the following proposal: if I make an edit that ''you'' think is not neutral, I promise to revert it. Not that I plan to make any edits in to IP-conflict area that are so extensive that they can be not neutral, but just in case. ] (]) 16:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
::::That isn’t how topic bans work, they apply to all edits, good or bad irrespective of what I think of them. Appeal the ban or abide by it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
: I'd appeal the topic ban, which is old and IMHO should have expired after a year or so, but they want you to grovel through the mud, which I am simply not going to do. ] (]) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


== ] ==
== How tolerant are you of other varieties of Judaism? (Non-religious Judaism, as you apparently call them.)==


Re , "5% newer based on a chronological epoch set by a different religion" isn't a strong claim? :) ] (]) 14:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would state clearly your position on this. Thank you. ] (]) 18:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
: I don't understand these words: "5% newer based on a chronological epoch set by a different religion". Please explain. ] (]) 17:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Lame math joke? 21 vs 20 is 5% more. ] (]) 18:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::: Okay. ] (]) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
: That would be neither helpful, nor polite. Your question implies your answer to it, and it is for this reason that I have accused you of being prejudiced. ] (]) 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== not edit warring ==
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please dont post on my talk page anymore ] <sup>(])</span></sup> 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC) ] <sup>(])</span></sup> 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
: You can not ask me to not post warning on your talkpage that per standing policies I have to post on your talkpage. FYI. No problem with not posting on your talkpage otherwise. ] (]) 17:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
== Jewish Bible Versus Religious Texts ==


</div>
I changed "Bible" to "Religious Texts" because Bible presents a more Christian-slant on a page solely about Judaism. Are we specifically talking about the Torah, the religious texts universal among the Jewish faith, or the Talmud, which is basically the Jewish version of the Christian Old Testament that is not uniformly accepted among all branches of Jewish faith (the page in question is ])? --] (]) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
</div>
: See . ] (]) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1187132125 -->


== ] == == April 2024 ==
<div class="user-block uw-aeblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ],&nbsp;and for violating your topic ban&nbsp;on the page ], you have been ''']''' from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of '''3 months''' Misplaced Pages. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the &#91;&#91;WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard&#93;&#93; or &#91;&#91;WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard&#93;&#93;. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.&nbsp;</p>] (]) 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following ] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->


=== Unblock request ===
First time I've ever had a self-revert reverted, but you are correct. I should have read the text note. ] (]) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
: :) ] (]) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. According to ] an initial block should be one month, not three months. And that one month has passed. I would like to add that the edits I made (, ) that I was blocked for, were uncontroversial linguistic improvements, and I never had the intention of making any controversial edits, and I think that should be a mitigating factor as well. ] (]) 23:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |decline = Declined. You are falsely claiming this was your initial block. It wasn't. Your block log shows a one month block on 2021-05-22 for this topic ban violation. Additionally, there's a two week block on 2021-03-16 which may be for the same thing. In fact, there's a whole raft of blocks for edit warring and for tban violations. If I'm reading it correctly, your current 3 month block would arguably be much too short. You are free to make a new request that addresses these points and another admin will review it. I warn you, though, that any such review would include the real possibility of extending your block. ] (]) 12:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)}}
== Judaism and sexuality==


: Okay, whatever. Thanks anyway.
You claim the existence of a consensus that states that we shouldn't go into too much detail into Christian sexuality because it is not an article on a Christian topic. The only consensus I see are :a.) The statements of Jewish rabbis can be used, b.) "Christianity" is superior to "Catholicism". Could you point me to the consensus you speak of? ] (]) 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
: The claim that this was my first block was made in good faith. I don't remember a block from 3 years ago. Frankly, I have a hard time to consider it even relevant after so much time, and I think it is not a good thing to keep bringing up old history. People move on in life, and this unforgiving and bureaucratic attitude by Misplaced Pages admins is not doing anybody a service, IMHO. ] (]) 13:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
: Sure. Seraphim System wrote that opinion , and I agreed with him. It also stands to reason, if you ask me. It would probably even violate ], albeit mildly. ] (]) 10:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


== Israeli Prime Ministers == == To do ==


In the ] article fix the sentence "It also maintains a secondary hub <s>is</s> at Munich Airport". ] (]) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Howdy Debresser. Israel numbers its Prime Ministers via individual. This means that PMs who've served non-consecutive tenures are 'still' numbered only once. Most parliamentary form governments practice this. ] (]) 15:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
: I posted on your talkpage before I saw this post, and then added something. If you are okay with that, we can keep the discussion there. I have your talkpage watched. ] (]) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


is partially incorrect in that films can be fiction or non-fiction, so the article should be in both the fiction and the film category. ] (]) 18:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


Remove ] from the "See also" list at ], as it is already linked in the article proper. ] (]) 21:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Seriously, are you still doing this?? All the citations for the fact that ] was formerly Um al-’Alaq are in the ] article. And when are you ...or anyone else.....going to provide any citations for the depopulated Jewish villages? I think I am going to remove every single unreferenced one there soon....] (]) 23:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
: @Huldra If they are in the article, then you should have no problem to add one of them to that statement in the list article. ] (]) 09:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
:: This is not about me being able to add a reference or not, this is about ''your'' blatant double standard. You place a "citation needed" tag on ]...(...even when the info is clearly given in the ] article), while you do NOT place similar "citation needed" tags on the depopulated Israeli location....where there is no info what so ever. There is no other (unbanned) editor I have met here on Misplaced Pages who is equally obviously and unashamedly biased, ] (]) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
::: Take it easy, please. There is a simple explanation, and no need to accuse me of anything. Ever heard of ]? Because you just trampled it under both feet. The simple explanation is that I only restored a tag that you removed without good reason. I noticed this, because the article is on my watchlist. I just want to stress that your previous post here shows a clear WP:AGF violation, and I recommend you to cool down quickly, before you make any more mistakes that will get you reported. ] (]) 09:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
:::: Lol, have you forgotten ]? ] (]) 23:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
::::: What do you mean, precisely? I see that my opinion here is the same as my opinion there, so I don't understand what it is you are referring to specifically. ] (]) 03:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Remove the capital from ] in the lead section of ]. ] (]) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
== Our current discussion ==


Change to straight parenthese after . ] (]) 11:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Dovid, you don't always have to win. Really. If there is really a place to make a case about this, it's ], not here. Since this page is not the place for fully characterizing Christianity's view, you absolutely do not need to make the whole fall/Original sin/etc. issue point on this page. So let's please move on. ] (]) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
: I don't understand. I completely agree with that. That is why I proposed to stick with version 1, or another short version like the one you proposed. What then is it you disagree with me about? ] (]) 05:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:: I guess it feels to me like you feel you need to win the argument, even if we go with a version like mine. While you've said in the discussion thread that you'd accept that version, you then go on with the argument, and with the idea that the word "negative" or "unfavorable" or something like that needs to appear. I'm thinking ] here. Just back away, say you're willing to accept my version, and end the argument. If you stop arguing, so will SS. שבת שלום. ] (]) 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
::: Please do not try to push me into something I do not believe in. I prefer version 1. I can also live with your version, but with a small change, nl. that it should say clearly "negative" or at least "less favorable". And I sincerely believe that is supported by sources. You fail ] or if you want הוה דן את חברך לכף זכות.
: As a matter of fact, I sincerely dislike these discussions. The only reason I continue them, is because I feel the sources and the issue are being misinterpreted by SS along his POV. I am no problem with editors having a POV, but I do have a problem with them editing accordingly. In any case, please rest assured that I am sincere here. ] (]) 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
::: I never, ever, doubted your sincerity. I've seen you accused of arguing for the sake of argument, but I've personally never seen that. In your case, if I may, it's always מחלוקת לשם שמים.
::: But sometimes it's still better to compromise. After all, we have a principle that it's generally preferable for a ''Beit Din'' to seek ''p'sharah'' rather than to pursue strict ''din.'' In this case, I think you lose very little to allow "restricted" or "restrained" instead of "less favorable", and we can move past the point. I think if you're not willing to go there it will be difficult to leave anything in on this comparison at all, and the article would be poorer for that. ] (]) 14:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:::: I posted a notification about the Rfc on WT:JUDAISM, in the hope that other editors would comment. I think that outside comments would be helpful to help me and SS get past this impasse. ] (]) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


mixed up the order of Short description and Hatnote. ] (]) 18:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
== IR ==


"On her way back to New London, Indra chases Mustafa and attempts to kill her by flooding the underground tunnel." in ], is incorrect. Indra doesn't chase her. ] (]) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "the answer to keeping humans happy forever is...suicide." No dots are needed there. ] (]) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
You modified the text at Jordan valley twice. The is absolutely farcical. There is no policy to justify it. I added new text, without touching the existing wording of the rest, B'tselem is not a POV source (and policy does not allow one to remove a text from a commonly cited RS on those grounds). Thirdly, if you actually read what I added, it is in the beginning because the demolition section begins with the Oslo Accords in 1992-3 whereas the history of demolitions goes back to 1967. So, revert yourself or I will make a formal complaint. If you are going to revert lastly reads the fucking edit source, which speaks of 'Palestinian Bedouin communities' while you in your edit summary accuse me (not the source) of mixing up Bedouins with Palestinians. ] (]) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
: Yes, I modified the text at Jordan valley twice. Is there a problem with that? I will look at what you say in the evening, after work, and if I was too hasty in removing that information, I'll undo my edit. In any case, BeTselem is a radically leftist source, accused of having fabricated news on more than one occasion. I will look into their WP:RS status as well. ] (]) 04:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
::I have restored it rather than bickering at A/I. Technically many admins would take your two interventions as reverts. Others are less strict. The next time you mechanically revert some addition I make, try to read the source, check RSN to see if you have any justification for making the (absurd) claimn B'tselem is a POV-pushing 'leftist' (read Human Rights NGO) unreliable source. It is used everywhere on these pages, and is rarely challenged except by POV pushers. You absolutely must not remove a source like B'tselem when no RSN board has every endorsed your idea of its 'radical' unreliability. Lastly as I said, housing demolitions did not begin in 1993, but decades earlier. This is therefore required for the section.] (]) 08:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
::: I never mechanically revert your edits, and I find the suggestion insulting.
::: In addition, although technically I could have reported you for violating ], I have posted a detailed and final warning on your talkpage. Please heed it.
::: Feel free to discuss this issue on the talkpage of ], with the purpose of establishing consensus there, as you should have done, and I shall be happy to join the conversation. ] (]) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::The proof that you mechanically reverted me lies in the fact that you charged me with confusing Palestinians with Bedouins, without checking the source I added, which refers to 'Palestinian bedouins'. You didn't check, you reverted blindly, and that constituted 2 changes to restored text in one day ('I modified the text at Jordan valley twice.'). That was one of 3 errors in your edit summary, and you simply ignored replying to my clarifications as to why you es was incorrect. Saying ('I will look at what you say in the evening, after work,'(...silence, no follow up) is not an adequate response to precise comments objecting to what you wrote.] (]) 20:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Not reading a source is not the same as mechanically reverting. Also, you may remember that I had two other reasons for reverting, as I explained in that same edit summary. You are trying my patience with increasingly illogical arguments. Please refrain from trying to make me look bad on my own talkpage. ] (]) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


"There are more than 100 Kurc descendants today." in ]. I seem to remember it said "close to 100". ] (]) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, the text reads "Todays, direct descendants of Sol and Nechuma Kurc number nearly 100." ] (]) 18:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
{{od|::::::}}
Hi {{u|Nishidani}} and Debresser: It's a bit sad to see fighting and bad blood continuing. Unfortunately, there are plenty of accusations from all sides of "POV-pushing" and the like. A bit of heat and irritation is unavoidable in this area, especially as the discussion becomes very long and hard to follow. As long as the dispute is, ''overall'', focused on the content, with sources presented, it should be good. We finally got a consensus on the scope of the article. There is also an interesting discussion on the estimates of Palestinian population in the Jordan Valley, with various sources presented. Let us build on that foundation, instead of carrying about bad blood. This is just a suggestion; rest is up to you. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 12:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
:Of course. But if Debresser wants to be a productive editor in this area, he should restrain the instinct to revert, and should try to bring quality sources to his arguments. Just saying no or yes is voting for a majority: consensus is based on intelligent input from all parties.] (]) 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
:: I think I explained already that I do not have such an instinct. As far as intelligent input goes, I try my best to provide such, based on my personal knowledge, sources and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. And I would appreciate Nishidani doing the same, especially regarding politeness and courtesy as per ]. ] (]) 21:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Add "The Down Deep" to ], coming out July 2, 2024. ] (]) 21:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
== Careful about that 1RR rule ==


I believe your two reverts at the BTselem article yesterday violated the 1RR. I encourage you to undue one of them and then take it up in the talk page. Respectfully, ] (]) 14:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC) There is some overlinking at ] and superfluous See also links. ] (]) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
: Per ] any number of separate edits is still considered one revert. In simple words, I can revert five separate edits made by another editor in one big revert or in five small reverts, but it would still count as only one revert. Only if the same edit would be reverted more than once would that be counted as more than one revert. But thanks for the reminder. Enjoy editing, and I'll be happy to discuss why I reverted your edits, if you would like to discuss that. In general, I nticed you make good quality edits, and I appreciate your message here. ] (]) 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


"Note that there is not a" in ] should be "Note that there is no". ] (]) 14:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:: I've always understood 1RR differently. But it's fine. I'm not looking to trip you up. Just a friendly concern. I look forward to the substantive discussion. ] (]) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


::: You can raise the question on the talkpage of ] for example, if you want to hear it from somebody else. ] (]) 17:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC) is not clear. Either is has 741M minutes, or it hasn't; comparison with other films is not relevant to that question. ] (]) 12:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


Need to restore this information, which was removed without indication of reason and likely out of misplaced spoiler considerations. ] (]) 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
== Ethnicelebs.com as a source ==


Need to add a space at ] between "However,Akira". ] (]) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Debresser. I'm in the process of removing ethnicelebs.com as a source from Misplaced Pages, because it's not reliable (See ]). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --] (]) 21:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
: Hi. I agree with you that it is not a good source, but for this type of trivial information, especially where there is another source, even though that second source is also not really good, I think it should be enough. Would you disagree? ] (]) 21:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
::I wouldn't have started this discussion if I agreed. Please review ]. --] (]) 21:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Why is ] without a dot after "St"? See also redirects. ] (]) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
== Edit-warring noticeboard case concerning you ==


Remove dot from list at disambiguation page ]. ] (]) 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Likewise remove "Spiritualism (religious movement)" from the See also list at ], since it is included in the hatnote. Also change hatnote to ], instead of the redirect ]. ] (]) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, unfortunately I had to report you once more to the edit-warring noticeboard . --] (]) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
: Yeah, the previous time really worked out for you. ] (]) 17:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


was a bad edit, because {{Tl|FPER}} is itself also a redirect. ] (]) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
== Utilizing Your Rollback Rights on the English Misplaced Pages ==


What was ] disqualified for? ] (]) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
], ''Shalom''! I have turned to you because of your special "Rollback rights" on the English Misplaced Pages. In the Wiki article, ], an editor has been working against the consensus that claims that Hebrew is a ] language, and has tried to assert in the main article that Hebrew is a ] language, of Hamitic origin. Meanwhile, I reverted his edit, but can you please keep a watch over his edits, as he has been working against consensus.] (]) 20:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
: Okay, I tried to make a compromise edit there. ] (]) 00:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


Improve the link to "President Park's ]" on ] by making it ]. ] (]) 04:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
== Rav Shach Page ==
Hi Dovid. I agree that Rav Shach was a polarizing figure, however, to have so many parts of the page refer to an opinion piece article is not something you would expect in an Encyclopedia.
For example "In Haaretz, Shahar Ilan described him as "an ideologue" and "a zealot who repeatedly led his followers into ideological battles" is opinion.
I understand that being Lubavitch you have certain issues with Rav Shach, however this is not a website which should include personal biases.
(It would be the equivalent of someone finding an option peace on the Rebbe by someone who had issues with the Rebbe and using that piece as a reference to issues they had with him. As I'm sure you are aware, there are many sites and articles which are anti-Chabad and I would be dismayed to see any of those used as a reference on one of Lubavitcher Rebbe's pages.)


Check . ] (]) 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
On separate note, Rav Shach did have an issue with some of the Rebbe's opinions, such as learning Rambam every day, and did say that Lubavitch would find itself on the fringes of Judaism.
The Rebbe did then revisit some of these options.
Good vog, Daniel. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


: Since your post fails to ], I decline to comment on it. ] (]) 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC) It is not logical to have that one example in the lead of ]. ] (]) 23:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
If you're comfortable with this Loshen Horah, then go ahead. Be careful about justifying this to yourself. One day you'll have to answer for it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


: I deny that this would be loshon horo. I'll answer for my deeds after he answers for his. ] (]) 05:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC) At ] remove capital from "Geopolitics", add period between it and the reference, and merge related paragraphs in Books section. ] (]) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


Reconsider the pipe in edit. ] (]) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Obviously you have let your personal animosity get in the way of your being objective on the page. I am going to request mediation. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


: You repeat your bad-faith WP:POV accusation. But feel free to ask for mediation. I am all in favor, since I do understand your point, at least in part. ] (]) 15:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Remove the comment in the See also section at ]. ] (]) 22:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


Link "Circadian" to ] in ]. ] (]) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Replace <nowiki>''The strength model'' of time memory. This posits a ''memory trace'' that persists over time, by which one might judge the age of a memory (and therefore how long ago the event remembered occurred) from the strength of the trace. This conflicts with the fact that memories of recent events may fade more quickly than more distant memories.</nowiki> by <nowiki>''The strength model'' of time memory. This model posits a ''memory trace'' that persists over time, by which from the strength of the trace one might judge the age of a memory (and therefore how long ago the event remembered occurred). This models is not consistent with the fact that memories of recent events may fade more quickly than more distant memories.</nowiki> ] (]) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "His model separated explicit timing and implicit timing." change to use "distinguished". ] (]) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Only the first paragraph of the ] section should be there, while the others should be in a separate section with name to be determined. ] (]) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Remove second link to "psychology". ] (]) 15:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) ] should be added to ]. Fix sentence "Past work show". ] (]) 15:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Remove "Time" from the see also section there, as it is already linked in the article. ] (]) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
==]: Last chance to self-revert==

] 05:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Improve see alsos and external links at ]. ] (]) 15:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
: just ftr, leading is pointy and we can't say that, especially when "some" historians is just as factual. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 11:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

:Since you have failed to self-revert, you are banned from ] for 72 hours—this will permit you to still use the talk page or wage your appeal. ] 00:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:: In my opinion you have no right to do so based on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I will therefore ignore this so-called ban. ] (]) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Add "The Down Deep" to ]. ] (]) 13:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

:::If you ignore the ban, you will be sanctioned. ] 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
] claims that ] was a "Kintyre resident", but the Paul McCartney article does not mention that. Use "Kintyre was McCartney’s place of escapism, it helped save him following the devastating split of The Beatles" from {{Cite web |url=https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/paul-mccartney-mull-of-kintyre-song-meaning/ |title=The Story Behind The Song: Paul McCartney track ‘Mull of Kintyre’, a love letter to Scotland |author=Joe Taysom |date=11 November 2020 |publisher=]}}. ] (]) 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Paul McCartney purchased High Park Farm, near the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, on 17 June 1966." not from best source. ] (]) 15:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: It is invalid, and I am ignoring it. ] (]) 18:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|El_C}} Under what policy or guideline basis are you attempting to ban Debresser? --] (]) 18:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Remove ] from the See also section of ], since it also linked in the article proper. ] (]) 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I added ] to the article to prevent chronic edit warring. ] 18:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
text should be restored. Note that the editor restored all the other text as well. ] (]) 18:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|El_C}} That doesn't appear to be either a policy or guideline (I take "Explanatory supplements" with the grain of salt this one at least appears to deserve). Can you point to the specific lines in either policy or guideline granting you power to ban specific users from editing specific articles? My read of CRP is that either the community (which you are not) or the Arbitration Committee (as a part of GS or DS) must place an article in the scope of 1RR. --] (]) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Restore text that was removed out of spoiler considerations, which we on Misplaced Pages do not accept. ] (]) 18:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

revert edit, which ignores ] and uses strange notation. ] (]) 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There probably should be a dash in non-Jew. ] (]) 17:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fix the incomplete sentence "sign a 10-year" at ]. ] (]) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Do something about "Misaki decides to end it with Jake" in . ] (]) 23:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert which contradicts the source. ] (]) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Undo edits . ] (]) 22:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Likewise undo two parts in this user's edits , nl. about this same subject and changing "Behab" incorrectly to "Behav", as well as move ] as per . ] (]) 22:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Undo . ] (]) 18:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the plot section of ] replace "passes away" by "died" per WP:EUPHEMISM. ] (]) 20:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Jewish categories to ]. ] (]) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Undo part of , where punctuation was put inside parenthesis against Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] (]) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

is annoying. ] (]) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Replace the ampersands in ] by normal "and". ] (]) 01:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

was not an improvement. ] (]) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

are nevertheless correct, with or without a talkpage discussion. ] (]) 17:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Also wrong is this spelling. ] (]) 14:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"assumed to be" should be "assumed to become" in ]. ] (]) 08:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just some small fixes to : Aramaic language and HaSiddur HaShalem without dash. ] (]) 01:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

just seems wrong to me. Check. ] (]) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert . ] (]) 17:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Undo . ] (]) 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

== Context inline ==

Reply at ] that this template doesn't have a "reason" parameter, as explained on the documentation of ], and copy the explanation from there to the documentation here. ] (]) 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) So edit should be reverted. ] (]) 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:{{tl|Context inline}} and {{tl|Context}} serve different purposes and the rationale is therefore not transferable. {{tl|Context}}, like other templates for the tops of sections or articles, uses <code>details</code> to display the information in plain text to the reader.
:So <code>&#123;&#123;Context |details="This sentence is the result of the <code>details</code> parameter" |reason=This will show nothing.&#125;&#125;</code> results in the following:
:{{Context|details="This sentence is the result of the <code>details</code> parameter"|reason=This will show nothing.}}
:Whereas {{tl|Context inline}} is an inline maintenance tag, and like other inline tags (], ], ], etc.), it uses <code>reason</code> exclusively to display an HTML <code>title</code> for context on hover. &#123;&#123;Context inline|reason=Like other inline tags, this will display as a custom tooltip on hover.&#125;&#125; displays the following: {{Context inline|reason=Like other inline tags, this will display as a custom tooltip on hover.}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">– <small>''']''' (])</small></span> 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

:: Okay. Thanks for the explanation. You're right. ] (]) 23:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries! <span style="white-space: nowrap;">– <small>''']''' (])</small></span> 17:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

== Ban proposal ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice-->]<sup>&lt;]&middot;]&gt;</sup> 05:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

:The discussion is now closed. -] (]) 18:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

:: {{Ping|Ad Orientem}} I am intrigued, why this semi-retired erstwhile admin suddenly came up with such a proposal. I checked, and we have no common history on any page on the English Misplaced Pages. Nor does he have a history of making such proposals. In addition, my previous block was more than 3 years old, so his suggestion seems grossly out of place. Please ask {{User|WikiLeon}}, if perhaps he was contacted with the suggestion to make his proposal. In any case, I would like to know how I ended up on his radar, and why he suddenly came up with that proposal. This is a bit too random to be a coincidence. If preferable, you could reopen the discussion at WP:ANI and add my request there. ] (]) 23:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
:::@{{u|WikiLeon}} I believe the above is a reasonable question. -] (]) 23:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I was browsing around the ] to find this user crossed out on the list (indicating they were blocked). Out of curiosity as to why someone with these rights are blocked, I find their block log of over eight blocks (not counting unblocks) and asked "Why would someone be blocked over half a dozen times and be ]"? ArbCom and the admins already have enough trouble, why is this established editor trying to cause more? This is spitting in the face of ArbCom and the community, what does everybody else think? It seems ] thinks it's more trouble than what it's worth, and that I failed to ]. It wasn't until now I realize the context of the blocks, topics I have no interest in. I accept their decision as resolved and would rather not do something like this ever again. --]<sup>&lt;]&middot;]&gt;</sup> 15:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
::::: I appreciate your reply here. I was pretty fluent in template, before LUA came along and many templates were made into modules. Solved many template errors.
::::: I have been an editor for 15 years, including in a highly contentious area (up until my topic ban a few years ago), so a few blocks were to be expected. In general, I think being a good editor is not about avoiding conflict, but about making good edits. Where people work, chips fall.
::::: Till my topic ban, I was very active, making many improvements to many articles, often technical edits. I became disappointed by the bureaucratic attitude I was shown in the discussion leading to my ban, in which admin showed that rules are more important to them than actually improving this project, and since then I only make the occasional edit. ] (]) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
==Happy Birthday!==
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
{{ombox
| name = Happy Birthday
| image = ]
| imageright = ]
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(to right, #a8ff78, #78ffd6);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| text = <big>'''Happy birthday!'''</big><br />Hi Debresser! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! ] (]) 08:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
}}


== Request for Comment == == Death Penalty ==


Hi, ]. There is a ] on the Talk-Page of ], an Arab village right next to where you live, in Betar-Ilit. Feel free to respond.] (]) 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC) That's a tricky one isn't it? Especially when there are ]s. What are your thoughts on that? ] (]) 07:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
: Very interesting. I'll have a look. Thanks for dropping me a note. ] (]) 16:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
== Discussion at ] ==


Hello,
]You are invited to join the discussion at ]. --] <sup>] </sup> 19:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->
: I really don't care too much about this. ] (]) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
== Admin help ==


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
{{Adminhelp-helped}}


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
Four days ago I moved the talkpage of ] to ], with an "e", per a talkpage post. Today I saw on my watchlist that some overly hasty admin had deleted that talkpage per CDS8. I then understood that four days earlier I had moved only the talkpage without the article, and right away moved the article as well. Now, since moving an article moves the talkpage as well, that means that he old talkpage is now overwritten by the new one. Can somebody please restore the old talkpage? ] (]) 20:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{done}} ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
:: @Ronhjones Much appreciated. ] (]) 04:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
== Circumstantial evidence ==


Kind Regards,
The source states that the understanding that Hadrian ordered the renaming is based on circumstantial evidence. The wording in the article, however, states that "it is commonly held that this was done as an insult to the Jews and as a means of erasing the land's Jewish identity" is "based on circumstantial evidence", which is not supported by the sources. ] (]) 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


]
: "circumstantial evidence would seem to point to Hadrian himself, since he is, it would seem, responsible for a number of decrees that sought to crush the national and religious spirit of the Jews" I think that both statements follow from this phrase, just that the first is in it explicitly, while the second only implicitly. . ] (]) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== Redundant categories ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Hello. Could you please remove this , which is already included in "Religious Israeli settlements"? And , which is included in "Mixed Israeli settlements". Thanks.--] (]) 08:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
:I'm the editor who added this category a couple of days ago. I'm confused as to why there's multiple IP addresses whose sole purpose seems to be to revert these changes when it's out of bounds as per ]... anyway, the only decision which I can see on the topic is here: ] - and if so, I can't actually see a consensus decision that contradicts what I've been there... maybe I'm not reading closely enough, it's very long. ] (]) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
:: That discussion was very old and long, and never reached a clear conclusion. I think we could go by the general rule that categorization should be as specific as possible. @TrickyH, wouldn't you agree?
:: I don't know why there would be IPs interested in this subject. Even though technically these articles fall under WP:ARBPIA, but I personally would not revert based on that alone, since the issue in question is IMHO not really related to that. @TrickyH, can you agree with that?
:: So now the question is how we should continue here? ] (]) 15:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Movement Strategy reminder ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: ''How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways?'' You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at ''']'''. You can also read a ] that took place in the past week. Cheers. ] (]) 03:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Nishidani is back - personal comment ==


</div>
As ] already said: "] regularly says he's quitting Misplaced Pages or putting himself under self-imposed topic bans. Those things never materialize." It is a shame some people don't stick to their word. ] (]) 15:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
</div>
:Well, what did you expect? A month and a day later, he's back with some ridiculous self-indulgent story trying to justify what we all knew would happen. Don't forget to link to the diff where he said my prediction that he'll return was false . Amusing, although not surprising. ] (]) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 -->
:: Interesting, Nableezy admits to conspiring with Nishidani. ] (]) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
:::Nishidani has admitted he communicates with Nableezy by email, so that whole thing is just for show. The public offer to meatpuppet was an amusing touch. "You let me know and I'll take care of them" - what a tough guy lol. ] (]) 18:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:20, 19 November 2024

Archiving icon
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


 
What I do
on Misplaced Pages.
My rewards.
What's up?
I mainly follow up on pages from my watchlist, occasionally adding new pages to it that spiked my interest.

Can you help identify these favicons?

I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.

I collect favicons. I have over 8,000 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.

My 'orphan' favicons

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried using Google Images' search by image function. benzband (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply
Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Special characters

{{Help me}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make , and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Misplaced Pages:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating a topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

signed, Rosguill 04:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Whatever. "If you believe this block is unjustified," I do. "please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing." and you'll understand that there is no chance an admin will admit they make unnecessary and biased blocks. Nothing personal. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Good for you. In my recent AN to remove an IBAN, I was subjected to bad faith and then told that since it's working, no use in removing it. Yet somehow I don't think the same people would say the same for people in prison, otherwise we'd have full prisons all over the world considering they don't commit crimes. This place is not what it used to be and why I'm semi-retired and probably will go full retired if things continue on the same path of toxicity and stupidity. Just look at the AE about JzG, someone who should have been blocked several times by now but of course nothing will get done. Sir Joseph 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I gave a lot to this project, over 10 years and over 100,000 edits. If some stupid, or biased, admin thinks that all of that should be thrown out of the window because of what he perceives as a minor problem, although I would disagree with calling my behavior problematic, especially when compared to certain other edits, then that is their problem, and this project's net loss. I have a life, and am not interested in fighting such shortsighted bureaucrats, nor do I think that it is feasible. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Shem HaMephorash has an RFC

Shem HaMephorash has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas Questions? 00:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sarabnas Is this still relevant, or was the August 8 deadline absolute? Debresser (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it's still relevant if you haven't yet filled it out and would like to! Thanks :) Sarabnas Questions? 16:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Debresser. The discussion is about the topic COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Maimonides

Hey Debresser, could you look at the proposed changes in Maimonides and give your feedback? Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Unexplained removal". I did explain it, on the talk page. It is not at all clear that the section on the Thirteen Principles is not found in the Mishneh Torah (I pointed out the place it is found), therefore the section shouldn't present that as uncontested fact. It is better to state the matter as it is stated in the main article discussing the Thirteen Principles, which is what I changed it to - copying the quote from there, and that is more correct. MikeR613 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I now see that you must be referring to a discussion in the middle of the talkpage Talk:Maimonides#"Missing"_13_Principles_of_Faith. Will look at it and will reply there. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
And I replied there too. MikeR613 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism

Hey Debresser, Thanks for looking over content in Maimonides! Can you look over recent discussion on Haredi divorce?155.246.151.38 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you help file a SPI

Hey Debresser, it seems that Hipocrite may be a sock of Orchomen. However, as an IP it is difficult to file a SPI. Could you do it? Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are some diffs which show how Hipocrite only edited a page after Pipsally, the sock of Orchomen already commented. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1037319040

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=One_of_Us_(2017_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1037264488 155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't waste your time Debresser, it's not me. I think you should be very careful asking for SPIs though 155... Boomerang!2001:8F8:1F27:3360:2:1:6BF9:6CDA (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Not my cup of cake. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI, since Hipocrite has 22,000+ edits the likelihood of them being a sockpuppet is exceedingly low. Very much not worth your time.--Shibbolethink 22:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
True as well. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz

Hey Debresser, if you know any media outlets or reporters can you please bring their attention to the RSN? Some of these responses are not okay. If the only way to deal with this is through media attention, then so be it. All the best! pinging IZAK because page protection.155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Not interested. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, how are you? hope you are well, can you review this article User:Jame wills jame/sandbox and if it's ok can you move it to mainspace thanks a lot !

Reviewed, in short. Please see my edit and the edit summary. Feel free to write me here again afterwards. BTW, why did you choose to ask me to review this article. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This user is globally banned; see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/علي_أبو_عمر. OhNoitsJamie 14:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: I see. What would that mean for the draft, which, frankly I was considering to move to mainspace after a few improvements? Debresser (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The article was deleted and salted per a recent AfD. The user is an abusive WP:LTA and shouldn't be encouraged in any way. OhNoitsJamie 15:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I see. That discussion was indeed only a month ago. I also noticed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/علي_أبو_عمر/Archive. A shame, because I though the article was coming along nicely. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you a moderator ?

are you a moderator ?

if so can you please look over the article Joint Artificial Intelligence Center

"The Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) (pronounced "jake") is an American organization on exploring the usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (particularly Edge computing), Network of Networks and AI-enhanced communication for use in actual combat."

Not really, no. I am more or less not interested in editing any more. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Oolite

After some advice vis-a-vis the Oolite wiki. See your User: talk page there. Cholmondeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.98.212 (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Articles needing POV-check has been nominated for discussion

Category:Articles needing POV-check has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Debresser (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ד"ש מחב"דפדיה

מה נשמע? יש עכשיו מיזם חדש של חב"דפדיה (האנציקלופדיה החב"דית הוירטואלית היחידה ברשת) ואנחנו נשמח אם תעזור בתרגם ערכים מעברית לאנגלית, האם תוכל לעזור לנו בזה? אשמח לתשובה! יחי המלך. (מפעיל מערכת בחב"דפדיה) שטעטל (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

אני לא כל כך פעיל יותר, ויש לי מה לעשות בחיים, כך שלא נראה לי שיש לי פאי לעזור במיוחד. אתך הסליחה.

Hello

The reason that the S01 mention was made in a section heading—others have begun adding S02 content in the sections immediately above. The added S01 purpose, then, was twofold: (i) a "lane change" sort of signal to readers that we were back in S01, even though S02 was being discussed last, and (ii) to set the stage for others to create a separate section (or section with S01 and S02 subsections), when that same sort of S02 content begins to appear. Yes, with regard to the second aim, the appearance is yet premature. But with regard to the first (and the eventual utility of the second), having it there now may be advisable. 98.253.16.20 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It was indeed premature. Also, reception sections usually don't have different section for different seasons. Not that it would be a problem, but it usually doesn't happen. Most sections don't differentiate between the various seasons, actually, with the obvious exception of the episodes section. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

On the position of Rav Moshe Feinstein z'l regarding the prayer for Medinat Israel and related issues

Hello. I apologize in advance if I'm mistaken, but I have the impression that you are an Orthodox Jewish editor. Could you please take a look at this discussion regarding Rabbi Feinstein's opinion on the standard prayer for the state of Israel? I'm almost sure that, even if the rabbi himself prefered not to say it, he certanly gave his permission for those who wish to do so. I'm open to being proven wrong, of course. Thanks in advance.--Pauleredge (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I haveמ't seen any sources that mention this. The article you mentioned just makes the claim, but does not give a source at all. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rabbinic timeline

Template:Rabbinic timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Boca Juniors squad/doc

Template:Boca Juniors squad/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC

Hi Debresser, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Levant in the past and given your knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Levantine Arabic/archive1. I agree with you that I also felt the situation was a bit unfair... But anyway, some people eventually reviewed the article, even for such an "esoteric" subject ;) (If you also have some time to read through the article, even if only quickly, and provide some comments, it would be awesome.) Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned at a noticeboard

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser and User:Dibol reported by User:DocWatson42 (Result: ). EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This notice was removed since that specific report was malformed and declined. However, a Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dibol_reported_by_User:PAVLOV_(Result:_Blocked_for_6_months_) subsequent report was opened, and the other editor blocked for half a year. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The_Blacklist_(TV_series)#Requested_move_3_May_2022

Do you also agree with Necrothesp and disagree with the community regarding The Godfather, The Office, and The Big Bang Theory? You believe each of these should be disambiguated too? Just trying to understand your perspective. —В²C ☎ 13:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You should take it easy and allow people to disagree with you without trying to convince them again and again or asking about all kind of other issues (even related ones). This is becoming a bother. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Nice dodge. —В²C ☎ 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Impulse

How do I prove this, exactly? She says it in Episode 7 of Season 1, "He Said, She Said". I can find several sources that call it sexual assault-is that good enough?Mcc1789 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The article already calls it attempted rape. I'd say that that is even clearer. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your work on Barnard 68. It’s a short, but informative article, and a pleasure to read. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Are you sure you meant to give this barnstar to me? Debresser (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite sure. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah. I see now. That was 2009. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Better late, than never! Thanks for your good work. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange Empire

I thought that Kat said her father was Cree and her mother white, so neither is Métis, just her. Since that means people of mixed European and Indigenous descent, she's not half Métis but full. Or did I remember that wrong?Mcc1789 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Episode 4 00:15:52,279 --> 00:15:53,410 I am Metis. 00:15:55,114 --> 00:15:57,030 Raised by my Cree father. 00:15:57,303 --> 00:15:59,178 My good Christian mother,
So yes, you're right. My bad. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eiffel (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bolt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration election RfC

Regarding this edit: note that option 3d is proposing to allow sockmasters to have multiple votes. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The stranger (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)

You have written (Special:Diff/1111201803) "Then you will see that there is only one stranger mentioned in the summary of the previous episode." Actually in episode 1 there is " discover a strange man inside a meteor crater.". "Strange" is not "stranger". Meridiana solare (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that is not a big difference, and it is that strange man the word "stranger" refers to, obviously. Was that so hard to understand? Debresser (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Chabad

Odd. I'm sure you are right but I've got the widget that colours dubious sources and Chabad is shown as "generally unreliable". I'll try to find out where it gets its information from. I thought it was RA/PS but evidently not. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The widget is User:Headbomb/unreliable but maybe I failed the sanity checks test. The article has rather too many external links and I saw an obvious candidate to reduce the list by one. It still does but I'll leave it to others to do a WP:ELNO evaluation henceforth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Chabad is listed at Misplaced Pages:New_page_patrol_source_guide which is one of the sources for the script. It notes the RFC where it was discussed. Sir Joseph 22:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
First of all, that Rfc was not closed. Secondly, it was a rather limited discussion. Thirdly, and mainly, it was not visited by even one Chabad editor, who could give some counterweight to some of the claims there. That makes any conclusion of that discussion lopsided. Frankly, I see two editors whose opinions are IMHO clearly a reflection of their biases, rather than fact. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Jewish genetic debate on Khazar hypothesis talk page

Dovid, since you're an active Wikipedian and you've talked about the genetics section of the Ashkenazi Jews entry in the past, I wonder if you would like to weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" (related to genetic evidence) at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to multiple currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources that could be summarized in some manner on the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. Only three longtime Misplaced Pages editors have responded with their opinions thus far. 2600:1000:B12B:4B91:AC07:3BE4:2814:D456 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I do remember that there were significant POV concerns with this subject. But I won't be the fourth, since this is not a subject that I am overly interested in. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, I see you're an experienced user, so I'm sure you know that it's not OK to call editors dicks in edit summaries. It's also OK to remove unsourced statements. Just restore it with a source as you did. Thanks Andre🚐 05:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is completely okay to call other editors dick when they are indeed dicks. Editors have been called worse without impunity. I would say, if an editor doesn't want to be called a dick, they shouldn't edit like a dick. For me, an editor who removes information that can easily be sourced claiming the lack of a source as their reason - is a dick. I hope I have not offended you. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Well you are offending me by calling me a dick. I didn't know the source for the information and you can easily provide the source. If someone adds something without a source it may be reverted. Andre🚐 00:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
And you need to do absolutely everything that you are allowed to? You could have add a {{Citation needed}} tag, for example. You could have looked for a WikiProject or editor to help out with finding a source. That would have been better. But please don't be offended. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree, in my limited time editing wiki, I have found too many dicks deleting as unsourced, where they could add citation needed. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Articles with disproportional geographic scope progress

Template:Articles with disproportional geographic scope progress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

RoP audience response

I appreciate you trying to find a solution to this but adding unsourced details to the article isn't ideal. The lead should summarise what's in the article body, and the series article does not discuss the audience response. I am open to including a section on the audience response at the series article, but it needs to be an accurate and well-sourced summary of the season article's section. That is going to be difficult due to how complex and controversial the audience response has been. My preference would actually be to have some sort of note in the series article's reception section pointing readers to the season article where they can get full details on the audience response. I'm not sure if there is any precedent for that sort of thing that we could follow. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I agree with your words. In my opinion the audience response should be in the series article as well. Then, the short sentence (which I copied from the season article), would be summarizing the article.
Moreover, I would move a lot of stuff from the season article to the series article. In my experience and opinion, the season article is not often necessary, but if it exists, it should be specific to the season, while the audience response is mostly connected to the series as a whole (which at the present happens to be only one season, but that is incidental).
What I think is not right, is the previous situation, where there was no mention of the audience response. That is leaving out important information, and gives the impression of somebody censoring the article. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The season information definitely should not be all duplicated on the series article. The audience response we are talking about is for the first season only, we currently do not know how the second season will be received. Our options are to only mention the audience response on the season article, or include a brief summary of it at the series article as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The later, obviously, at this stage. Debresser (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment about unspecified article

Hi Debresser. Pleased to meet you.

In the film there are also Andrea Scarduzio and Salvatore Ruocco, why are you removing them from me? Cinefilm (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that you are referring to The Equalizer 3.
Please review MOS:FILMCAST, especially where it says "blue links". That is why in my edit summaries I wrote "Remove redlinked." Debresser (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nefesh B'Nefesh and Rabbi Yehoshua Fass articles

Hi Debresser, based on your extensive interest in all things Jewish, would you please take a look at the draft of an article for Rabbi Yehoshua Fass, the founder of Nefesh B'Nefesh, I posted in my userspace? Following the 2021 discussion resulting in a redirect, I updated the draft for the Wiki community to consider for an independent article.

I would also appreciate your consideration of my edit request for the Nefesh B'Nefesh page. Thank you very much! LA for NBN (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming to my talkpage, however I am not very active lately on Misplaced Pages and have a lot of real-life obligations taking up most of my time. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban

Just a reminder, that needs to be lifted for you to edit in the ARBPIA topic area. Which this is in. nableezy - 19:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. In any case, a technical edit, of no import. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
And this? nableezy - 12:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
A minor talkpage discussion. Come on guys, this is so old news. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That was four days ago, and you are banned from talk page discussions on the topic. You can either appeal your topic ban or you can respect it or you can be reported the next time. Im removing the ban violation per WP:BANREVERT. nableezy - 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I meant the ban itself when I said "old news". These things should expire after a year or so, let alone a few years. Remove whatever you want, just check if there is no interaction ban against it. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That's not what indefinite means, but I dont have an interaction ban with anybody. nableezy - 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I would be happy to see you support the lifting of my topic ban. Much water has flowed in the Jarden river ever since, as the Israeli saying goes, and I feel it is about time to lift this restriction, that is not - nor was it ever - in the best interest of this project. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Gilabrand was just indeffed for edits like this. Either appeal your ban or abide by it, but you keep pushing this like this its gonna end with an indef. nableezy - 18:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The system is flawed. I see nothing wrong with this edit. An innocent edit to an article that I read out of personal interest. I see that you understand me. I do refrain from more serious edits, because of the ban. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Either appeal your ban or abide by it. But this is yet another violation. nableezy - 21:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The page simply is of personal interest to me. I noticed a missing "i" and made the edit. You see perfectly well that I do not make other edits, although there have been plenty of times I wanted to do so. I think you could say "thank you", or simply let this go. No personal vendettas, please, even if your correct. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
no personal vendetta or i would have reported you. but you cannot keep disregarding your ban because you feel like it. nableezy - 20:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Let me make the following proposal: if I make an edit that you think is not neutral, I promise to revert it. Not that I plan to make any edits in to IP-conflict area that are so extensive that they can be not neutral, but just in case. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
That isn’t how topic bans work, they apply to all edits, good or bad irrespective of what I think of them. Appeal the ban or abide by it. nableezy - 17:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd appeal the topic ban, which is old and IMHO should have expired after a year or so, but they want you to grovel through the mud, which I am simply not going to do. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the United States

Re , "5% newer based on a chronological epoch set by a different religion" isn't a strong claim? :) DMacks (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand these words: "5% newer based on a chronological epoch set by a different religion". Please explain. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Lame math joke? 21 vs 20 is 5% more. DMacks (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

April 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban on the page Israel–Hamas war, you have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of 3 months Misplaced Pages. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. According to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Enforcement an initial block should be one month, not three months. And that one month has passed. I would like to add that the edits I made (, ) that I was blocked for, were uncontroversial linguistic improvements, and I never had the intention of making any controversial edits, and I think that should be a mitigating factor as well. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined. You are falsely claiming this was your initial block. It wasn't. Your block log shows a one month block on 2021-05-22 for this topic ban violation. Additionally, there's a two week block on 2021-03-16 which may be for the same thing. In fact, there's a whole raft of blocks for edit warring and for tban violations. If I'm reading it correctly, your current 3 month block would arguably be much too short. You are free to make a new request that addresses these points and another admin will review it. I warn you, though, that any such review would include the real possibility of extending your block. Yamla (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2024 (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.

Okay, whatever. Thanks anyway.
The claim that this was my first block was made in good faith. I don't remember a block from 3 years ago. Frankly, I have a hard time to consider it even relevant after so much time, and I think it is not a good thing to keep bringing up old history. People move on in life, and this unforgiving and bureaucratic attitude by Misplaced Pages admins is not doing anybody a service, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

To do

In the Lufthansa article fix the sentence "It also maintains a secondary hub is at Munich Airport". Debresser (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit is partially incorrect in that films can be fiction or non-fiction, so the article should be in both the fiction and the film category. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove Japanese tea utensils from the "See also" list at Japanese tea ceremony, as it is already linked in the article proper. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove the capital from Diatoms in the lead section of Endosymbiont. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Change to straight parenthese after this edit. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit mixed up the order of Short description and Hatnote. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"On her way back to New London, Indra chases Mustafa and attempts to kill her by flooding the underground tunnel." in Brave New World (TV series), is incorrect. Indra doesn't chase her. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "the answer to keeping humans happy forever is...suicide." No dots are needed there. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"There are more than 100 Kurc descendants today." in We Were the Lucky Ones. I seem to remember it said "close to 100". Debresser (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, the text reads "Todays, direct descendants of Sol and Nechuma Kurc number nearly 100." Debresser (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Add "The Down Deep" to Catherine_Asaro_bibliography#Major_Bhaajan_series, coming out July 2, 2024. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There is some overlinking at Katyn_massacre#2010_70th_Anniversary_of_the_Katyn_massacre_Polish_Air_Force_101_crash and superfluous See also links. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"Note that there is not a" in National_conventions_for_writing_telephone_numbers#Netherlands should be "Note that there is no". Debresser (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

with over 741M minutes viewed compared to others is not clear. Either is has 741M minutes, or it hasn't; comparison with other films is not relevant to that question. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Need to restore this information, which was removed without indication of reason and likely out of misplaced spoiler considerations. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Need to add a space at Tokyo Vice (TV series) between "However,Akira". Debresser (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is St Brice's Day massacre without a dot after "St"? See also redirects. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove dot from list at disambiguation page Spiritualism. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Likewise remove "Spiritualism (religious movement)" from the See also list at Spiritualism (philosophy), since it is included in the hatnote. Also change hatnote to Spiritualism, instead of the redirect Spiritualism (disambiguation). Debresser (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This was a bad edit, because {{FPER}} is itself also a redirect. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What was Yuliia Osmak disqualified for? Debresser (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Improve the link to "President Park's assassination" on 12.12: The Day by making it President Park's assassination. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Check this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not logical to have that one example in the lead of List of megatall skyscrapers. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

At Dmitri Alperovitch remove capital from "Geopolitics", add period between it and the reference, and merge related paragraphs in Books section. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Reconsider the pipe in this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove the comment in the See also section at Microcephaly. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Link "Circadian" to Circadian rhythm in Time perception. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Replace ''The strength model'' of time memory. This posits a ''memory trace'' that persists over time, by which one might judge the age of a memory (and therefore how long ago the event remembered occurred) from the strength of the trace. This conflicts with the fact that memories of recent events may fade more quickly than more distant memories. by ''The strength model'' of time memory. This model posits a ''memory trace'' that persists over time, by which from the strength of the trace one might judge the age of a memory (and therefore how long ago the event remembered occurred). This models is not consistent with the fact that memories of recent events may fade more quickly than more distant memories. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "His model separated explicit timing and implicit timing." change to use "distinguished". Debresser (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Only the first paragraph of the Time_perception#Philosophical_perspectives section should be there, while the others should be in a separate section with name to be determined. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Remove second link to "psychology". Debresser (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Time perception should be added to Template:Time. Fix sentence "Past work show". Debresser (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Remove "Time" from the see also section there, as it is already linked in the article. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Improve see alsos and external links at Vierordt's law. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Add "The Down Deep" to Catherine Asaro bibliography. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Mull of Kintyre claims that Paul McCartney was a "Kintyre resident", but the Paul McCartney article does not mention that. Use "Kintyre was McCartney’s place of escapism, it helped save him following the devastating split of The Beatles" from Joe Taysom (11 November 2020). "The Story Behind The Song: Paul McCartney track 'Mull of Kintyre', a love letter to Scotland". Far Out Magazine.. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Paul McCartney purchased High Park Farm, near the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, on 17 June 1966." not from best source. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Near side of the Moon from the See also section of Far side of the Moon, since it also linked in the article proper. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) This text should be restored. Note that the editor restored all the other text as well. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Restore this text that was removed out of spoiler considerations, which we on Misplaced Pages do not accept. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

revert This edit, which ignores WP:HEBREW and uses strange notation. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There probably should be a dash in non-Jew. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fix the incomplete sentence "sign a 10-year" at Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(1_April_2024_–_present)#13_June. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Do something about "Misaki decides to end it with Jake" in this edit. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert this edit which contradicts the source. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Undo edits here. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Likewise undo two parts in this user's edits here, nl. about this same subject and changing "Behab" incorrectly to "Behav", as well as move Fast of Behav as per source. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Undo this edit. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the plot section of The Vanishing of Sidney Hall replace "passes away" by "died" per WP:EUPHEMISM. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Jewish categories to Kaia Gerber. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Undo part of this edit, where punctuation was put inside parenthesis against Misplaced Pages guidelines. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is annoying. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Replace the ampersands in Dark Matter (2024 TV series) by normal "and". Debresser (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This was not an improvement. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

These tags are nevertheless correct, with or without a talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Also wrong is this spelling. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"assumed to be" should be "assumed to become" in ]. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just some small fixes to this edit: Aramaic language and HaSiddur HaShalem without dash. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit just seems wrong to me. Check. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert mistaken edit. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Undo pointy edit. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Context inline

Reply at Template talk:Context inline that this template doesn't have a "reason" parameter, as explained on the documentation of Template talk:Context, and copy the explanation from there to the documentation here. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) So this edit should be reverted. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

{{Context inline}} and {{Context}} serve different purposes and the rationale is therefore not transferable. {{Context}}, like other templates for the tops of sections or articles, uses details to display the information in plain text to the reader.
So {{Context |details="This sentence is the result of the details parameter" |reason=This will show nothing.}} results in the following:
This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader, especially: "This sentence is the result of the details parameter". (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Whereas {{Context inline}} is an inline maintenance tag, and like other inline tags (Template:Additional citation needed, Template:Better source needed, Template:Specify, etc.), it uses reason exclusively to display an HTML title for context on hover. {{Context inline|reason=Like other inline tags, this will display as a custom tooltip on hover.}} displays the following: – Primium (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the explanation. You're right. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
No worries! – Primium (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.w 05:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I am intrigued, why this semi-retired erstwhile admin suddenly came up with such a proposal. I checked, and we have no common history on any page on the English Misplaced Pages. Nor does he have a history of making such proposals. In addition, my previous block was more than 3 years old, so his suggestion seems grossly out of place. Please ask WikiLeon (talk · contribs), if perhaps he was contacted with the suggestion to make his proposal. In any case, I would like to know how I ended up on his radar, and why he suddenly came up with that proposal. This is a bit too random to be a coincidence. If preferable, you could reopen the discussion at WP:ANI and add my request there. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@WikiLeon I believe the above is a reasonable question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I was browsing around the list of current Template editors to find this user crossed out on the list (indicating they were blocked). Out of curiosity as to why someone with these rights are blocked, I find their block log of over eight blocks (not counting unblocks) and asked "Why would someone be blocked over half a dozen times and be WP:HERE"? ArbCom and the admins already have enough trouble, why is this established editor trying to cause more? This is spitting in the face of ArbCom and the community, what does everybody else think? It seems WP:ANI thinks it's more trouble than what it's worth, and that I failed to WP:AGF. It wasn't until now I realize the context of the blocks, topics I have no interest in. I accept their decision as resolved and would rather not do something like this ever again. --w 15:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply here. I was pretty fluent in template, before LUA came along and many templates were made into modules. Solved many template errors.
I have been an editor for 15 years, including in a highly contentious area (up until my topic ban a few years ago), so a few blocks were to be expected. In general, I think being a good editor is not about avoiding conflict, but about making good edits. Where people work, chips fall.
Till my topic ban, I was very active, making many improvements to many articles, often technical edits. I became disappointed by the bureaucratic attitude I was shown in the discussion leading to my ban, in which admin showed that rules are more important to them than actually improving this project, and since then I only make the occasional edit. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Birthday cake emojiHappy birthday!
Hi Debresser! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 		Party popper emoji

Death Penalty

That's a tricky one isn't it? Especially when there are wrongful executions. What are your thoughts on that? Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)