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 17:56, 25 February 2020 editDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits Undid revision 942598344 by SchroCat (talk) You posted on my talkpage. I have all the right to restore this, even if you regret it. Should have though about it better before posting.Tag: Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:20, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,359 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
(860 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| align="right" style="background:#F8FCFF;" {| align="right" style="background:#F8FCFF;"
|- |-
|{{archive box|] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]}} |{{archive box|] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]}}
|- |-
| &nbsp; <!-- whiteline --> | &nbsp; <!-- whiteline -->
Line 67: 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)


== Ethnic cleansing == == 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 -->
Please take a minute to look at the nature of the content that is removed from an article before blindly reverting another user as you did . Saying that an article is 4k characters shorter is not an argument. Moreover, try to avoid putting words in other people's mouths, such as stating that I had made the "unexplained claim that this is not connected to the subject of the article". I never said such a thing. I said that the content in question wasn't connected to the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Central Europe, which it isn't. ] (]) 16:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
: 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)
: The fact that this was over 4,000 characters is an indication that this is a major edit (read: major removal), and as such needs a better explanation than a minor edit. This is surely nothing new to you.
:: 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)
: I agree that that information was not about Germans, but why not simply create a new subsection? Why remove it altogether? ] (]) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (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 ]==
== Apologies ==


<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)
for intruding on your page, but I require some input I think only you could provide (it has nothing to do with wiki). I heard from an old man that in reciting the incipit of Genesis, 'elohim' must be pronounced 'elokim' out of respect for the name of God. This defies everything I know and have heard. Do you know of any Jewish community where this kind of phonetic alteration is practiced? or is it just an individual's idiosyncracy Sorry for the bother. ] (]) 08:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
: You are welcome here. When reading the Torah "Elohim" is pronounced "Elohim". When quoting the Torah in a lecture e.g. it is common to use "Elokim" instead, so as not to use God's name in vain. Even though this would not be truly in vain, as it is part of a lecture, still, many are careful about this. Others are not, as indeed it is not in vain. I hope this answered your question. ] (]) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks indeed, Dovid. Much appreciated. I just wondered whether it was specific to Ashkenazi usage or a general substitution practiced by all communities. The important thing is that the old man reciting it thus was using lecture style, not Torah reading style. Regards ] (]) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::: It is more common for Ashkenazi rabbis to be careful about this than for Sefardi rabbis, yes. ] (]) 09:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey? ==
== October 2019 ==


Hello :)
] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 ].
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.
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 -->
Thanks so much,


Sarah Sanbar
You're currently at 3 reverts. Just FYI.] (]) 16:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 00:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you're now '''over''' the 3RR limit. It would behoove to stop gatekeeping and using semantic stop signs. See ] ] (]) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


: I see 2 reverts on October 13, and 2 reverts on October 14, and I kept ] in between, which is an over 24 hour observance. So how can this be a 3rr violation? ] (]) 16:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC) : {{U|Sarabnas}} Is this still relevant, or was the August 8 deadline absolute? ] (]) 15:19, 12 August 2021 (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)


== Administrators' noticeboard ==
::FYI, 27 hours can easily be seen as ] 3RR, so I would be wary about that. ] 16:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::: 24 hours should be 24 hours. I understand 24 hours and 5 minutes is gaming the system, but 25-26 hours should be the limit. In any case, this is a known edit warrior, who is fighting against consensus to keep an edit he made recently, so it is plain and simple disruptive editing. Feel free to block him for 24 hours for that. ] (]) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::::I don't know what the consensus is and am not about to block anyone on the basis of it being disputed alone (!). As for your view advancing a strict interpretation of 3RR's 24 hours, I just wanted you to know that, regardless of what you think it ''should'' be, that view is not generally shared by admins, myself included. ] 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::] Irrespective of that, it is still quite clear that he is edit warring (having reverted at least 5 times in the past 2 days, and 3 times today). In addition to violating a host of other rules, notably ], ], ], and ignoring ] in favor of enforcing a "consensus" that is now at least 2 years old. For instance, I highly doubt leaving messages like this on another person's talk page is in any way acceptable. ] (]) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Debresser, indeed, is not a manner in which to conduct oneself. You need to stop referring to the editor and focus on the edit, instead. ] 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: I know that most admins will freely add as many hours to 24 as they see fit. I have never in my life had respect for people who apply the rules as they like. In any case, since I was over 24 hours out of editing because of my religious adherence to the Jewish Shabbat, it should be clear that I was not gaming the system. ] (]) 09:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: I have addressed the issue on the category talkpage. Which does not mean that the editor is not the problem here. The editor is very much part of the problem here. If editors weren't ever part of the problem, we wouldn't have WP:ANI. So please stop lecturing me. In any case, I moderated my comment. ] (]) 09:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


] 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)
I'm sorry, but enough is enough. He is clearly not heeding ]'s warning, or anyone else's.


== Maimonides ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 20:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Hey Debresser, could you look at the proposed changes in ] and give your feedback? Thanks!] (]) 20:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">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 ].</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on 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;''}}. &nbsp;] (]) 20:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->


: "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)
{{unblock reviewed | 1=: @NinjaRobotPirate I ask to rescind this block for the following reasons. :# You could at least have waited till I had the chance to defend myself. After all, I am a 10 year + editor, and this is not the level of courtesy I'd expect. :# I did not violate 3RR. I know that edit warring is not limited to 3RR violations, but if I am guilty of edit warring, so is ]. It takes two to edit war. :# The category page in question was recently edited by User:The Human Trumpet Solo, who changed it from the consensus version of many years. Per ] and ] that means that he is the one that should show consensus. In other words, I hold the higher moral ground here. "# See my explanation above that I was not gaming the system when editing after over 24 hours. ] (]) 19:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC) | decline = edit summary is unacceptable. You need to observe our rules concerning civil discourse and refrain from edit warring, especially after having been warned about it (including by myself). Further battleground behaviour and edit warring in the future may result in increasingly lengthier blocks, so please be wary of that. ] 19:36, 16 October 2019 (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 ==
@El_C And the previous edit summary was OK? Because apart from the "ignorant", they are the same. And really, calling a Jew "Middle Eastern" ''is'' ignorant. I mean "of Middle Eastern descent" I could understand, but "Middle Eastern"? Not to mention that shows that ] was ] me when he reverted my edit. Is that OK too? ] (]) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:I'm looking into how they ended up there. But calling someone "ignorant" and continuing the edit war was the wrong call. Did it ever occur to you to bring the matter to an admin's attention ''first''? ] 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:: I am not much rattled by such edit summaries. So no, I didn't see any reason to take the edit summary to an admin. I took part in the discussion on the talkpage, but ] insists on repeating his edit in complete disregard of that discussion. I was probably going to report that tonight, but ] didn't give me time for that. He even didn't give me time to defend myself, which really offends my sense of justice and is quite unusual when dealing with long-time editors. ] (]) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Nor do I think that upholding my block because I called an ignorant edit "ignorant", is a good call. I mean, as far as uncivil language comes, this is not the worst of it, now is it? As a matter of fact, since you had previously mentioned that I was at risk of being blocked, I would not have expected you to review my unblock request. You were hardly neutral on this issue. ] (]) 20:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::The ''matter'' (in its entirety) — not the edit summary. And you are more than free to list your contention that I lack neutrality in another unblock request. I, of course, disagree. ] 20:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: How can you even disagree with that? In any case, I am not expecting anything remotely like justice on Misplaced Pages. But that both you and ] would be so blatantly one-sided in your decisions, that disappoints even me. ] (]) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::Your reply strikes me as unresponsive — so I'll reiterate: why did you not bring the matter to an admin's attention ''first''? Also, just because The Human Trumpet Solo also erred, does not immediately absolves you of responsibility. ] 20:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::: There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that says I can't try to reason with an editor myself first. So I really don't understand the question. Most editors are responsive to explanation. ] wasn't. He is not the only one. If we were to go to admin forums as a first resort, Misplaced Pages would be bogged completely. ] (]) 21:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Except, that your so-called attempt at "reasoning" with that editor is why you were blocked. ] 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


Hey Debresser, Thanks for looking over content in Maimonides! Can you look over recent discussion on Haredi divorce?] (]) 16:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Human Trumpet, please leave Debresser alone. Debresser, if you agree to use ] (for example, an ]) to resolve this, I'll unblock you. Name-calling and reverts obviously aren't doing anything to resolve it. ] (]) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:Note that Debresser mentioned dispute resolution to Human Trumpet two days ago, but neither of them seem to have seriously pursued it or any such related ]. ] 21:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


== Could you help file a SPI ==
: I though to ask for additional input at ] for starters. I also envisioned the option of an Rfc, but afterwards.
: And since you are here, I do think ] should self-revert, since he was a much edit warring as I was, but he is edit warring for his recent change, and that is not how things work on Misplaced Pages. New edits should receive consensus ''first''. ] (]) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::I was defending myself, ]. And my edit in both cases was already reverted, and I have not reverted since. Nor do I plan to.] (]) 21:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::It's no longer possible for The Human Trumpet Solo to self-revert since their edits have, themselves, been reverted. ] 21:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::: His last comment here, that he won't revert any fursther, is good enough for me to feel there is with whom to talk.


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)
:: @El_C Di you investigate my accusation that The Human Trumpet Solo was stalking me when he reverted me at ]? ] (]) 21:29, 16 October 2019 (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
:::El_C is correct. My edits were undone and I have not reverted since, and I am more than happy to resolve this through discussion. The last thing I want is conflict with another editor, especially now when my health isn't exactly the greatest.] (]) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: May you go back to good health soon! ] (]) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Best wishes from me, as well. ] 21:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::Thank you both. Much appreciated!] (]) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Debresser, I did investigate this. My finding is that ] of you by The Human Trumpet Solo did take place. ] 21:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: I see you mentioned it on his talkpage. OK. ] (]) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


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


Not my cup of cake. ] (]) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Effective immediately. I am encouraged by the discussion above and I think the blocking admin would agree. ] 21:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
: Thank you. I will work on this tomorrow, as it is 00:50AM here, and I too fell ill this morning (thank G-d nothing more serious than a virus or food-poisoning). ] (]) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::No problem. Sounds good. Hope you feel better by tomorrow. ] 22:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Update: I came home at 4AM because of ], so this will have to wait just a tad longer. ] (]) 01:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


: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)
== Middle Easterners ==
:: True as well. ] (]) 15:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


== Haaretz ==
]. Can we agree that ] means those who live in the Middle East at present, and therefore agree that ] should not be in ]? Just like a New Yorker is somebody who lives in New York now, not somebody whose ancestors lived in New York.


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)
Let's leave open the question whether ] should be in ], which is the same issue we'll deal with at ], but I think we can at least agree that ] is incorrect? ] (]) 01:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
: Nope. Not interested. ] (]) 22:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


== Query ==
Apologies for the late response, ].


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 !
:# I wouldn't be against categorizing ] in that way. But if we do that, we'll have to define ], ], ], et al in the same manner, or else it'll be too difficult to navigate. We would also need to leave a brief note at the top of each of these categories explaining what types of categories belong (e.g. that only people who reside in the Middle East can be included under "Middle Easterners"), and what types of categories don't.
: 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 ? ==
:# The Middle Eastern Canadian category presently functions as a parent cat for Middle Eastern diaspora populations (be they ethnic or national) in Canada. That's how most of the other descent and diaspora categories are arranged right now, and that's why I tried to include Canadian Jews there. A category for Canadians who resettle/resettled in the Middle East would be called "Canadian Middle Easterners" (which does not exist), or "Middle Eastern people of Canadian descent" (which does exist).] (]) 04:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


are you a moderator ?
::# I think it is completely clear, and needs no explanation, that ], means precisely that: people who are at present nationals and citizens of states in the Middle East. Please notice that ] is a redirect to ], ] is a redirect to ], ] to ], while ] is defined in the first line of that article as "Americans are nationals and citizens of the United States of America."
::# That is of course precisely the point of our disagreement. Jews should not be in a Middle eastern descent category. ] (]) 17:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
:::The ] article looks fine. It makes the meaning of the term "Asian" abundantly clear. However, ] and ] are not as clearly defined, and these terms remain open to misinterpretation until they are. For this reason, I support renaming ] to ] and ] to ].


if so can you please look over the article ]
:::But even with that problem out of the way, that would still leave the categories (which is what this discussion is about). The categories in question pertain to diaspora origin and descent, not citizenship or residence. Nevertheless, I am still not convinced that these cats do not belong under a Middle Eastern parent. If we were to ignore or downplay the ethnic (specifically Levantine/Judean) component of Jewishness, there would be no point to having the Jewish descent or Jewish diaspora categories. So why have them at all? How do you "descend" from a religion? And if we head even further down that slippery slope, where does the Jewish diaspora originate? Nowhere? Did it emerge out of thin air? Obviously not.] (]) 21:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


"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."
:::Another thing worth noting is that anyone can become ], or ], or ], etc. But we still categorize the first two under Middle Eastern people and the third under indigenous peoples/ethnicities of North America.] (]) 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
: Not really, no. I am more or less not interested in editing any more. ] (]) 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


== Speaking of courtesy == == Oolite ==
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 ==
You just violated the 1R rule governing the page at Jewish stone-throwing, and should self-revert.


<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)
* 21:47, 23 October 2019‎
* 17:42, 24 October 2019‎ ] (]) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC) : Thanks for the notice. ] (]) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
: It is now by a few hours more than 24 hours after that edit, so please consider as though I self-reverted and redid the edit. But thanks for the reminder, and I'll try to be more careful in the future.
: And ''you'' please stop being a pain in the behind and don't make bad edits. Even your own edit summary read like an admission of the fact that there was no real reason to undo that part of my first revert. Not to mention that I disagree and think that removing that link was a clear improvement, since the link should be to a location. ] is a location, while ] is not, and is in addition so clearly POV motivated, that you should be too ashamed of yourself to come and complain on my talkpage. Where, by the way, you know very well that you are not welcome in general. ] (]) 22:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
::<s>{{tq|It is now by a few hours more than 24 hours after that edit, so please consider as though I self-reverted and redid the edit}} — What? That is simply unacceptable. I have blocked you for one week for this blatant violation of ]. {{tq|I'll try to be more careful in the future}} — there was no better time to do when given the opportunity to self-revert. Wow.</s> ] 22:50, 24 October 2019 (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.
::Unblocked with apologies. Page is not actually subject to 1RR. Still, had it been, your response would have constituted a gross violation of the first order. ] 22:55, 24 October 2019 (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>
::: Nishidani is back to his usual seeding controversy. A shame he came back from his umpteenth retirement. Nothing good ever came from his edits or comments.
</td></tr>
::: I have seen that argument used and being accepted. You may call it a "gross violation of the first order", but that is a huge exaggeration. ] (]) 23:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
</table>
::: By the way, don't you want to unfollow my talkpage, El_C? It looks as though you are hounding me as well. Or was this reported somewhere? ] (]) 23:34, 24 October 2019 (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 -->
::::No, not an exaggeration. Also, I am acting in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, not hounding you. Please refrain from such aspersions. Thanks. ] 23:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: Well, I still don't see what is wrong with it. Can you point out a place where it says specifically that such a construction is unacceptable? I doubt it, since, as I said, I have seen the argument being used ''and'' accepted.
::::: I don't think that following my talkpage is ]. I think it constitutes or comes close to a violation of the second paragraph of ]. ] (]) 23:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::Please feel free to bring any of this up to review in any forum you see fit. ] 23:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


==ד"ש מחב"דפדיה==
== Omar ==
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)
: אני לא כל כך פעיל יותר, ויש לי מה לעשות בחיים, כך שלא נראה לי שיש לי פאי לעזור במיוחד. אתך הסליחה.


== Hello ==
Hi. Please read ] and stop edit-warring. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:53, 13 November 2019 (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)
:Forget it, I've self-reverted. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:15, 13 November 2019 (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 ==
:: Sure. I did read MOS:VAR, by the way. ] (]) 22:53, 13 November 2019 (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)
== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==


: 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)
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">

<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 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] 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)

== Levantine Arabic FAC ==

Hi Debresser,
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)

: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)

== Mentioned at a noticeboard ==

Please see ]. ] (]) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (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)

== ] ==

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)

: 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)
::Nice dodge. —] ] 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?] (]) 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! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|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)
:: ] (]) 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 ==

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)
: 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. ] (]) 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 ], 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>

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

== Arbitration election RfC ==

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

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

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)
: 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 ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</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|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. 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.


If you wish to participate in the 2019 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. ] (]) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 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>
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=926750323 -->


</div>
== Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks! ==
</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 ==
Hello,


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)
], Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Misplaced Pages.
: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 ==
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at ] and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!


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)
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
: 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)


== Edit summary ==
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.


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)
Thank you!
: 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 ] ==
--] (]) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 12:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Martin Urbanec@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:Martin_Urbanec/MassMessage/Documenters_enwiki&oldid=19583321 -->


== It is not a picture == == 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. - ] (]) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
] It is a PDF file.--] (]) 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
: {{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.
: Okay, even though technically a PDF file is somewhat like a picture, see our ] article. But the problem is that it is not a reference. It is a link to the original. ] (]) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
: 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 ==
== Gathering of Israel ==


Hi ]. Pleased to meet you.
I don't know what you are trying to accomplish on ], but it would be helpful if you'd stop wasting both our time. The IP editor ] added non-English and unsourced descriptions to the article on 25th. But I didn't notice that ] had already reverted the first of those containing the non-English. So my edit summary described both issues. ''But the end result is exactly the same''. Reverting me just because you don't follow what happened, restoring ''twice'' unsourced, and suspiciously POV, material is not helping create a good article. Perhaps you could revert what you have again restored, and stop edit warring? Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


In the film there are also Andrea Scarduzio and Salvatore Ruocco, why are you removing them from me? ] (]) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
And the argument that "the existing stuff isn't sourced" is not a good argument for justifying that ''further'' unsourced material can be added. If we head in that direction, unsourced gets stacked on unsourced, and nothing ever get sourced. If you have concerns about what's already there, and not sourced, then please either add cites to it, or challenge it. Thanks.--] <sup>]</sup> 12:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


: I see that you are referring to ].
: The thing is like this. I can base myself only on what you communicate. You communicated that you saw non-English additions, and unsourced additions. The first was definitely not true, and the unsourced additions seemed true, relevant and helpful. So I could only come to the conclusion that you made a mistake, so I reverted your edit. This happened twice.
: 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)
: Now for the unsourced additions themselves. Since they seem true, relevant and helpful, as stated above, I would oppose their deletion. If the statement without the additions was sourced, then of course I would agree with you that a sourced statement can not be changed without another source. But since that is not the case, and, I repeat this, the unsourced additions seemed true, relevant and helpful, I think that the correct thing would be to tag the resulting statements with a ] tag, rather than undo them and leave inferior but likewise unsourced statements in their place. I hope you can appreciate my logic.
: I will therefore tag these statements, and after the weekend will make an effort to find some source for them. Thank you for your cooperation. ] (]) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


== Nefesh B'Nefesh and Rabbi Yehoshua Fass articles ==
== Not sure if I agree, but willing to discuss ==


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.
That seems like a borderline case (as the wording in the article to me isn't specific enough about his mother being the person in his lineage who was Jewish, so simply saying of "Jewish descent" would appear to be a ] issue as his father ''could be'' of entirely different descent based on the sourcing used). Even still I don't see how it isn't UNDUE to be mentioning, and how it isn't a partial violation of ] and related community standards to be mentioning his religion ("not religious" is still a form of stating the subject's beliefs) without a preponderance of reliable sources also doing so. Can you explain why it needs to be there and how it isn't a violation of ] to place a religious diaspora category/data on their page? I'll note this is all stemming from an OTRS ticket on a different BLP. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


I would also appreciate your consideration of my ] for the ] page. Thank you very much! ] (]) 06:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
: Thanks for your willingness to discuss. I am not familiar with the OTRS ticket. Let me review your questions to be able give you an even more serious reply than I had in mind when reverting this, and I'll be back here soon. ] (]) 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
::To give you even more backstory (note I can't go into the specifics of the ticket we got from an article subject)... we've also had several tickets this month from various people baffled as to why this is mentioned so much on so many different articles where as other people's religious/ethnic origins are rarely mentioned. I conferred with <s>3</s> 4 other OTRS members about this (one an OTRS admin, the other two are English Misplaced Pages admins) and we came to a pretty clear consensus these descriptions were being over-used and needed to go unless they were clearly being covered that way by '''multiple reliable sources'''. So, do take that into account here as well here. I'm not just doing this of my own arbitrary volition. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Coffee}}, Can you point me to where the discussion with OTRS agents took place? ]] 00:45, 2 January 2020 (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)
: {{ec}} After a re-read of the source it is now clear that Brin's parent were both Jewish, as well as his wife's mother.
: That makes both Jewish, by the way, obviously with Brin being the relevant person for the categories of this article.
: Religion is not relevant to the question of being Jewish. There are ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


== Topic ban ==
:: Regarding the background story. Interesting. Perhaps some sort of anti-Semitic campaign?
:: I think your (all three of you) conclusion is based on the mistaken notion that Jewish is a religious description, while our ] page is clear that "Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and a nation". You might want to take this back to the OTRS group, and discuss this some more, and perhaps even consider asking an expert opinion. ] (]) 21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} A good point (in regard to this particular source's statements about the parents), I must have missed that it said his parents were in my reading of that source somehow (I am capable of mistakes). However, as to whether religion is relevant or not: there is such a thing as being ethnically Jewish, but the current categories used point to "religious diaspora" as is expressly stated in the related categories like ] says in it's first paragraph. So my contention isn't that we can't categorize people as ethnically Jewish, it's that we don't currently have a specific enough category doing that in pretty much any listing right now (among basically all of the categories you just reintroduced this problem arises). Wouldn't it be a better idea to fork the categories properly before reintroducing them to BLPs? <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


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>
:: {{ec}} By the way, I might agree that the fact that people are Jewish is sometimes overly stressed, but usually this is done by sources. Somebody being Jewish is statistically speaking more interesting than being of let's say being of German descent or belonging to the Protestant faith. ] (]) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (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)


== ] ==
::: I see what you mean. The difference is between the categories and the articles. Will expound after looking into it, in a short while. ] (]) 21:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Further: basically using the categories as they stand runs into issues of ]/]/] even when we'd be trying to use them properly until they only refer to ethnicity... I suggest categories like "people of Jewish ethnic descent". Thoughts? (I'll also note I have several times been conferring with another admin who I would consider an expert on the religion). <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::Like I get us wanting to properly list people's ethnic backgrounds, and even religious (when the latter is part of their notability)... I just want to make sure we're not enabling veiled anti-Semitism on our site by having such broad categories that encompass/confuse both religion and ethnicity (making them prone to being used as loopholes around the very strict requirements at ] etc). <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


Re , "5% newer based on a chronological epoch set by a different religion" isn't a strong claim? :) ] (]) 14:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::: {{ec}} Actually, ] doesn't refer to ]. Which link is itself indeed a redirect to ], but on the other hand even a cursory reading of that article will make it clear that it is by far not about a "religious" diaspora only. Moreover, the sentences "The history of the Jews in Russia and areas historically connected with it goes back at least 1,500 years. Jews in Russia have historically constituted a large religious diaspora.", when read carefully, don't actually say that the article is only about a religious diaspora. ] (]) 21:38, 30 December 2019 (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 ==
:::::: Just to boost my credentials here a bit, I have been actively involved with Jewish descent categories for quit some years, and there have been quit a few discussions there.
:::::: It is my opinion, and so far I have not seen other opinions, till now, that he word "descent" implies "ethnic descent". Surely "descent" does not imply "religious descent", as religion is not something that is considered to be hereditary, as opposed to ethnicity, which is per definition hereditary. ] (]) 21:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::: I hope the continuation of this discussion can wait till tomorrow (23:44 PM here). ] (]) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
::::::{{ec}} I get that it isn't ''only'' a religious diaspora... the problem is that it ''also covers that'' while it can be used to describe ethnic origins and as such basing a category off the same type of grouping can run into some big issues (mostly the loophole I described above). Is there a good reason to not fork the categories to specify whether we're referring to ethnic or religious Jews? Wouldn't that entirely prevent the issue of potentially calling someone religiously Jewish when they aren't? As you brought up above there are certainly atheists who are of Jewish ethnic decent... and other religious affiliations as well... surely we wouldn't want to potentially label someone as religiously Jewish when they aren't? <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
:::::::In regards to your last point about descent, I would agree that it could indicate ethnic background, but I feel we aren't aiming specifically enough yet with it. As while you say there isn't such a thing as religious descent, there very much is religious descent in Judaism (for instance if I and my wife were to convert, not having any Jewish ethnicity ourselves... any children we would have after such a conversion would be considered now to be of Jewish religious descent even without any actual ethnic change between my wife and I ). If the entire descent category is being used to only refer to ethnic origins (first it would be good for the category to state that at the top of the category page) can't we simply make some category moves to "people of X Jewish ethnic descent" from the current "people of X Jewish descent"? Is there any good reason not to considering how contentious many of these labelings have been (especially considering the violent targeting that frequently occurs to these people)? <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 22:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
<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.
:::::::: {{ec}} That would be a rather drastic step. Something that should be discussed, probably at ], with input from people at ]. One practical problem being that till a few hundred years ago (varies per region) the two went hand in hand in almost all cases (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. Spinoza). ] (]) 22:08, 30 December 2019 (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>
::::::: Your point regarding your Jewish children (lol) is not correct, as being accepted into the religion means being accepted into the nation, while the opposite, leaving the religion, does not mean leaving the nation. ] (]) 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry, I don't think you or anyone else gets to decide whether someone considers themselves a part of a nation. If someone wants to leave Judaism I don't believe any policy allows you to tag them as still belonging to it, regardless of ''your'' personal beliefs or even "the nation's" beliefs. I don't believe a single policy on this site permits others to decide for them what they believe or what they want to be a part of. I would also warn you not begin your edit warring behavior again (how many times have you been blocked for that now?) by going back through my edits I see you already took upon yourself to do with an entirely unrelated article. I would point out to you this discussion has been made aware to my fellow admins working this '''serious issue''', so do try and keep this professional and do not try and subvert policy with your beliefs. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 22:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: I think you are wrong here. And let me explain this with another example. I hold dual citizenship. If I decide today that I don't want to be a citizen of The Netherlands any more, that simply won't work. There are papers to fill out to relinquish a citizenship. If I don't fill out those papers, I can give interviews in which I can state that I am not a Dutch citizen any more, and those statements of mine will not make the least difference, as long as the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not agree with me. The same is true about being part of the Jewish nation. If I were to decide that starting today I am not Jewish any more, that would simply not be true. I ''can'' decide not to be religious any more, but I can not decide not to be Jewish any more. ] (]) 10:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: Please also take into account, that this is not just my point of view. This is simple logic. Your opinion as stated above is not the accepted point of view, not in academics and not on Misplaced Pages. My edits are based on more than 10 years of editing, including on many Judaism-related articles. As I said before, I really think that you and your colleagues at WP:OTRS should consider my arguments carefully.
::::::::: If I am reverting your edits, so are you. It takes two to edit war. The fact that you are part of WP:OTRS and talked this over with some colleagues does not mean you are aware of all aspect of the real-world issue, nor does it mean you have consensus on Misplaced Pages. I say this with all due respect, but I really do think I am knowledgeable regarding this issue both in real life and on-site. ] (]) 10:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


</div>
::::::::::As one of the administrators {{u|Coffee}} is reffering to in this thread, I'll further note the tickets we got were not part of an "anti-Semitic" campaign and your framing them as such is ”not” appropriate. If anything, the mass additions of this description are actually enabling anti-Semitic behavior in the mainspace as it is singling out one type of people who happen to have been disproportionately targeted for their religious beliefs throughout modern history. These additions are in no way protecting or assiting Jewish people (or people who are not Jewish but who people seem to ”think/believe” are), they are adding potential issues of contentious information without proper sourcing (in violation of our very clear policies on this matter). The Jewish religion has complexities to it that other religions don't when dealing with anyone considered to be potentially a member of the ethnic/religious diaspora. As such it must be dealt with precision and proper cateogorization that does not confuse religion and ethnic backgrounds (otherwise it would be impossible to enforce ] and ] to prevent mislableing of persons' beliefs). I have also noticed that Coffee ] for Arbitration enforcement violations (specifically edit warring). Combine this with the recent ] BLP vio and ] SYNTH violation that Coffee reverted, and it could reasonably be inferred that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Please be aware that the BLP topic area is also covered under ], and if you continue to insert violations back into articles you may end up subject to those to prevent disruption. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
</div>
::::::::::: I did not "frame" anything as an anti-Semitic campaign. I suggested the possibility. Or how do you understand my words "Perhaps ... ?"
::::::::::: Secondly, that re-addition was a mistake, which I . <!-- 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 -->
::::::::::: As a last point, I would like to say that I consider your post bullying. The following things are typical bully behavior: 1. Your implication that I might have a conflict of interest. Especially without providing any logical explanation for that implication. 2. If you are referring to Coffee's block, first of all I was not aware of that fact till you mentioned it, nor do I take these kind of things personally. Secondly it was not "recent" but two years ago. And lastly, the implication that this would influence my opinion or on-site behavior is a bad faith assumption, and not worthy. 3. Your mention of discretionary sanctions. 4. The fact that you ignore that this is a discussion, and there exists a possibility that things you talked about before should be reviewed in light of some of my very good remarks above, which I am sure warrant a certain amount of reconsidering the issue.
::::::::::: Please notice that Coffee has been honest enough to admit a mistake and acknowledge that my remarks gave him what to think about. I would advise you to do the same. ] (]) 10:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


== April 2024 ==
::::::::::: By the way, {{Ping|TheSandDoctor}} and perhaps {{Ping|Coffee}} too, how can you be sure those OTRS tickets are not part of some coordinated campaign, anti-Semitic or otherwise? ] (]) 21:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
<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 ===
I see that this is being discussed on ] as well, and have added my opinion to that discussion. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, I enjoy this discussion (although I hope it will stay clear from personal allegations from now on), and will be delighted to continue it with you and possibly assist actively in resolving the issues you raised here. ] (]) 18:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Debresser}}, I feel like I'm late to the table, even though it appears this discussion is not yet 48 hours old. I am an OTRS agent (and OTRS admin). I have seen multiple OTRS tickets related to this issue in recent weeks, although I don't think I responded to any of them yet. The issue has been bouncing around in the back of my head, because I don't think anyone will disagree that it is complicated. I'm happy to see a robust discussion, but I'm particularly intrigued about references to a discussion among multiple OTRS agents. Can someone tell me where this is taken place, because I'd like to weigh in. ]] 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Sphilbrick}}, ] ] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Sir Joseph}}, thanks but I have seen the AN discussion. That's what led me to this page. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I got the impression the reference to a discussion among OTRS agents was somewhere else. ]] 22:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Sphilbrick}}, sorry, can't help then. Coffee has repeatedly said he has had discussions with OTRS members and they all agreed to remove this "contentious" information. Check his talk page for most recent discussion. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:: {{u|Sphilbrick}}, please ask Coffee, as he mentioned an OTRS discussion in both of his first two posts in this section. ] (]) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (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)}}
== ''The Mandalorian'' edits ==


: Okay, whatever. Thanks anyway.
Your edit summary <sup><small>()</small></sup> was pretty uncool; making OWN accusations doesn't do anything but make collaborative editing more difficult. So don't do that. And if you ''really'' feel the need to report me for OWN, I absolutely encourage you to do so. I don't think I am acting in that way, and I am fairly certain that others won't as well, but go ahead and give it a shot. <br>
: 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)
Please feel free to use the talk page instead of the edit summary to get your point across, because - and I speak from hard-won experience here - you aren't going to accomplish anything by trying to change ''anyone's'' mind via edit summary. Any information in an article can be challenged. When challenged, it isn't going to get resolved via edit-warring. Its going to get resolved by people working collaboratively to find a solution that works within our policies and guidelines.<br>
I've on the talk page. Feel free to contribute and defend your edit, please. - ] (]) 18:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
: I will do so. :) Don't take it too hard, but I see you have taking it upon yourself to police this article, and that is a WP:OWN issue. In any case, let's start with a talkpage discussion. ] (]) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
::Cool. I prefer to address interpersonal issues in user talk, keeping any drahmah out of the 'workplace.' Yes, I am absolutely devoted to making sure this article - like any other article in Misplaced Pages - conforms to our policies, and I am a lion when it comes to synthesis; most editors don't even know that they are doing it (at times, I've even missed my own). The guiding principle is this: 'what is obvious to you is not so obvious to someone else.' If we don't get a chance to do so in article talk, have a nice and safe New Year's Eve. - ] (]) 19:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
:: I am happy to work alongside such conscientious editors as yourself. I am familiar with ], although during my over 10 years here on Misplaced Pages I have found myself opposing those who thought they recognized it more than agreeing with them.
::: I am Jewish, so my New Year was ], but thank you, and the same to you. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
::::Okay, then. A belated happy Rosh Hashanah to you, then. - ] (]) 19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
::::: {{Smiley}} ] (]) 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


== To do ==
Update: I must insist that you work harder at not attacking me, please. There is not "just one editor" disagreeing with you; there are several, and even if it was just me, doesn't lessen the strength of the points I make. I understand that you are frustrated at my seeming resistance to your viewpoint, but consider that I have relented to not contest the creation of an Analysis section, an offer which might have gotten lost in the crush of posts. <br>
Said section could be populated by info about beskar metal, the Child's connections to Yoda and the speculation by sources that the item seen at the very end of the season closer was the Darksaber. This seems like a more equitable solution where you get what yu want while still keeping our policies and guidelines unmolested. To my way reckoning, "This Is The Way" to proceed.
Thoughts? - ] (]) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
: I disagree with you. On both accounts.
:# You are the only editor who is on a crusade against this, and you are not being too shabby about it yourself (a fact noticed by other editors as well, see e.g. ).
:# I have no problem with an analysis section. But a mention of the fact that the Darksaber notably was used in the last episode should be in the plot summary as well. ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


In the ] article fix the sentence "It also maintains a secondary hub <s>is</s> at Munich Airport". ] (]) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::So, first you (incorrectly) suggest that I am "the only one" interested in keeping the information out, and then I am "on a crusade"; that is what I am taking about. When you attack the editor and not the edits, you ''absolutely'' set yourself up for civility concerns. You need to stop, or risk losing the AGF from those you attack.
:::As for the proposal, there is no way I am going to support any mention of the Darksaber in the plot summary; there is nothing to support it, except for reviewers spouting out their fangushy speculation. The Analysis section is the only way we maintain our policies while serving the same toxic fan rabble that caused actors to close off their social media. And yeah, I do compare that to the intransigence of certain editors in the discussion - most notably through their seeming inability to find common ground and recognize that you don't have to gut our policies - when offered an alternative to doing so.
:::Suggesting any mention of the Darksaber is a non-starter with me. The analysis section gives everyone what they want. I certainly hope folk recognize it, because I am certain that if this were to go to arbitration, it is the very best offer the Darksaber fans will get. - ] (]) 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:::: What do you mean "arbitration"? You mean mediation, or Rfc?
:::: By the way, you may disagree all you like. Edits are judged based on merit, not whether you agree with them or not. ] (]) 21:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::I agree, and those edits that attack other users are - to be blunt - stupid, counter-productive and factually incorrect. Is that the sort of merit you are seeking? I did not come here to berate you, but to insist that you stop making attacks. If you stop, great. If not, then you just shed any good faith you would otherwise have. And trust me when i say that it sucks to walk into an article and have everyone assume you are a douchebag.
::::Lastly, when I say arbitration, I mean, every step up to an including ArbCom if necessary. Allowing this info to be added to a plot summary isn't just a slippery slope - its a toboggan ride off a cliff. This just isn't about adding a stupid item to a media article, and anyone who thinks different is wearing blinders. I hope that clarifies my position for you.
::::: I think you are wrong. As far as Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines go, I so no problem. What worries me more, is that you are blowing this up way out of proportion and being far, far too involved in this. ] (]) 13:59, 7 January 2020 (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)
== Darksaber ==


Remove ] from the "See also" list at ], as it is already linked in the article proper. ] (]) 21:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't mean to interrupt anything. You have anything to help me out over at the Mandalorian talk page for the Darksaber? It's impossible to talk sense into these guys. Any help would be appreciated. --] ] 19:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
: If you mean the discussion in the ] section, continued after an arbitrary break in the ] section, then yes, as you can see I have commented in both. I have no idea what your point of view is on the issue, but I have stated mine there very clearly. Is that what you had in mind? ] (]) 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


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


Change to straight parenthese after . ] (]) 11:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm afraid I don't know how to do that, otherwise I certainly would have done. Regards, ] (]) 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
: Replied on your talkpage. Please also see the editnotice on the top of the page when editing my talkpage, that you could have replied on your talkpage. ] (]) 01:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


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


"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)
As an editor who commented at ] between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, ].--] (]) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
: Thanks for the invitation. Did that. ] (]) 01:25, 15 January 2020 (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)
== Please remove your comment ==


Add "The Down Deep" to ], coming out July 2, 2024. ] (]) 21:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I would like to ask that you self-revert wherein you suggested that I needed to "calm down". Its ], unwarranted and suggests that I am not presenting a valid request calmly. A little more good faith would do a lot of good.<br>
Beause I am presuming that you were unaware as to why I made the request, I will connect the dots. At least 5 different editors or varying levels of experience were willing to screw over the riles to add a bit of unsupported fancruft. It took ''weeks'' for us to find a solution, and I'd prefer to avoid that same sort of nonsense the next time a few contributors wander by and change the plot summary yet again. They aren't going to read a wall of text to follow the reasoning; having a summary explaining the issue and resolution would go a long way as a preventative measure. I am asking for different points of view as to the issue and resolution so as to combine them into the most neutral response for others. <br>
You don't have to apologize for suggesting that I'm freaking out or whatever, but you should probably remove it anyway, please. - ] (]) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
: You are an aggressive editor, and you really should be less dramatic. The only reason there is a compromise on that talkpage, is because you were pushing your incorrect point of view, and editors simply decided it is easier to make a compromise than explain to you that you are wrong. I for one hold that view. And now you think there is something was said in that discussion that is worth condensing and stressing in some special way? Even though three other editors have told you that they disagree with that. I see it happening all over again. I will remove my comment, only because you asked nicely, but you are really ruffing my feathers the wrong way, and I really think you should stop being so dramatic about non-issues. ] (]) 01:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


There is some overlinking at ] and superfluous See also links. ] (]) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
==Template==
Hi, Debresser. Thank you for offering to work on this with me. I've copied the old style HTML into ], changing "Work" to "Organization", knowing I have to find a way to un-italicize it. I'm not sure if that's the right start, but I wanted to make ''a'' start and have you take a look at it. With much appreciation, --] (]) 13:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


"Note that there is not a" in ] should be "Note that there is no". ] (]) 14:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
== Shivas Ha'amim ==


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)
Hi Debresser. I started to write an article on the ''Shivas Ha'amim'' but it was suddenly moved to ] without giving me time to develop it. Could you help out? Thanks, ] (]) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
: Hi, IZAK. Long time no see. Nice to hear from you. {{Done}} ] (]) 12:10, 3 February 2020 (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)
== Chabad ==


Need to add a space at ] between "However,Akira". ] (]) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
What if I find citations for eg. academic decription of Habad as "Intellectual Hasidism", which it clearly grew to become, eg with last Rebbe's Sichos?
* The very word Chabad means "The Intellect/Intellectual" Hasidism!!
Also with Breslav: Rabbi Nachman was the opposite pole from Chabad in Hasidism, fighting Medieval Jewish philosophy (unlike Chabad which quotes it extensively)- anti-rational, imaginative, poetic in all his works (eg "song comes from the birds"), especially his unique Wonder Tales ] (]) 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


Why is ] without a dot after "St"? See also redirects. ] (]) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
== Please check recent edits on page "Yetzer hara" ==


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, ]. I wanted to call your attention to a recent edit by a contributor who added some "esoteric views" (perhaps not fully understood by our readers) in the Misplaced Pages article ]. Something doesn't feel right in the most-recent edit, and perhaps should be reverted, or else reworded. Thanks.] (]) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
:Someone has just undone his edit, so everything now seems good.] (]) 18:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


was a bad edit, because {{Tl|FPER}} is itself also a redirect. ] (]) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
== Heads up ==


What was ] disqualified for? ] (]) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
In ''The Mandalorian'', you have chosen to revert three times, and is very clearly edit-warring. Please stop. Likewise yoru reasoning, provided in the edit summaries, is insufficiently knowledgeable regarding edits to protect you should an edit-warring discussion become necessary:
:# '''' - incorrect. In point of fact, the edit was a ''new'' one, and consensus is built from the discussion that ensures, as per ]. The status quo is maintained until a new consensus is clearly created that changes it.
:# '''' - You kinds shot yourself in the foot with that one, buddy. Take it from someone who took both Hebrew and Latin all throughout his education; stick to English, you'll fare better.
:# '''' - Firstly, you are not a fortune teller, and your ''wish'' as to what consensus should be is likely different than what what will ''actually'' be. Secondly, I do believe you has severely misapprehended how consensus IS in fact almost always compromise. Your ''interpretation'' that it was a "poor" one appears to have been not borne out as it appears to have lasted a number of weeks before the SW uber-fans once again demanded their way.
So, if you choose not to believe me telling you that this is the way it is, you should feel free to ask around (make sure to get some admin input, as they tend to be a little bit above the fray, really). I hope you do, because you are often quite thoughtful in many of your other edits elsewhere. <br>
Anyhoo, that bit about the third revert is just a heads up. Don't revert for a while, because you can still get blocked if you revert three times within 24 hours and make a fourth revert in the 25th. EW is seen in both numerical terms as well as intent. - ] (]) 22:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


: Tell me something I don't know. ] (]) 17:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Improve the link to "President Park's ]" on ] by making it ]. ] (]) 04:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::Okay. That little indentation on your face beneath the nose and above your lips? That's called the ]. You're welcome. - ] (]) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
::: That was actually funny. ] (]) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


Check . ] (]) 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
== Lithuanian Jews ==


It is not logical to have that one example in the lead of ]. ] (]) 23:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course you're perfectly right about Purim. I'm Jewish and active in my synagogue, and I should've recognized that myself. I'm not sure where I got that error from. Thank you for fixing it.


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)
You evidently didn't read the part of my edit summary concerning "dystonia":
:Etymology: Improved wording around "chol hamoed". '''Simplified link on "dystonia", in accordance with previous simplification of that article's title.'''
If you had clicked that link, you would have found that the article title is now simply ]. now redirects to ].


Reconsider the pipe in edit. ] (]) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
A mention of "IDF" without explanation anywhere in the article assumes without justification that every reader will be familiar with the abbreviation. I'm going to restore the full name, in parentheses after the initialism and linked to the article.


--] (]) 02:05, 18 February 2020 (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)
== Casting aspersions/personal attack ==


Improve see alsos and external links at ]. ] (]) 15:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I am asking once again for you to retract / delete / strike / template ({{tl|RPA}}) your statement casting aspersions upon me at ] based upon seeming fabrications. Thank you. ] (]) 01:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

: The discussion is there. No need to come to my talkpage for this. ] (]) 09:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Add "The Down Deep" to ]. ] (]) 13:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::From ]: "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters." But whatever. ] (]) 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

::: I told you what you can do, remove your offensive comment. As soon as you do that, I'll remove mine. So really no need to post here. ] (]) 16:29, 22 February 2020 (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 doesn't work that way. It is fair game and not offensive to point out a fact that you have decided to post on your user page (for whatever reason) in connection with ''possible'' bias in a content dispute; if you never wanted this fact to come back and bother you, it is a bit too late now once you have shared it. You should be grateful for attempts to remind you to keep your editing neutral. It ''is'' offensive to lie by saying I told you once that I have a problem with Chabad (that conversation never happened) in order to use that as leverage to obfuscate my own position in the above dispute which is clearly policy based. But I have struck my comments. ] (]) 07:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

::::: I always edit neutral. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am not neutral. :)
Remove ] from the See also section of ], since it also linked in the article proper. ] (]) 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::::: I am ''not'' "fair game", since Misplaced Pages is not a ].
::::: I'll go and strike mine, then. ] (]) 11:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC) text should be restored. Note that the editor restored all the other text as well. ] (]) 18:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::Not only did you not strike, you continue to perpetuate the lie. ] (]) 11:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::: As I explained in the edit summary, since you didn't really strike anything, as in removing what you said before, just moderated your choice of words, I did the same. And please..., I would not knowingly lie. ] (]) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Restore text that was removed out of spoiler considerations, which we on Misplaced Pages do not accept. ] (]) 18:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Please explain the difference between a knowing and unknowing lie, and/or prove your allegations. ] (]) 11:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
revert edit, which ignores ] and uses strange notation. ] (]) 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::: "Please explain the difference between a knowing and unknowing lie" Really?

::::::::: I am not interested in perusing our history to look for this.
::::::::: Please do not post here any more. ] (]) 12:16, 23 February 2020 (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)
}}

== Death Penalty ==

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)

== 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 ''''''.

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 ] and view its ] .

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

Kind Regards,

]

<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- 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 ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<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.


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>
== A word in your shell-like ==


</div>
I don't quite know who you think you are, going around , and leaving hostile messages on a talk pages without assuming good faith, but I would suggest that you stop it. A continuation of this type of bullying behaviour will only end badly for you. Thank you. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
</div>
: As you may notice, the CAPSLOCK key was pressed per accident. In any case, your post here is waaaay out of line. ] (]) 12:22, 25 February 2020 (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 -->
::I noticed you shouting, and after that, I noticed an overtly pointy message; so one is to assume that the two went hand in glove. If you say it was an "accident", then so be it, but you've only said this once it's been pointed out to you. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
::: You didn't notice me shouting. You erroneously thought I was shouting. Will from the fact that the first letter was in lowercase you should have understood that CAPSLOCK was on. Talk about a bad-faith assumption... ] (]) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
: Please add to that, that I only reminded that editor of the fact that he/she used a tool wrongly. I never assumed bad faith, but there does seem to be a competence issue, when an editor does this twice in the span of a few minutes. ] (]) 12:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
::You did remind them, , and after they thanked you for fixing their mistake, you then went on to shout at them and ordered them . You do not get to tell someone not to use something that is accessible to everyone. There was no need for that second post. {{u|MarnetteD}} is someone who should be treated with respect as one of our best editors. You'd do well to keep them on side. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
::: I don't need anybody on my side. This is not a battle field... I never saw this editor before, as far as I remember, and the edits were bad edits, made by irresponsibly using a tool. So I told him/her so. No bad feelings, no bad faith. Then you come along, apparently a talkpage stalker, and post a rather insolent warning on my talkpage. Not going to get ''you'' far, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. ] (]) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
*You call someone insolent for presuming you were shouting because you made an error in keeping your Capslock on, but you throw accusations of incompetence because someone erred in something they did? Can you see how that looks staggering arrogant, Debresser? – ] (]) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
:: Accidentally pressing your CAPSLOACK (in an edit summary) is one thing. Adding two incorrect titles (in an article) is another. That mistake could easily have been avoided by looking at the articles themselves, rather than relying on some tool. That is precisely why we are responsible for tool-made edits. ] (]) 16:44, 25 February 2020 (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)