Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 23 December 2015

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

[REDACTED] 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.

I am happily busy with my beloved wife, Miriam. Add daughter: Channa. And son: Aharon. Add daughter: Sheina Chava And Rivkah.

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)

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

Special characters

{{helpme}} 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)

TUSC token: 2214f14d9938ca34406a77c7801e2c4e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Didn't work the first time. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This tool, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Favicon #18 and #19

http://www.quantummuse.com https://advertise.baltimoresun.com/portal/page/portal/Baltimore%20Sun/FAQ Zero 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am so grateful! 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I ever saw that second link. It must be that the favicon was previously used on more baltimoresun pages. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can find several more. Go to http://images.google.com and click on the little camera at the end of the search box. Enter the URL of one of your favicon's and it will search for similar images. I think most of them will give some hit, though you can't be sure it is the original page using the favicon. I believe Bing also has a type of search that looks for similar images. Zero 09:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried that, and even found one or two, but the ones that are left I couldn't solve in this way. Maybe I'll try it again, since it is about two years since I last tried that. Thanks for the idea. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They must have improved it, since that is how I found those two. And I only tried 3 of them. Zero 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I used the tool today, and found a few more. Thanks to you the number of 'orphans' is down to 11. That is the largest change I have ever had in one day. And one more icons was also found by the tool, just that I couldn't reproduce it. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass revelation

Maybe it belongs at WP:Revelation, I don't know, but the same editor added it there. Doug Weller (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh, what was this in regard to? Please remind me. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Box jellyfish

I had removed the "How to" tag on the article not merely because it was old, but because it did not seem to be an appropriate tag. The way I read the section, it included information about the nature of jellyfish stings, and debunking myths about treatment. I certainly do not see it as instructions on "How to treat a jellyfish sting." I do not believe it belongs. Thoughts? Scr★pIron 12:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My thought were as follows. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Shalosh Regalim

Hi. Thanks for the thanks :) You seem to know your Torah etc. - maybe you know why they write that the Shalosh Regalim were meant for Israelites from the Kingdom of Judah only. What about those from the north/Israel? Were they only invited after the destruction of their kingdom? Don't think they worshipped at the Dan and - was it Shechem? - shrines only, but I'm not sure.

Do you know enough to add smth about the Hebrew meaning/etymology of "regalim"? Obviously derived from leg/foot, "regel", but does the word appear anywhere in the Bible with the meaning of "pilgrimage" ?

What about some theories that one "went TO the foot" , thus explaining "aliyah l'regel" (ascent TO the foot), the correct name of the 3 pilgrimages, and not "aliyah b'regel" (ascent BY foot) as one might expect (see Adam Zertal's alleged discovery of Gilgal, a foot-shaped site near Jericho). Thanks, Arminden (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Arminden

See this article on the Academy of the Hebrew Language website, where it explains that "shlosha regalim" is "three times", as in "on three occasions". A nice illustration is Deut. 22:28, where the ass of Balaam asks him why he hit her three times.

In modern Hebrew "on the occasion of your birthday" will be "leregel yom hahuledet shelcha", so this second meaning of the word "regel" is kept even in modern Hebrew.

I am not convinced this word is from the same word as "foot".

By the way, there is the verb "r-g-l" which means "to spy", which I do believe to be connected to the word "foot", since spies would typically be send out on foot, as opposed to on horse, to be less conspicuous. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden Rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moral objectivism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question, which of the two types of moral objectivism was intended. There are 2 sources there, but I don't have access to them. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Point Valid

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Point Valid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 20:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere (you know which I mean)

May I suggest you moving the last comment to here? It's your comment, so I don't want to move it.

I grant that your point is valid, but that complicates the problem a great deal. Note Dweller's comment of 17:00 UTC: once you allow for nissuin in this setting, arguing that point becomes much, much more complicated.

I'll leave whatever work should perhaps happen on that article to you; I can't possibly take that up now. It really does need to mention that (a) it was frequently betrothal, (b) where it was nissuin there were reasons for that, and (c) that in nissuin of a ketanah, bi'ah did not (was not supposed to) happen. My impression was most such cases were (a), and that (b) happened only when the father absolutely, positively had no hope of supporting the daughter at all. But I just don't know; you feel free to tackle that one. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Diamon Star CD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was prodded. I am trying to unprod it. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Going too far

In a recent edit at WP:AN3, you undid an administrator's closure of your complaint. Please restore the original 'Declined' verdict. This is on the edge of disruptive editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? That is ridiculous. If an admin doesn't know what edit warring is, he has no business at that noticeboard. It is not the first time, that I have come to this noticeboard, and admins didn't make the distinction between a 3RR violation and edit warring. Usually, after some explaining, they understand their mistake, but this guy simply decided to dismiss the issue based on his incorrect understanding. That is not something I have to stand for. Admins are not infallible, and a non-admin is not less an editor that an admin, just has less privileges. Please be aware that I am perfectly willing to take this to WP:ANI or wherever else, but this was an incompetent closure. Also notice that I rephrased the closure in the correct way, not denying that the issue was closed. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not that admins are super-competent and never make a mistake, but you 'corrected' his closure. That's like changing another editor's talk page comment to make it appear they said something different. If you disagree with his closure, you can ask User:Slakr to reconsider his action, or appeal it to WP:ANI. While doing so, you should be careful to dodge the WP:BOOMERANG. Messing around with the closer's language on AN3 will just cause confusion and hurt your reputation for no benefit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I get your point. Okay, I'll undo that and contact the closing editor. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reputation is the last thing I care about. If others care more about reputation than about truth or fair process and the like, then that is their problem. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Since this is my talkpage, I shall speak my mind here freely. I just read Slark's reply to my post and request on his talkpage to review his closure of my edit war complaint here. He basically said that he is considering to block me for defending the consensus version. The hypocrisy of declining my request for intervention with the excuse that there was no 3RR violation, while at the same time considering to block me when I too have not violated this same rule, is staggering.

The truth of the matter is that for the last few years now I have noticed that reverts are becoming a large part of the edits on my watchlist. The reason is that Misplaced Pages has improved, and many edits are either POV or simply of inferior quality. But once in a while there is a an editor, usually a new editor, who thinks he can or should push through his point of view. In my experience, these editors, who turn up on my watchlist every few months, will not listen to reason. They simply will not. So now I have to simultaneously revert their disruptive edits in an edit war, explain their mistakes on the talkpage (with the help of other editors, because they never believe just one editor), and stay out of trouble myself.

It should be the duty of admins to show a low tolerance policy for such editors. Because they have to be taught that pushing hard enough against Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines will not get them where they want to, or they need to be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages altogether. However, every year or two there is this admin, who thinks they need to explain to me that I should not be edit warring. My comment to them: have a look what is going around on Misplaced Pages, as explained above, and say thank you that there are such editors as me, who are willing to make the effort to protect this project. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking with User:Slakr to find out his views. While some cases at AN3 are treated as long-term edit warring, this is not common and the submitter has to make a persuasive case. If you had filed a complaint of long-term warring at AN3 *before* making three reverts of User:Benjil yourself, the complaint would have been more credible. When you talk about 'making an effort to protect the project' it sounds like you are personally entitled to make these reverts. If this is going to be your usual practice it is unlikely to impress 3RR admins who have to judge a grey-area case like this one. Instead of using reverts to 'defend the consensus version' why not open an RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a talkpage discussion. Only he and me comment there, he in favor, I against. It is a waist of time, in all likelihood. But I'll consider it. Thank you for your advice. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Point Valid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Point Valid is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Point Valid until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have posted there. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, it was obvious to me, but in these things its safer to explicitly spell out your position so as to avoid anyone misunderstanding which position you are advocating for. I want to make sure that you have every chance to make sure that people know where you stand on the matter, that it all. For what its worth, I do not think the article will survive an afd, but stranger things have been know to happen. Good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox department

Hi. I've been doing some cleanup work at Ladino Misplaced Pages and came across this. English is one of the very few Wikipedias without an explicit infobox for French départements. Instead, it handles them through {{Infobox settlement}}, with {{Infobox department}} as a redirect. That's fine; I have no problem with that. However, what I intended to do was to decouple the redirect briefly, then go to Wikidata and link {{Infobox department}} to d:Q5622711, and then reconnect the redirect. I can't do it, because the redirect is protected at template editor level. Would you mind terribly doing that little exercise for me? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but since this redirect is in use, we have to synchronize when you want to do this. So what do I need to do, replace the redirect by a dummy text for a few minutes? Debresser (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That's right. I usually use something like "Redirect disabled for five minutes to create Wikidata link." StevenJ81 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So tell me when. It will have to be tomorrow (for me in Israel). Debresser (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's try 5 pm your time/10 am my time. (If that doesn't work for you, propose an alternate. My only hard appointment is at 1:30 pm mine/8:30 pm yours.) At that hour, watch for me to come back here and say that I'm present. Then you respond here that you've changed that shortcut. Then I'll make the change at Wikidata, and come back here to let you know that I'm finished. Then you change the shortcut back. OK? Thanks very much. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

5pm it is. Try to be on time, please, or even a few minutes early. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm here. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when you finish. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Finished. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Have a nice day. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. כתיבה וחתימה טובה. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Placing maintenance categories in WP:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising

These categories are administrative categories (they are clearly marked as such with {{Misplaced Pages category}}), not content categories and absolutely do not belong in WP:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. These categories only exist to assist in combating user misbehavior and are not about the subject of Marketing or subject of Advertising. Furthermore WP:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising is not responsible for monitoring misbehaving users or maintaining lists of misbehaving accounts. If you don't understand the difference between an administrative and a content category, read WP:PROJCATS. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Category:Misplaced Pages spam
• Category:Misplaced Pages spam cleanup used by {{External links}}
• Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for advertising used by {{uw-adblock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for link-spamming used by {{uw-sblock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names used by {{uw-spamublock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who have temporarily been blocked for advertising used by {{uw-adblock}}
• Category:Wikipedians who have temporarily been blocked for link-spamming used by {{uw-sblock}}

Oh, I understand WP:PROJCATS very well. Please notice that is says that "Article pages should be kept out of administrative categories if possible." It does not say that "Administrative categories should be kept out of WikiProject-related categories". Debresser (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

געפֿילטע פֿיש

I'm a bit confused by your edit with edit summary I take back my previous edit: the word is plural indeed, as the actual edit undid my last edit and reverted to your previous version (that is, after your first undo), thereby in effect undoing all my changes to the lead (except for the use of a minuscule g in gefüllte(r)). Did you mean to revert to the version of 09:06, September 1, 2015‎?  --Lambiam 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Fixed now. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Palestinian stone-throwing

Hi. I added the part about serious injuries because it says so in the source (Al Jazeera). I also thought it was weird to open a paragraph with "However..." when it is an update of the paragraph above. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We have had our differences, but I have never doubted you are a serious editor. It is always a pleasure to work together with you on improving articles. Together, we can provide balance and quality. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are a good editor too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How did you like my edit? Debresser (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That sentence is better now but the one about injury is unchanged. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Which one do you mean, precisely, and what is the problem? Debresser (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera write "Currently, Israeli prosecutors usually seek sentences of no more than three months in jail for rock-throwing that does not result in serious injury". I added some words to cover the part about serious injury but that was reverted. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Israel

Hi Debresser, I suggest the "holy map link" by the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem better fits this page Geography_of_Israel which by the way only has an external link to an interactive map of Israel. You are right, although the landing page is mostly is in Hebrew the internal links are in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I meant, that the linking menu is in English.

The term "holy" is part of website's title, so there isn't much we can do about that, although I agree it isn't overly appropriate.

Let me think about your suggestion, okay? Debresser (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Malik

גמר חתימה טובה.

The Malik part of that Arbitration is long gone. Malik flat-out retired from WP. ArbCom basically dropped the issue of whether he should be re-sysoped as moot, for now. (If he ever comes back, Malik made it pretty clear that he would choose to stand for admin again, rather than simply being reflagged. But I'm not prepared to bet that he is ever coming back.)

At this point, the Arbitration is about seeing if we can make the Israel/Palestine topic area a more civilized one where experienced editors can actually try to work with each other to create reasonably crafted, neutral articles. I actually had to work fairly hard to make sure that neither the evidence phase nor the workshop phase actually ended on a yom tov. There was goodwill from the arbitrators on the case; they just don't know the calendar. And my point to them was not that those of us who would be off-wiki those days shouldn't contribute sooner. It was simply that it would not be right if people with interests adverse to ours had 48 final hours to contribute to phases of the arbitration, and then the phase would close without our having a chance to respond. They fully concurred, no problem.

At this point, the main case page is here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no discussion about that on the page itself, only about Malik. Is it on the talkpage? Debresser (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "that" you're referring to. If you're referring to modifying the schedule to go around the chagim (and Hajj, as far as it goes), that's a little bit on the talk page of the main case page, and mostly on the talk page of the /Evidence subpage. If you're referring to the actual question currently on the table, it's not very well defined, but start with the first box (after the case schedule) on the evidence page. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the second, the discussion. That would be Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3/Evidence. Okay, I'll have a look later. Debresser (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Humanistic Judaism

You twice restored material which is not in the RS, and which is POV, which I pointed out. Yet you have now restored what I suggested in the first place. This https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=681449226 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Judaism&diff=next&oldid=681490799 are the same. You accused me of being an edit warrior, and yet you have restored my change, after twice reverting it. I think you owe me an apology. Does this explain your foul mouthed rant on my talk page?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen the apology for the error but I see no apology for the edit warrior slur.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Because you are an edit warrior! As I said, being right (WP:TRUTH) does not give you the right to ignore Misplaced Pages's editing rules. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing POV non RS material is not edit warring, it is correct behaviour. You are simply a serial reverter who does not bother to look at what you are reverting, once you see certain names, as shown by your admitted error in removing the word Liberal twice!!! PS I don't see any removal of the threat to have me barred for reverting ANYTHING you put back. There is a 3 RR, and it applies to everyone.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is the right way of advising you of this

Parameters

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -

You have been mentioned at this pageJohnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If I have done this wrong I will post the whole text here.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GAB 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for the notification. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

1R

I asked you to revert a 1R violation at Temple Mount but waived a report given the New Year circumstances. The least you owe me is the courtesy of a reply. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the request after the New Year, and understood that after two days it was not relevant any more. I missed the fact that I was supposed to reply. I'll have a look soon. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Point Valid

moved here from editnotice I guess I'm allowed to comment here since my words, actions, or stupidity haven't offended you yet.  :-) Anyway, I just wanted to compliment you upon the nice little Point Valid article. It was fun to fix up, even though the improvements almost delayed the AfD verdict. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the note here, and your edits to this article. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Shalom

Originally the sources were part of the text which made it more easily understandable. However the Christian viewpoint, which is basically the same except for the bathroom rule, was not included. Since you felt the Christian addition should not be added or was unsourced, I attempted to revert it back to the original without success. I did, however do a manual revert. I hope this is OK. I am searching for a source which will show my previous addition was valid.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources are not supposed to be part of the text. That is what references are for. And per WP:REF we should use footnotes.

What precisely is the information you want to add to the present, improved version? Debresser (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The text now mentions the Talmud but not the Bible. It now seems to be saying this information is only from the Talmud. Yes, the information is in the references but the average person does not read references.CWatchman (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the Talmud is the source. The Biblical text can be understood in other ways as well. It is specifically the Talmud which proposes an interpretation in which the text comes to mean that Shalom is one of Gods names.

Secondly, even if the average person does not read all references, so what? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is to provide encyclodpedic information. References are to verify the sources of that information. I am presently working on a more acceptable entry to be included in the future. Misplaced Pages articles are not to reflect specific religious sectarian information. Thank you. CWatchman (talk)

1. The word "sectarian" hardly applies in the case of the Talmud. 2. On a more general note, this obviously doesn't hold for articles which are supposed to describe the religious point of view. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The article refers to Biblical references as the reason Christians regard Shalom as the name of God. You have removed the Biblical references. The reader now has no clue as to what those references are. CWatchman (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The references come to support the claim that the use of "Shalom" as a name of God is based on verses. That statement is made in the references that I left. The actual verses do not support that claim itself. They can be found in the references. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

1RR

You've violated the 1RR at Sur Baher, please self-revert. nableezy - 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That is the umpteenth time you've broken 1R , Dovid. This is getting to be persistently erratic and you didn't revert the last time I notified you of a breach.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I´ll give him one hour, and then I will report him, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dovid appears to have a point. A POINT A POINT A POINT User:Huldra. I would strongly suggest you take this to talk to reconsider the claimed (by Dovid) consensus. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Irondome: have you ever tried to discuss with Debresser? He never moves a mm. I just try to avoid him these days, but now he has started following me around. See Talk:Caesarea#Stalking and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Huldra. Frankly, I´, SICK, SICK, SICK to the bone of it. Huldra (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems a fairly rational discourse. Dovid's last point appears to have been unanswered. He may be dogged, but that does not amount to unacceptable behaviour imo. Shouting edit summaries does not help to calm an already highly strained atmosphere. You must all calm yourselves. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that was about another issue (Hebrew names). What is open here, is that he calls the post-Israeli time for "control", not occupation. And please read through that WP ANI link above: it is Debresser who does not answer when called out, (after reporting me to ANI) Huldra (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, Huldra. Which merely reinforces my point above. All must calm themselves, no matter what "camp" they are in. This febrile atmosphere and resorting to the boards by all parties must cease. Nobody gives an inch (I use imperial measures), and that is the issue. All must master their frustrations and anger. Dovid, think like a Palestinian when you edit. Huldra, think like an Israeli likewise. Dovid, I would strongly suggest you self revert and return to discussion. Do we want to merely mirror the reality on the ground of the subject, or do we want to go forward by being "better" in our mindsets and actions? Please everyone, as a beginning, attempt to de-toxify your discourse in interactions. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And I absolutely hear you, Irondome; I *hate* spending time on the "dramah"-boards; I much rather be editing articles (I think my edit-history can vouch for that.) Which is why I gave him an hour to do so (and now it has been nearly two hours....) But I don´t think Debresser will ever revert......(and I would *love* to be wrong).., yeah, so I´m going to report him, before I log out for today, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well he's had the opportunity, making several edits since being notified including another one at that page. nableezy - 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus Irondome? Its Debresser and a single comment by a user named AnotherNewAccount (aptly named im sure) arguing against everybody else. Consensus doesnt mean as long as Debresser keeps arguing he gets his way. nableezy - 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, you are very belligerent. I am seriously considering to take you to user review or ArbCom. Edits like , where you simply refuse to discuss with me like I am some kind of errand boy, or , where you get all emotional (see the repetition and the bolds) and ignore the consensus established in a long discussion on the talkpage, are simply unacceptable in the field of ARBPIA. You're behaving like a bomb about to go off, and you are damaging this project. So either you cool down and stop acting towards me like I am the enemy, or I am confident the community will put a stop to your behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A good night to everybody. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Huldra (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try and visit that discussion later today. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for 24 hours per the report on WP:AN3. Please take care to adhere to the 1RR rule on these articles in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

While I am aware of the danger in going back straight to the same article that led to me being blocked, in that it may give the impression I am too focused on it, I have made a few edits to it, and posted on the talkpage. I really think there have been some NPOV violations there recently, as well as some problematic IP editing. I hope my fellow editors there will refrain from using their numbers to gain the upper hand, and will instead engage in serious talking and consensus forming on the talkpage. I invite you to oversee this process. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Just take care and don't revert more than once in 24 hours and it should be fine ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I will. Still, I think these discussions needs some outside eyes, to make sure proper balance is present. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration

I noticed the discussion at ANI. Several editors commented that it is not acceptable to refer to a female editor as "he" in the circumstances described. In fact, Floquenbeam stated that a week-long block would be applied if it continues (20:39, 29 September 2015 ). You replied in that thread so it is reasonable to assume you read the warning. Nevertheless, this 12:15, 30 September 2015 comment includes "Huldra was ... his change...".

Would you please undertake to not repeat that mistake? Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind reminder. Believe me that I do this not on purpose. I simply forget the whole time. I do not think that such forgetfulness is reason to block a person, but I'll redouble my efforts to refer to Huldra as female. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how you think it is acceptable to edit in the WP:ARBPIA area, and to vigorously engage editors with whom you disagree, yet forget about a pertinent detail that has been repeatedly brought to your attention. What happens when a disputed edit is discussed? Do you forget what other editors have said, or what a source says?

This permalink shows the ANI discussion that you opened. Here are some extracts from different editors on the his/her issue:

• This is evidence of either failure to read and comprehend what is before your eyes, or rude indifference to an editor's self-identification and preferences.
• For Debresser to persist in using an incorrect pronoun shows a serious case of I didn't hear that.
• Continually referring to Huldra as male when they've been corrected by multiple editors is sliding into baiting, if not downright trolling, territory.
• and if you cannot extend such courtesy to Misplaced Pages you are either extremely lazy or deliberately provocative
• it is so obviously calculated to be insulting
• there is a basic requirement of all editors here which even you, despite your apparent opinions otherwise, are obliged to follow - WP:CIVILITY
• Your "custom" is basically a deliberate barb and quite frankly I find it to be a calculated one designed to incite anger.

Those comments were made in a reasonably short ANI section that you opened. After these seven comments, you repeated your custom/mistake. If you "simply forget", how can you remember other things that are said in discussions regarding the details of a disputed issue?

Do you have an explanation for how you could "forget" what was said at ANI yet be competent to participate in WP:ARBPIA topics where discussions often involve intricate details? Johnuniq (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq—despite enlightened equality I think the masculine reference remains somewhat ingrained in conversational speech. The individual has assured an effort to use feminine references where applicable. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I read those statements as well. The bad faith assumption behind some of them offends me, but I decided not to react to them, even though some of them went too far.

I repeat that I am used to using the masculine on Misplaced Pages with all editors, and only a few editors have ever mentioned the fact that they are actually female. Whether I have been as forgetful with them as with Huldra, I do not remember. I can tell you that no other editor has made an issue of this before.

I do think that Huldra has been playing this card more than necessary, bring it up at every occasion, and your edit above, suggesting that I might not be fit to edit articles in the WP:ARBPIA area, is ample indication of that, and approaches which-hunt proportions.

Just for the record, I think there is no connection whatsoever between the two subjects. Whether an editor is male or female does not have any effect on the reliability of their sources, the quality of their English, or other pertinent issues related to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. That may explain why I so easily forget to address Huldra by the correct gender noun, because I am focusing on the subject at hand. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. “WarKosign” 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Again? What for this time? Did I revert some bad edit of yours one time more than was allowed? Debresser (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was right in my prediction at WP:ANI that WarKosign's edit would not find support. It also turns out this editor has a fringe point of view, which he is trying to push. That was my impression from the beginning, and I am happy, that I seem not to have lost my edge yet. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks notifications

You wrote "Just receiving thanks is meaningless." I'll have to pay attention next time I get thanks; somehow that never was an issue for me. I think that the original message does have a link, although it strangely seems to vanish from the dropdown list later. I can still see it when I click on "All notifications" (Special:Notifications). — Sebastian 07:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my post to reflect your point. Debresser (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you toned it down, but it still doesn't reflect the fact that they are specified with a link. — Sebastian 06:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I toned it down to reflect what you said, which made it necessary to be more precise. I don't see the links. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed my thanks

.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have missed it. His reaction ("I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.") was no more than look warm, but I hope he will improve. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? No

No, calling religions "cults" doesn't "comes close to vandalism". Considering how the word "cult" was initially used, and the word "culture" derives from it, a cult is, literally speaking, just the way a group operates and sees things. You can get off that idea that it comes close to vandalism. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, patriotism, nationalism, etc are all "cults". Ko_wld_ge Bt_tl 09:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not the modern English definition of "cult", and most certainly not according to the sociological classifications of religious movements in English. According to those, your edit was "close to vandalism", and will not be accepted on this article, or any other on Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I see that your edit was reverted on all religion articles. Apparently, I am not the only one to disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yea, well... :-) it seems that people are prideful and afraid of the association that goes with that word, what can I say? ;-) After all, it was the cult of the religious people, calling other, smaller religions "cults", which has caused the word "cult" to move from it's original, secular meaning, into a "dirty" word. Similarly, religious people have made the word "religion" into a bad word, since religions have such a nasty history, and instead, preferring the words "faith", "path", "relationship with god", or "deen/way". Religious people are to blame for the words "cult" and "religion" having received a negative connotation. That doesn't change the fact that it accurately describe them, however. Ko_wld_ge Bt_tl 13:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Religion" is still a neutral word, which is why I didn't revert your edits in that regard, but "cult" not. Not in modern English. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Email

Check your mail. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk)

Got it. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

See this and this edit, both straight from his book. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

These courtesy notifications are getting pointless

It appears you still insist on breaking 1R with impunity, notwithstanding repeated warnings not to do so. You just broke 1R at Jewish Israeli stone throwing.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted once. I checked this before you wrote here, and again after you wrote here, and I see no violation. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the evidence. I'll hold off, by all means get,as I do, a third party expert to make an informal judgement. In any normal practice, you would have been reported immediately, because this abuse is becoming a major characteristic of your style.

• Ist revert
• 2nd revert
• 12:56, 28 October 2015‎ 3rd revert
• 13:12, 28 October 2015 4th revert Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The first edit was not a revert. It was an original edit. The second edit was my only revert. The first edit was not a revert, but also an original edit, as others I made before that. The fourth edit was a change, not a revert (not even partial). Debresser (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not happy with this post of yours. It looks as though you are looking for excuses to pick on me. Which I do not want to believe. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you an hour or two to consult a neutral third party, who can make an objective all. I've bent over backwards for several months to try to get a workable relationship, aned refrained from reporting you several times for this reason. This has nothing to do with personal reasons, other than that I expect that the rules that apply to everyone, apply also to you.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am confident of the fact that I made no 1RR violation! I advice you to stop your witch-hunt of me, because I will report you for that, since your behavior has become intolerable. You are poisoning the well, by mentioning perceived 1RR violations in discussions. You are forumshopping on almost all subjects where people disagree with you, to be able to show later in the first discussion that others agree with you, even though the original editors never had a fair chance to participate in the other discussion. You create overly long posts to make your points, and never stop pushing your point of view, which is one of the signs of a tendentious editor, or worse. You complain a lot about people having problems with you personally and not addressing the issue. Which, by the way, is another sign of tendentious editors. No real breaking of the rules, but it makes it impossible to work with you. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it to AE.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Please post a link here afterwards. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I've asked for the third opinion you won't ask for. See here. Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, a revert is defined as "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions." First revert, Second revert. Please be more cautious when editing these types of articles. --NeilN 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, that first edit is not a revert. You interpret the definition incorrectly. According to your interpretation, any edit apart from an original addition is a revert. It has never been accepted to see any removal as a revert. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"undoes other editors' actions" is pretty clear. As this has been brought to your attention, I will be blocking if I'm asked to look at future instances. --NeilN 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN is correct and this has been tested at AE. Any removal is a revert (logically, because someone had to put it there in the first place). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not accept the claim that the guideline should be interpreted to mean that a removal is a revert. In that case any rewrite is also revert, per that same logic. Which means that anything but an original addition is a revert. This is not logical and per the reductio ad absurdum it follows that this is not correct. It would mean, for example, that it is impossible to change a paragraph on a 1RR page more than once, if another editor made an edit to the same paragraph in the mean time. This is something that is done all the time. In addition, this has never been practice, as far as I remember. In any case, it shouldn't. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVERT says: "Reverting means reversing a prior edit". From that definition it is clear that removal of a section or paragraph or sentence, that is the product of multiple edits by multiple editors, is not a revert It is simply an edit. Some edits add information, others remove information. The definition claimed by NeilN is not on that page.

I must remind NeilN that unsanctioned use of admin privileges is one of the few things on Misplaced Pages that can actually get an admin quickly desysopted. Especially after the issue has been brought to his or her attention. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVERT is

I have taken the advice to ask a veteran editor and admin for his opinion, and am awaiting his post here. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVERT is a help page. WP:EW is policy. I would advise you not to re-do any deletions you have made per WP:1RR or, as I have stated above, I will block if the situation calls for it. --NeilN 23:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your advice sounds like a threat, and that is not appreciated. In any case, what does WP:EW have to do with this 1RR discussion? If I am right, then I am entitled to 1 revert, and there is no edit war. If I am not, then there still is no edit war, because I at last thought I am right. So, again, what does WP:EW have to do with anything? As you can see from my edit on that page before and after what you claim was a second revert, my only goal is to improve that article and reach a version which is both good and everybody can live with. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:1RR is part of WP:EW. And Nishidani disagreed with your first revert by reverting it. At that point, you should have stopped and gone to the talk page to discuss and waited for a response instead of re-reverting. --NeilN 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That is already WP:BRD, which is one of the guidelines I respect most, and is mostly ignored. However, since I felt my argument was strong, and Nishidani has an obvious POV in this case, I felt fine with making the 1 revert I am entitled to (or thought I was entitled to in any case). I even checked before the second removal if none of my previous edits was a revert. According to your definition, all of my edits were reverts. This clearly can't be. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Admins use some common sense when looking for edit warring. Suppose an editor wants to remove all mention of Palestinians considering Jerusalem their capital. He removes it from the intro and gets reverted. He removes it from another section and gets reverted. He removes it from a third section. At this point he's likely to get blocked (if he already hasn't been) because his edits all have the same aim. Now suppose a second editor does some innocuous copy editing on the lead and gets reverted. She then fixes up a table by updating statistics and gets reverted. She then copy edits the Sports section. She is unlikely to get blocked because she's working on unrelated things. --NeilN 00:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. On the other hand, every time I have come to WP:3RR/N in the last 4 years or so, admins have refused to take any such action. Moreover, some of them even don't know what I am talking about when I say there is such a thing as a WP:EW violation without a 3RR violation. So I am really not happy that you are remembering this only where I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, it seems to me you're regarding this question from a very legalistic view. You mention several times that you believe you are entitled to certain actions. My father was a law professor; he taught us that the law is only a safety net; one who only goes by their entitlement is not someone others want to work with. In a project that depends as heavily on collaboration as Misplaced Pages does, editors are only welcome to the extent that they are team players. — Sebastian 01:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think 8 years of good editing make the point that I am a team player. However legalistic it may be, rules are there to be rules. And if anyone is being legalistic, it is NeilN. It is he who quoted policies first. I rely first of all on common practice, as I have seen it over the years while actively editing Misplaced Pages.

I have seen many times that people made 4 edits, were reported for 3RR, and the conclusion was that the 4 edits are counted as 1 edit + 3 reverts. And rightfully so. I stress that such is absolutely common practice. I have been there myself, and I have seen it with others. By the same token, 1RR is 1 edit + 1 revert.

If there is ambiguity in these rules, and from what NeilN quotes that seems to be the case (I have to agree with that), then the definition of "revert" must be adapted. Or the rules for 3RR changed. But both can't be true at the same time. I am more than willing to open a centralized discussion about this. But I am not wiling to be the victim of accusations based on interpretations that go against common practice. That goes against my feeling of fairness. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for eight years of contributions; that is a great volunteering commitment. I don't remember any previous interaction (other than the conversation which got your page on my watchlist), so I can't say anything about that. It needs to be said, though, that a long tenure here is not necessarily proof for good team work; you can probably think of some counterexamples yourself. My message here was not on the merits of your contributions, but on the tone and mindset of the discussion here, which I found inappropriately aggressive. I am someone who demands more of administrators, but I found NeilN's posts here appropriate; he is trying to deescalate a conflict (in which I presume he is not otherwise involved) according to the way administrators usually do that. (I would have done that differently. In the height of the Sri Lankan Civil War, we managed to deescalate conflicts by primarily focusing on content, on reliability of sources, and such, rather than revert count, which frankly, I find dull and unworthy of thinking people. But admittedly, that took a lot of effort and time, which I now don't have anymore. Neil's approach seems to be in line with the common practice here.) — Sebastian 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Chabad page

Hello Debresser, It's been a while :) I saw you reverted the part of my edit on the chabad page that removed some statistical text. I was not clear as why I removed it, so I will explain now and that may alter your judgement. This is the sentence I removed: "The movement is thought to number between 40,000 and 200,000 adherents." It may or may not have been true when it was originally written, but if you check the sources, you will see that some of these studies are more than 20 years old. They were done from 1995-2006. So, as I said, I am not disputing that this information was not correct then, I just don't see it making any sense for this to be in the lede when its based on a decade and two decade old info. Thanks. TM (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is better than no info at all. That was my reasoning. As a suggestion, you could add the {{As of}} template. Debresser (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Root of the word Shalom

I added to the article that the etymological analysis of the Hebrew roots and their derivatives reveal that 'Lom was the basic root word for Shalom. It was deleted with the comment "It's not important enough." Yet the repetitious definition of Shalom in this article is. It may not seem important, but for those who do not trace the ridiculous, non-mainstream etomology of shalom from a Canaanite god it may be an interesting piece of information. If we consistantly delete things we personally do not feel is important, we could delete three quarters of all Misplaced Pages. It is annoying to consistantly have correct and sourced information deleted while unsourced, original research plagues the article. A simple study will reveal that the information is theologically mainstream and correct.

Concerning the etomology of shalom please read the following:

“A thorough etymological analysis of the Hebrew roots and their derivatives reveal that 'Lom was the basic root word for Shalom and appears in other languages in similar forms.” ("Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament", by Botterweck, Ringgren, and Fabry, Volume XV, pg 13-49, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004) http://www.jewishdictionary.org/hebrew-words/shalom.html

"Articles of primary theological importance in Volume XV include these: ' lom ("peace"). https://www.bookdepository.com/Theological-Dictionary-Old-Testament-Pt-15-Helmer-Ringgren/9780802823397

“The prominence of the root-and-pattern system makes it relatively easy to determine both constituents of most Semitic words. This in turn allows the comparison of individual roots across languages. Thus, for example, Arabic salm, “peace, well-being” (English SALAAM), from the Arabic root s-l-m, is clearly cognate with Hebrew lôm, which has the same meaning (English SHALOM), from the Hebrew root -l-m.” (Proto-Semitic Language and Culture, John Huehnergard, Dr. Jamshid Abrahim) http://www.jamshid-ibrahim.net/148.0.html

CWatchman (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I just reverted, because this information was removed from the article in the past, and because it is sounded dubious. Could you please add those sources as well? Debresser (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

CWatchman (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you suggest these sources be part of the article? (In the lead section or in the etymology section?) Or should the quotes and sources simply be added to References? I respect your input. Thank you.

CWatchman (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources should generally be references in the appropriate section. That is in my opinion the best choice in this case as well. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Shalom article states, "Due to Biblical references many Christians teach that 'Shalom' is one of the sacred names of God." There are two subjects in this sentance: (1) Biblical references (2) What Christians teach.

I have referenced what Christians teach but I feel there needs to be references to the "Biblical references." It just seems so incomplete. Readers need to know what these references are. I would like to add these references, and since you are watching this article I wanted to consult with you first.

Also I am hesitant to use the name of G-d but due to the content of the article it is unavoidable and necessary.

Awaiting your response. Thank you.

CWatchman (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to await. I have removed such sentences already a few times. Please stop hammering on the same bad ideas. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. But I am not saying the 'sentences' should be added to the article. Where to find the Biblical references should be below in the Reference section. As it stands the reader has no clue, unless he purchases the books referenced. And I am not 'hammering,' I'm trying to be polite :) CWatchman (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I just went back to the article and checked the reference which was added to the Talmud sentence and saw the scripture had been added. I do not remember it being there before. Sorry. CWatchman (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sabbath mode. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please discuss changes on the talk page before reverting content FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you have reverted me as well, you should warn yourself too! Add to that the fact, that you have not replied anything substantial to my explanations. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adam and Eve

Thanks for paying attention to the use of Template:Adam and Eve. As a non-theologan, creating this new template was no small endeavor and I would appreciate any further feedback you might have on its content or use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is an impressive template. In how far it is relevant to various pages, I don't know. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One could add Garden of Eden and then, if that, Cave of the Patriarchs I guess....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I did. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You can consider joining the TAFI project. Each week you get a new article that can be improved.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'll pass on that proposal, worthy as it may be. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I should point out I think you're a great user, one of the better we have, and I very much regret this situation, but I'm afraid you overstepped it for once. Reporting just the other user would not have been fair. Jeppiz (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I am not even aware of the problem, but will look it up at WP:3RR. Debresser (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that I saw the "issue", let me say that I think that was completely unfounded, as I explained there. A stretch of your imagination, and I have no idea how you justify reporting two experienced editors at WP:3RR based on that far-fetched interpretation. Debresser (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Who gives a damn about source quality anyway?

So you think that an essay by an undergraduate student is a reliable source, I see. How wonderful. As for this propaganda, you are now responsible for it being in the article, reducing it to coloring book standard. Shame, shame, shame. Zero 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

First things first:

1. The essay is well sourced, but I was aware from the beginning that it is not the best source possible. Even so, what he writes seems completely logical, so I am willing to be a tad less strict on the sourcing. Especially since there is another good source there.
2. As I wrote in my revert, my problem is with the removal of information from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. I strongly protest your general claim that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a reliable source regarding the history of Israel. By the way, we have been there before.
4. Why would you call this propaganda?

Debresser (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) Student essays are not reliable sources, end of argument. (2) Where can I read a case that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is an authority on medieval history? Why should anyone imagine that they are? What qualifications do they have on the subject? Was the text written by someone qualified (to save you the trouble: no author is stated). Even if it looked like a good document it would not be acceptable. Reliability is something to be established, not something that exists by default. But this document (did you look at it before reverting?) doesn't even superficially look like a good source. It is clear what sort of document it is even from the chapter titles: BIBLICAL TIMES | SECOND TEMPLE | FOREIGN DOMINATION | STATE OF ISRAEL | PEACE PROCESS | ISRAEL IN MAPS. The Jews were there, then there was foreign domination, then the Jews were there again. During the "foreign domination" things got worse and worse until the Jews came back and saved the country. It is an example of the very worst sort of pseudohistory. Having it in Misplaced Pages is embarrassing. I don't blame MFA for this; it is their role to distribute the historical narrative that best suits Israel's modern needs as they see them. The question is why we should be their servants and distribute their material when there are libraries full of excellent writings of real scholars.

Incidentally, your edit summary "there is no consensus that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source on historical facts about Israel, and no consensus otherwise" is an argument for removal, not an argument for insertion. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Zero 23:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot the word "no". Debresser (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I left out the word "no". :) Although you could object to me adding un

some authors claim

I would modify the claim that "The region of Palestine has a special significance for Muslims" by clarifying that this is claimed by some authors, rather than leaving it as an absolute statement of fact. Other authors have claimed that such "significance" has been recently inflated to bolster a political claim. What do you think? Council2 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What article is this about? Debresser (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Rabbi

Instead of edit warring and asking for page protection, why don't you do the right thing and explain on the article's Talk page why you want to change language that's been in the article for (at least) 3-1/2 years? 107.10.236.42 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you take you own advice? And while you are at it, how about logging in to your registered account? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This IP has a registered account? Then who is he? Debresser (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

E-mail me, and I'll give you the details. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, since you (and my stalker here) want to change the long-standing language, you should be discussing your proposed change on the article's Talk page. Instead of trying to be a bully, follow WP:BRD and discuss your proposed change. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_or_hounding.3F about the thing going on between you, with my personal sympathies at the side of When Other Legends Are Forgotten. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

107.10.236.42

Dear Debresser,

See this closed Talk Page incident for context. After fixing this urgent puppetry case, I have trawled the 107.10.236.42's reverts/incidents history and found your page and your admin report. The issue has also been promoted off wiki, maybe for canvassing. I see it mentioned also on Other Legends Are Forgotten's page and above.

After linguistic and timestamp analysis, I have discovered that I also been hounded and reverted across unrelated subjects and articles by this very IP. By now I concur with yous that this IP is a sock for an experienced named account, who probably uses yet another IP(s) for such harassment and name calling of many named bona-fide editors.

You can thus add my voice to this or future ANI notification that you may further instigate about this abusive WP contributor. Zezen (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. I have also looked now at this edit history: judging by the range of the subjects/reverts and the tone of his contributions, I do suspect to be yet another sock of the editor above. Zezen (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-.revert please

You've just broken 3R at Israelites.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This edit was not a revert, as you can clearly see from the edit summary and from examining the edit itself. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A deletion discussion you may be interested in

An RfC you were recently involved in (RfC: Filmography navboxes) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (TfD Template:Anthony Marinelli). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding WP:CANVAS, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.

• User:SNUGGUMS Closing editor
• User:Robsinden Proposing editor
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:Betty Logan
• User:MarnetteD
• User:Lady Lotus
• User:NinjaRobotPirate
• User:Lugnuts
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:BattleshipMan
• User:Dimadick
• User:Rlendog
• User:Frietjes
• User:Debresser
• User:Wikipedical
• User:Jusdafax
• User:Mamyles

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have commented there. I very much appreciate the reminder here. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

many (but not all)

I'm well aware, but wanted to make it clear. Is there a problem with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 Sorry for not responding any earlier.

Sometimes it is best to let the text speak for itself, without our help. I think this is such a case. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have added it if I thought that. An awful lot of Orthodox Jews are not aware that many authorities allow such in the context of a marital relationship, provided only that it's a "change of pace," if you will, and not the usual and ordinary contact between partners. Shabbat Shalom. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Your recent editing history at Religion in Israel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yossimgim (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI. --NeilN 23:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Thank you for showing this discussion to me. Yossimgim behaves like the proverbial Indian on the warrior path. Indeed, there was no 3RR violation from my side, but still, I am at a loss how to deal with such aggressive editors. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see he was blocked for a week. Good call! Debresser (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Posek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masorti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Will fix. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism

Hi. I thought you may be interested in knowing that an editor moved the content of the page Haredi Judaism to Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. The move was done in a technically incorrect way by copying-and-pasting without attribution, so I reverted it, but it was performed again. There is now a request for administrators to merge the page histories to fix the error. LjL (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that editor is now blocked. (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they went crazy on me and started insulting me and calling me anti-Semitic and racist in front of admins, and you know how that goes... expect sockpuppets, though. LjL (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Just that I hardly recognized any of the names of the candidates. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rabbi

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Rabbi. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I suppose you are a sock. 2. No need to use warning template with experienced editors like me. You could have used your own words. 3. I try to stay close to the source on the one hand and to paraphrase it in such a way that best reflects the context of the rest of the article. 4. The fact that I disagree with alternative expressions, is not a reason to say I am trying to "own" this article. I have the right to disagree and edit accordingly, especially when faced with the possibility of repeated IP socks. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Settlement

Debresser: ik werk momenteel vanaf mijn mobiel dus mijn bewerking was aardig haastig, maar zie je niet ook iets partijdigs aan dat artikel? Ik wilde voornaamelijk het was professioneler en minder omstreden laten klinken. De woorden kwamen van de krant "The Hindu", maar het noemen van de PA mijn gokfout. Er stond onder andere dat Israel "disputeert" dat de vestiging illegaal is, maar dit staat niet in de bron. Ik vraag mij dan af waar we dit uit op kunnen maken. De bron vertelt dat Israel die bepaalde wetgeving niet erkend. Hoe zie jij deze punten, als ik vragen mag? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ben jij Prinsgezinde? En dan heb je het waarschijnlijk over de Gush Etzion pagina? Als ik mij goed herinner, is de zin dat de internationale gemeenschap en Israël dit anders zien een standaard zin, vastgesteld in een proces van consensus vorming dat al lang geleden plaats vond (zonder mij), die op alle toepasselijke pagina's herhaald wordt. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ja, inderdaad. En ik was die paginanaam even kwijt. Waar kan ik deze consensus vinden? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Dat is een goede vraag. Ik zie dat dit besproken was op de talkpage in de sectie Talk:Gush_Etzion#NPOV:_Settlement_is_illegal (ook Talk:Gush_Etzion#Opening_sentence_should_reflect_current_status, maar alleen maar een post, zonder verder commentaar). De enige post die een standaard noemt is deze. Dit was besproken en besloten op Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikilink

Hello fellow editor. Thank you for your input and attention to my recent edit on the Josiah article. It seems that the wikilink "Passover" covers it more widely, that's true. I was making the point about "celebration" aspect, but it's correct what you said. The wikilink "Passover" deals with all of it, not just the "Seder" aspect. Thanks. Redzemp (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to have been of help. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beitar Illit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Beitar Illit, {lit. Upper Beitar) is named after the ancient Jewish city of ], whose ruins lie {{convert|1|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

West Bank edit

That seems like a reasonable compromise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurunui99 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that all are happy with my edit. That is all too rare in this area. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Schneerson and Education

Please address the facts relating to the point in the talk page of Schneerson and do not merely tut tut the issue with edit wars. Merely saying others are too excited does not mean does not do that. You need to focus on the facts of the sentence. It is not a minor issue to claim falsely that the person in question is being honored by the US Congress and Presidency for a role in reorganizing the role a department in the US government. Schneerson may have had many honors in his life. He was not honored for this by the US government. Facts are stubborn and irritating, but they are what we work towards in an encyclopedia. Please address the issue.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rococo1700, please stop telling others what they need to do ("You need to focus on...", "Please address the issue"). That is the issue I am worried about more than the relatively minor content issue. You really have to calm down. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what to do, when it is you who revert my well-sourced facts. If it is a minor issue then I will make the change now.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That it is a minor issue means you should take it easy. Not that you should make inferior edits. :) Debresser (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Palestinian stone-throwing". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted there that I will be happy to participate. @Johnmcintyre1959 well done for turning to mediation. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Noahide Laws

I know you have an interest in this so see this proposal to remove repeated material. See the new section on the Talk Page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Seven_Laws_of_Noah Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed it, since the page is on my watchlist, but thanks for the post. I agree there is room for improvement. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Have replied there with a proposal for two edits. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Seven Laws of Noah page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sepphoris

User:Debresser, the guy had deleted the photo of the mosaic (from Sepphoris), and replaced it with a photo of a statue of the "virgin Mary," saying that simply because she was allegedly born in Sepphoris her photo (statue) should replace the photo of the mosaic. That is pure nonsense!Davidbena (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And I think it makes perfect sense. Not that I mind having the mosaic as well. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that the photo of a statue belongs in the article, at least it should not be put in the lead, as if it were important.Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am fine with it being moved elsewhere in the article. That seems more appropriate, yes. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Palestinian stone-throwing, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Palestinian stone-throwing, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Really?

This edit-summary is an insult, a weak one, but an insult none-the-less. It's not likely to get the kindest response from me or anyone. Essentially calling me an idiot is likely to get your ass crawled in. But being 4 days (3 in Australia) from Christmas, I'll take the high road.

Your original edit switched templates, but what is on the page remained the same. Both templates generate "This list is complete and up-to-date as of ". All you did was remove the day because it was "too vague". You haven't changed anything on the page but the removal of the day. The change is unnecessary and the lack of the day is itself vague. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The difference is not in the text that the template generates, but in the categories. Adding a day, ruins the categorization. That is the fact that you apparently are not aware of regarding maintenance templates. If you want to see that as an insult, or read into that that I consider you an idiot, then be my guest. Debresser (talk)

If a day ruins the categorization, then fix the categorization. Don't mess with thousands of pages because of one categorization code. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There are over 100 maintenance templates, and all that use dated categorization use only month and year, no day. Those templates tag millions or articles. And you complain about the around 450 articles that used this template with a date?! See what I mean, you don't know how the maintenance templates work! Debresser (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Again with the insult. But still, you are doing this the hard way. Instead of fixing the code on those 100 or so maintenance templates, you are changing the templates on millions of articles. See the problem here? You fix millions instead of fixing 100+. Fix the date code and give your mouse a break. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you really stupid, or just pretending? All those millions of transclusions work with month and year only, no day. The only ones that had a day parameter are the 450 I fixed. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop the personal attacks, right now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you? You didn't "fix" 450 of them, only 52. Of those 52, they had remained that way for several years with no issue. So why the change now?

Since MSGJ said it, I'm going to as well but with more force, violate NPA again, and I'll report you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I foxed about 480 of them, you can check this in my contributions, which, it seems, you also don't know how to use.

As to your threat of persuing the WP:NPA issue. Please note that you posted on my talkpage, with statements that clearly show your ignorance regarding Misplaced Pages workings. Stating so much is 1. not an attack 2. within the leeway an editor has on their talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't know how to stop yourself, do you? You apparently have been so caught up in insulting me, you have forgotten what we are talking about. We are talking about the "List of radio stations in " pages. I could care less about the others. Of those, you "fixed" 52. Get it now? From now on, please stay with the conversation instead of thinking of new and interesting ways to insult people. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to get the templates to ignore the day in a date if given. And it might be one edit to the meta-template rather than having to edit 100s of individual templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess you want to open a theoretical discussion, MSGJ? Are you still stalking my talkpage? :)

That is correct, however, none of the templates I know (doesn't include updates implemented after switching to LUA) does that. Nor do instructions on maintenance templates documentation pages say to use a day parameter, just month and year. The only exception, and that for a reason, is {{As of}}, as far as I can remember. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, not sure how easy it would be. In any case, I don't think it is a good idea to ignore code. Better not have it. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think if an editor adds a parameter which is correct (even if unnecessarily specific) then ideally the template should function properly and not produce an error. Even if it is a rare occurrence, if we can fix it we probably should. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a fundamental change to all maintenance templates, which should be discussed at a broad forum. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting tags

Someone can't leave well enough alone. See this, repeated 50 times. I've taken the liberty of restoring the tags. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Calton, remember, you were ordered to stay away from me just as I was ordered to stay away from you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, your efforts to get out from under this tag, will get you blocked. let me warn you that your edits are becoming disruptive. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have the same problem with this edit. Please notice that that as well, is a completely normal edit, and you are disrupting the works of this project. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

One, don't threaten me. Two, myself and another user have tried to work with you on this matter and you are stonewalling, verging on OWN'ing. You believe that reverting and insults are going to get you anywhere, it isn't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not threatening you. Again, this is your attitude, to see everything as an insult or thread. I was giving you a legitimate warning.

If I am stonewalling you, it is because there is a way things are done, and your refusal to go that way, not because of any personal motives. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

When an admin says you are are being "assholish", perhaps it's you. You are also stonewalling Rich Farmbrough as well. So, maybe it's your attitude and not mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Then let it be our first agreement, to agree to disagree. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, please notice, that I am replying to both you and Rich with arguments. Unlike you. Also note, that Anomie has agreed with some of my arguments. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I thought (as did Mlaffs) that removing the template (which only dated the pages) was a good move. It kept the same information on the page and made everyone happy. Made Mlaffs happy, made me happy, apparently didn't make you (or Calton) happy. So it wasn't a template, who cares. It was the same info. So, why is that a problem? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy Anointing Oil

I am very surprised that a man of your intelligence and superb work has made the reversions you have made. I will list my rebuttal:

1. CALAMUS. This article has been stalked by a cult of drug heads for over a decade. There is a group called the THC Ministry (http://www.thc-ministry.org/). They zealously promote the teaching that the calamus in the Holy Anointing Oil was cannabis/marijuana (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040815.htm). They continue to make changes to the article concerning calamus. On other sites they claim Moshe, Aaron and the priests were stoned, that Christ and his disciples were stoners, etc. One of them made a recent edit which was removed. It said, “The identification with Cannabis is the most possible explanation from a pharmacological perspective, as it is the only plant of the three usually mentioned canditates (sic) for 'kaneh bosem', that could also scientifically account for all the biblical healing wonders without any need for spiritual explantations (Placebo) for the claimed healings.”

I first discovered this article while researching for a book I was writing on the Holy Anointing Oil. This article was a stub which focused on the marijuana factor. I made changes and had to battle these guys for a long time. I suggest you look back in the History and read the Talk section. That marijuana was in the oil is a fringe theory. The mainstream is calamus. Most all of the Bible translations translate וּקְנֵה־ בֹ֖שֶׂם as “sweet calamus,” “sweet cane,” or “sweet reed.” Sula Bennet suggested cannabis which the fringe group grabbed hold of and ran.

The introductory ingredients list of the HaMishchah features the most widely accepted translations of those ingredients as “Myrrh, cassia, kaneh bosem and cinnamon.” Do you notice anything peculiar about this list? Only ONE has the untranslated name while all the others are in English. This is NOT consistent. Only ONE redirects to an alternate theory section. All the others redirect to an article bearing the English name.

Of the ingredients listed only ONE provides alternative theories. For example Myrrh is simply listed as "myrrh" and not as every substance every translator believes may have been the myrrh referred to here. Myrrh is believed by some to have been labdanum, some believe it was a musk from living deer, others believe it to oppobalsamum, some believe it to was commiphora myrrha while others believe it was oppoponax. If we were to include every substance thought to be the myrrh, cassia, etc. there would be no room in the beginning of this article and much confusion. There is room in the rest of the article to discuss alternate theories. In all fairness I added the Cannabis section for all the THC enthusiasts who feel calamus is cannabis.

2. CONTINUITY. I wrote 95% of this article. I added the Continuity section for those who believe in the continuity factor of the anointing oil. WHY would the “Christianity” addition concerning healing and having NOTHING to do whatsoever with continuity be in that section? It is stupid and out of place. Thats what this section is all about—continuity. If there needs to be a Rabbinical section and a Christian section, then it should be created. DON'T put it in the Continuity section if it does not specifically deal with continuity.

3. WHO. The first sentence in that sections says, “Some believe in the continuity factor relative to the holy anointing oil. The last sentence tells you WHO believes this and provides references: “The continuity factor relative to the holy anointing oil can be found in rabbinical judaism, in the Armenian Church, in the Assyrian Church of the East in the Coptic Church, in the Nazrani and Saint Thomas churches, and others.” So why was “who” put in there in the first place? Why was it deleted when I pointed to “who” by inserting “(see below).”

I hate to see this article overtaken by potheads but I am not going to quibble. I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Please give me a day to look into this carefully. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this article before I was too Wiki-wise about encyclopedic-type articles. After the holidays I am going to overhaul this article and trim it down significantly. I will keep in touch with you before making major changes. The continuity section NEEDS to be there, but as is it is overpowering the article. That section needs to be reduced and the other section expanded. Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

As promised above, due to your continued insults, I have addressed your behavior at ANI. You can find that thread here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.

The speed with which your complaint was closed, should be an indication of how much you are taking things out of proportion. I do not think I insulted you at all, just told you things you deserve to hear, in the hope that you will understand that you should be careful in areas you are not competent in. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)