Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 6 October 2013

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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 8000 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)

No 11, perhaps: http://www.rtl.nl/experience/rtlnl/ -- ElComandanteChe 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes! You're awesome. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 5 June 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)

No 2, perhaps http://getsatisfaction.com/. No 17, perhaps http://findicons.com/icon/86707/upload?id=407737. No 20, perhaps http://www.bagruyot.com/emek.php. (all from google search) benzband (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC) _{Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply}

I am sure that that is #20. I found that one myself as well, but there is no website using this image as a favicon... Debresser (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "My 'orphan' favicons" link is broken. Unfortunately. I've recently been browsing —and playing with— some of the icons on Commons. Was looking forward to seeing your collection

Debresser.
p.s. Here's an icon I made recently: , & another version:

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And what is the website address? Debresser (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I made them to use around the Misplaced Pages:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop specifically for this template. Some of my brain storming is here. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:26, 9 June 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 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e

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)

Mind you, it says "TUSC verification failed" on one page, and "Attention : you are already verified!" on another. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing name of Jewish ethnic devisions article

Hi :-) I started a vote on the talking page regarding changing the name to Jewish ethnic sub-divisions. I saw that you showed interest in an idea so I'm inviting you to take part in it! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I replied there. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See discussion here

http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Infobox_Jews#Related_ethnic_groups

I'm not sure why you think Hebrew is a modern language, because the Hebrews all spoke it before the diaspora happened.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer187 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That is easy to explain. Because Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are not the same language. Just saying "Hebrew", which is a redirect to Hebrew language, is ambiguous. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Purim Torah," and suchlike.

1. תודה רבה.
2. מזל טוב on your wedding!
3. Given #1 above, I don't want this to sound unappreciative. Still, concerning commas, quotation marks, and WP:MOS: Someone brought that to my attention earlier today. Notwithstanding what it says in the MOS, I didn't—and don't—see true consensus on the subject in any of the archived discussions. I learned "American" (or TQ) in school, and "British" (or LQ) just looks wrong to me. So I don't do it. Frankly, even if I committed to using LQ (and I'm not), I'd probably forget, as TQ is too ingrained in my habits. So if you, or DocWatson42 (talk · contribs), or anyone else, want to make those changes in my work, go ahead. To quote someone I respect a lot, Kol HaKavod. But I just don't think it's worth the time or effort. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)

I did see a consensus opinion in wp:mos, that punctuation has to be logical. If the quotation is itself a sentence, then have the punctuation inside the quotation marks, and if it is only a word or a few words, then have the punctuation outside of the quotation marks. When I see an edit that do not do this, especially if the rest of the article does keep this rule, I usually change it, and that is not much of an effort. If I have something else I want to change or add, then for sure I do punctuation too. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As I say, I won't argue the point. My view of the history, including archived discussions on it, goes like this: Early on, some consensus developed in the direction of LQ. Recent efforts to change that have not achieved sufficient consensus to do so. So if that constitutes a "consensus opinion," so be it. However, the same recent efforts to change that have also shown substantial opposition to LQ as a required standard. So the way I see it, it's not so clear there is truly a consensus.

Separately, I'm going to ypnypn (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I know s/he feels strongly about Shabbat as תחילה למקראי קודש, and I can't argue that s/he isn't halachically right. But the idea of the weekly Shabbat as holier than the annual Yom Kippur is a complex one, and in some respects it's not even true. (For example, Israel becomes like the angels, etc., etc.) So I'm going to ask him/her to cool that. (S/he did it on the page Yom Kippur, too, and I'm going to partially reverse that edit.)

StevenJ81 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did that an hour ago. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One more note/question: I thought about adding a sentence about safek walled cities in the Shushan Purim paragraph. I didn't, because I thought it was too much detail for the survey article. You did, of course, and you're not wrong on content. But I'd still ask: is this too much detail for this survey article, since the subject of these safek walled cities is addressed in the Purim article itself? I've been trying not to add too much fine detail to the Jewish holidays survey article, because I don't think that's its purpose. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My edit doesn't give a reason, just states the fact in short. IMHO that should be ok. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Result of your 3RR complaint

Debresser, please see WP:AN3#User:194.146.213.16 reported by User:Debresser (Result: Both warned). I've warned both you and the IP not to revert again until you've gotten others' opinions on the adequacy of the sourcing. A reasonable place would be WP:RS/N. If you have access to the newspaper Yated Ne'eman (English edition) for August 18, 1989 it would strengthen your case. That is where the author of the article in Printing the Talmud says he got the information about the other rabbis banning Steinsaltz's work. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look right now. Thank you for reviewing the case, and for dropping me a notice here. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am in definite agreement with you regarding the IP's incredible rudeness. However he/she has raised some serious policy issues which I think need to be examined on their merits. That's why I have removed the controversial sentence from the references that seem quite weak and in compliance with EdJohnston's decision. I am in no way opposed to restoring the sentences in question if we can establish the museum piece as a reliable source, but as it stands now that looks extremely weak.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a note. So not a hothead after all. :) I replied to your post on the talkpage, arguing why I think these issues aren't issues. I have considered the IP's arguments, of course, as soon as they were made, but I don't think they are a problem. Meet you on the talkpage! Debresser (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have again reverted the edits in question since, the more I read of the 'Printing the Talmud' website, the more obvious it becomes that the writer simply copies snippets of information from other unverified sources. Additionally, some of what he writes in the the pages before the Steinsaltz section is incredibly ignorant and obviously wrong. If we can find multiple reliable sources attesting to the 'facts' he has invented, by all means the information should be restored. That, however, has not yet occurred and it might be taken to defame Rav Steinsaltz in its present form.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Claims Jews are not an ethnic group

Hi! I went on the Germans page and saw that on the collage they put Einstein and Marx, who were obviously not German. I opened a discussion on the topic on the talk page, and I got a bunch of Germans saying Jews are not an ethnic group but a religion. Could you join the discussion and help explain them that Jews are an ethnic group and Einstein (who identified as a Jew) and Marx are Jewish.

I guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I know of Black, Asian, South Asian who identify as Jewish because they follow the Jewish faith, but certainly don't identify as as Jewish ethnicity :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What's so hard about this? Anyone look up ethnoreligious group? StevenJ81 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@BWilkins The religion and the ethnicity go together. Even converts over a few generations become part of the ethnicity. And those who only identify with the ethnicity over the time lose even that. It is a dynamic process, but in the end, only the combination of the two is what constitutes the Jewish people. But yes, for a few generations, there are those who would identify with one and not the other. Over the length of the existence of the Jewish people, that is a pebble in the sky. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact these Black, Asian, South Asian BWilkins mentioned are most likely converts and not born Jews.--Gilisa (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Or their descendants, yes. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments in TfD closure

Closing this TfD as "keep" is obviously the correct way to read the discussion. But inserting your own personal opinions on the topic in the guise of a closure statement is completely inappropriate. If you have a view on the issues raised in the TfD you should have addressed those in the TfD proper instead airing of your views and then immediately closing the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No sir, it is customary for closing editors to explain their rationale. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You went way beyond explaining your rationale. If you can't separate your personal opinions from the job of interpreting consensus then you shouldn't be closing discussions. You're welcome to participate in discussions but if you're going to do so then you can't also claim to be a neutral judge of group consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps stop telling me what is inappropriate and what I can't do? A discussion is not a vote, and I am at will to lend weight to certain arguments. And I explained my reasoning in my closing commentary. I understand you would have wished for another outcome, but that is no reason to start teaching me morales. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rabbi Meir Baal Haness

I never heard of an organization called Rabbi Meir Baal Haneis Salant that existed during the times of the old Yishuv. Do you know anything about this organization?--Research36 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, never heard of it. But I definitely know about the famous Colel Chabad, probably the oldest charity in Israel active till the present day and on a large scale. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warrior = possible double account

Hi Debresser--please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.D8.A8.DB.8C.DA.A9.D8.A7.D8.B1_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_Final_warning.29 (hope this link comes across properly). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The link is okay, yes. I'll have a look right away. Thanks for the post. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category reply

The series' plot is based partly on the Anabasis, so I felt it appropriate. Eladynnus (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

·Add§hore· 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

See the spaces in the header and after it?

See? Debresser (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Chabad

Hello Debresser,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Chabad&oldid=538910617

You missed the opportunity to place a space between the "Chabad" and "footer"! Oh well...

I'd say a reason for renaming the template simply "Chabad" is that there seem to be far many more footer/navbox templates that don't include "footer" or "navbox" in their names than those that do. Perhaps that's because the footer/navbox is taken (knowingly or not) as the default kind of navigational template..?

Best wishes,
CsDix (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I considered adding the space. Done now. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case I think the sidebar is the more popular one, and it definitely is more visible and looks better. Debresser (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page

Hi,

Your input would be appreciated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elazar_Shach#Works

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Elazar Shach, you may be blocked from editing. I shouldn't have to template you, but given that you've already been blocked in the past for refactoring the talkpage comments of others, I think it important to try to get your attention to the fact that doing it again just now may not be the best idea. I understand discourse may be emotional. But that's not appropriate; certainly not with the reason that you gave. Epeefleche (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

When have I been warned for this previously? Must have been a long time ago. In any case, see this edit and the edit summary "removed personal attack + whining unrelated to article improvement". This is precisely what I did. Please explain if you disagree. And indeed, it would have been more polite to write me, then to template me. I should trout you. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

More than warned. As I said, you were blocked for it. At 20:36 on August 23, 2011, by Fastily, for 31 hours. You can find your block record here, if you don't know where it is. And no -- if you think that after having been blocked for refactoring, you should trout someone who is trying to get your attention before you are blocked for engaging in the same precise behavior again, they you are somewhat wrong-headed in your thinking. Recidivist disruptive behavior is a special concern of sysops, and I'm helping you by alerting you before you get blocked again. As to your refactoring, it was materially different, as you can see here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This was indeed a long time ago. In any case, I suggest to remove IZAK's comment, or at least half of it. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Debresser

About your edits Kupath Rabbi Meir Baal Haness

First edit: Your request to provide a source for this paragraph “The offices of Kupath Ramban are flooded with requests for help.” is absurd. However I suggested deleting the entire paragraph. You preferred not to delete it, but leave the quotation request.

Your second edit: You deleted this paragraph “Rabbi Chaskel Besser, served as a member of Kupath Rabbi Meir Baal Haness America's Presidium“ on the grounds that the information is not relevant

Quote The line mentioning that a Mr. Besser was a member of the presidium of America's Kupah is utterly irrelevant. …In addition it is unsourced. But let me make clear that even if this were perfectly sourced, it would still not be worthy of mention in this encyclopedic article End quote

1. The Name of an org's president is relevant information. 2. I have provided a source when I added the paragraph. 3. And FYI Rabbi Besser was the President of the Kupah, only in his later years he became part of the Honorary Presidium.

Your edits makes me wonder about your intentions. Please do not undo my edits again, so I don't need to file a complaint. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy1w2 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC) --Sandy1w2 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you feel you need to "file a complain", go ahead! I know my edits are in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and yours are not. So I don't mind somebody else telling you the same thing.

1. Your whole "argument" is your statement (!) that my request for a source is "absurd". Proof by assertion will not be accepted on Misplaced Pages.
2. The text you add is that he was a "member of the presidium". That is not relevant. If you could show that he is president, that would be relevant. That he was president and now is "part of the Honorary Presidium" is not relevant. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, Mr. Debresser. Sorry, I apologize for getting you aggravated (please understand that I am aggravated as well) lets both try to communicate better, so we can enjoy working together.

Let's get back to our subject. For Rabbi Besser check this source and let me know if it's sufficient. About the “citation needed”. Do you want to keep the paragraph with the tag, or you want to delete both? Waiting for your response.--Sandy1w2 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As to your second question. I think that the information in that paragraph is relevant, so I'd prefer to keep it. But since it is a rather large claim, it has to be sourced. So if you can source it, all the better, but if not, we need a "Citation needed" tag. Removing the paragraph is of course a valid alternative in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines, but I'd regret the loss of that relevant information. I am sure you agree with me at least on that account. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As to the first question. That is quite a poor source: the names of the people who signed an obit. But in any case, the point is as above: if he is presently president, that would likely be notable. If he was president and the more so if he was only one of the people of the presidium, then that is usually not notable. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A Serious Man style

Shouldn't an American film use American style? I thought that was the general method but I don't keep up on these things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It should in spelling and dateformats. For punctuation the rule is that we use "logical" punctuation. See MOS:LQ#LQ. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Happy to have a good and ready answer to a fair question. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Birthright

How can you just say it's vague? Explain what is vague. I edited it to explain what was meant since the first time you said it was unclear. If you think it is vague, why not add stuff rather than remove the whole thing? This is highly unethical behavior. I am not going to be intimidated by your calling the paragraph vague and telling me not to undo it. Unless you start making a substantial critique, I am going to lengthen the paragraph to flesh out the points even further because otherwise it is UNCLEAR TO ME what exactly it is you think is good for Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit started with "Undid edit by Debresser". Therefore I hadn't noticed that you added text. I apologize. Your last edit was indeed better. For a more specific question, see your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages automatically put that there because I clicked undo and then began editing from there. I answered your question on my talk page. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that is the way undo's work. I am happy we have started a discussion, and have replied there. Then I copied the discussion onto the talkpage, to make things transparent and to receive input from other editors. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Birthright Israel

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Birthright Israel .

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Birthright Israel or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. No need to template me. Especially since you should have noticed that we started a discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

minor vent

I hope you recall my belief in using consensus by compromise a long time back on Judaism. The ability of those disparate editors to accept compromise was fairly good -- but now I (mistakingly) tried to help in finding a compromise for the lead of United States at DR/N and ended up with the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a whoopee cushion <g>. How does one explain to people that the lead is not required to delve into every permutation of opinion in an absolutely perfect manner, but is intended to help a reader figure out what the article is about? I am afraid I do not understand what is going on ... Anyways, sorry to vent here, but I figured you would at least have an idea where I was coming from. <g> Oh -- and my very best wishes in this great holy season! Collect (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit war on Birthright Armenia

Hello Debresser, please see the result of your edit warring complaint at WP:AN3#User:G0h4r reported by User:Debresser (Result: No action). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do so forthwith. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate the cleanup, didn't mean to pull out the other two, just the dead merge discussion... (Which will, undoubtedly, be restarted shortly, given it's just finished. ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for replying. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse" regarding Rabbi Elazar Shach

Hi,

Just wanted to know if you have anything to add/respond to the discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lag BaOmer

Hi, I don't know what to make of your comment on my talk page. An IP noted on the Lag BaOmer talk page that the first mention of Lag BaOmer might have been later than the Talmud and Midrash, so I did a bit of online research and came up with enough refs to show that it's true, Lag BaOmer was only mentioned for the first time in the 13th century. I tried to stick to traditional sources, but I also came across a lot of information about the Lag BaOmer-Bar Kokhba revolt link at the Jewish Virtual Library. I'm sorry you think I did too much to the page; perhaps we can discuss paragraph-by-paragraph what exactly you don't like? As it's getting late for me, I won't be doing any more edits tonight. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, for what it's worth, Yoninah did not just "waltz in"; she has been working on the article for quite a long while--longer than I have. BTW, I've never seen a source earlier than medieval, either. I tried to find one when I updated the Lag B'Omer section of Jewish holidays, but couldn't. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Lag BaOmer is not mentioned in the Talmud. By "waltzing in" I meant that he (or she, as you say) made a series of more than 10 edits, some major, with significant changes to the text. I'll be happy to see Yoninah take it slow and/or discuss major edits before hand. The subject of no Talmudic sources I already agree with. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy with Yoninah undoing my revert. That is not WP:BRD. Especially since the edits were NOT all sourced, as he claims. Now I had to make some 10 edits, just to remove his inaccuracies. This is not the way things should be on Misplaced Pages. I had 1 hour to be with my family, who are al home because of this very same Lag BaOmer, and now I had to spend this time on fixing every wrong thing that Yoninah wrote. That is why there is a revert button, damned! May be I made the wrong choice, but Yoninah should not have undone my revert of his edits like that! Debresser (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor on Misplaced Pages is "he", as far as I am concerned. It makes absolutely no difference if he is he, she, gay, lesbian or transsexual. If an editor would like to be addressed as "she", he/she should write me so, and I'll make a considerable effort and shall try to do so. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page

Regarding your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=553061965&oldid=552963784

This was already discussed at length here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_147#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Fladriff already concluded that it's reliable. If you have a problem, raise it on that page. Thanks. Yonoson3 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not reading the edit summary. The problem is not the source. The problem is the info itself. If you have a look at the talkpage, you'll see that there is consensus that the info I removed can not be true. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

All I see there is an anonymous I.P. editor saying that the info is, in his words, "not believable". Don't see any consensus that the info is not true. This issue was discussed at length here. Fladriff concluded there: "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board." Sounds pretty clear. Reliable source, so it belongs in the article... Yonoson3 (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a Religious Zionist, I fear to tread here. Still, Yonoson, with all due respect: Have you ever taken a course in formal logic? Any statement that "All A are B" can be refuted by a single example of "A is not B". See Haredim and Zionism: Clearly there have always been some haredi leaders that support the State of Israel, and at very least those rabbonim would never compare joining Zahal to committing murder, idolatry or gilui arayot, which is what that quote is indirectly saying. The source may well be a reliable source, and Johns Hopkins a reliable publisher. That does not mean that the authors necessarily meant that phrase absolutely literally. In fact, if in context the author did not intend to go off on the subject of which haredi rabbis disagreed, that would perhaps even have been a reasonable simplification. But literally true? If you insist on the sentence staying there, I think you must attribute it as the opinion (or at least the words) of the author. StevenJ81 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Yonoson, but the reliability of the source is not enough when a statement is so obviously exaggerated. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ashkenazi Jews". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I went there and posted. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halakha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Serge Gainsbourg

Hi Debresser. I'm writing this message to you because of your reverts on my edits about the category "Russian Jews" in the article about Serge Gainsbourg. The main problem that appears in this case is the understanding of the whole concept beyond the Russian Jews. Unlike many other ethnic groups or nationalities that are purely based on the region where the person was born or his or her predecessors historically lived, the "Russian Jews" represent an ethnolinguistic group of Jews with Russian being their native language. You can check the article about the Russian Jews to note that this includes not only the Jews that live in what nowadays is called Russia, but as well Jews that use Russian as their native language regardless of the territory of their residence. It mostly refers to the Jews from the territory of the Russian Empire, but in recent times many other Jews that populate many other parts of the world. One may say that it is so simple and you can refer to the Jews from Ukraine as "Ukrainian Jews" or to the Jews from Belarus as "Belarusian Jews", but these two designations broke the concept of the Russian Jews and tend to follow most of the other definitions about the ethnic groups, such as those about the English people, the Dutch people, or the French people. But even if we agree on the usage of "Ukrainian Jews" or "Belarusian Jews", then it doesn't restrict the usage of "Russian Jews" simply because the Jews that inhabit or descend from the territories that are now parts of Belarus or Ukraine use or used Russian as their native language. Similarly, Serge Gainsbourg is a Russian Jew from a territory that is now part of Ukraine because the language that was used in his family was Russian and the territory was once part of the Russian Empire. There are many other Russian Jews that have no association with Russia, such as Vilna Gaon, Léon Bakst or Isaac Levitan. Finally, the people are called "Russian Jews" because of the language and their historical homeland, not because of Russia today. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You convinced me. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Move template over redirect

Some time ago, Rich Farmbrough moved EngvarB to {{Use British English}}. I didn't object to it at the time as it seemed eminently sensible. However, as I broadened coverage of the script action, I have been experiencing increasing frequency of complaints such as this and this from 'nationalists' (used advisedly) because the tagging does not conform to their code of English. I'd like to have this template move reverted, but before I start the process, I'd like you advice as to how I might execute a potential merger of these templates (except Canadian and American), and what other factors I may need to consider. As I wrote the script offering only 'vanilla' British English and have no intention of creating more variants to cater for the different codes, it would be ideal if I could bring all these tagged articles back to a single repository, but with different tags tolerated, so they can be maintained centrally. Regards, -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 03:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for posting here. I personally am of the opinion that those complaints were correct. We should use the more specific tags where possible. Therefore, where an article regards Australia we should use {{Use Australian English}}, where South Africa {{Use South African English}}, etc. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, I feel it is better to change the documentation of Template:Use British English. That template should not include all the other varieties of "Australian English, Indian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, Pakistani English, Singapore English, South African English" as the documentation currently says. Debresser (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand and I'm actually fine with that, and I am merely thinking along the lines of the common spellings 'controlled' by the Engvar script I created and maintain.. The script has a basic vocabulary set that are words common to the abovementioned codes of English. It's not always practical for me to tag an article with the 'correct' English variety tag because it would weigh heavily on productivity (and because there is no difference between the codes' vocabularies vis à vis the script). I was thinking along the lines of henceforth using the {{EngvarB}} as a 'generic' or umbrella tag in its own right and not one currently redirecting to {{use British English}}. Anyone could come along and make the tagging more precise if they wish. I would then regroup all the articles currently tagged with the various varieties under a new 'supercategory' without actually moving them, and any article with a EngvarB tag would remain in the super category until it is reclassified. By doing so, I would hope to avoid future complaints of nationalistic nature whilst continuing to maintain all the articles with a single script function in the simplest manner. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 13:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea (regarding the autonomous use of the EngVarB template). Debresser (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I get the total to update correctly in Template:EngvarB progress? this seems to be stuck at zero. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 02:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Still thinking about that. Please restore Category:Misplaced Pages maintenance categories sorted by month to the category pages where you added Category:EngvarB. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you probably guess I was experimenting with just two. I was heading off to reverse them but it seems you have already done it. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 13:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I didn't revert, i just added the old categories to the new one. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take part in a new discussion

Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:

"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ().

Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I added my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:New page/doc

Hi. I'm just wondering why you reverted the changes to this page, because you didn't leave an edit summary. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it said "Please update this template to reflect recent events or newly available information." which didn'tmake sense to me. Just now did the same on Template:Incomplete/doc. This seems like some drive-by tagging by IP users. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

An edit you made may have broken a reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=La_Femme_Nikita&oldid=556797040 removed a closing <noiwiki>"</ref>"</nowiki> tag, which I repaired and then got a less than well considered message on my talk page, because in other edits you seem to have refactored content in the article.

I'd like an explnation, as I don't appreciate getting messages of concern or telling me to read policies, when the relevant contribution in question was neither iniated or performed by myself.

Closing a reference tag, should not be controversial.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review the history of La Femme Nikita, and you will see that I reverted edits by User:AnEyeSpy only. And then please review your talkpage, to see that I never posted there till today. So what are you referring to? I of course am sorry that I forgot a closing ref tag, but it seems that you are complaining not just about that. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was the editor you reverted that complained , assuming apparently that I was somehow responsible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Which you weren't, as a matter of fact. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Read Wiki Policies & Guidelines

Nikita needs work. Comments inside text started before Talk page post, before problems added up to major, for editors who do not check Talk. Like you? That was the first time I tried inline comments, after seeing warnings in movie article where differences in endings and more in DVD extended versions had obviously caused contention, so inline comments prevented future trouble. Your massive "undo" was NOT helpful.

Please be constructive, not destructive. Fix a problem or leave for someone else. Removing comments and sources that can help other editors, does not remove a problem or the need for sources.

Wiki Policies and Guidelines are helpful, to refer, and remember. After another kind, helpful, senior editor gave link, I have word count tools and wiki style, format, and guidelines all bookmarked. Quotes and source follow.

• "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't."

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

"Instead of deleting text, consider:" a long list including

• "requesting a citation by adding the tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate"
• "adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself"

• I like the show. Nikita deserves better, best.

AnEyeSpy (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here. Actually, I think the article is not in bad shape. Yes, it can be improved upon, as can be all articles. Just tagging and adding comments and then say "don't remove them - do something about it!" is a little simplistic. Your tags and comments were making things worse, rather than helping. I think we can address some specific issues ourselves, without doing too much tagging. If you would want to discuss them, let's do so (here or on the talkpage). I am willing to help. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greeting... and relevance

Greetings Debresser. Just a quick note to let you know I agree with your reversion of my reversion over at Rape by gender. Mine was really just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the removal of content which had 3 pretty serious-looking references, but as you rightly point out, not relevant. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. It is always pleasant to know that the editor you reverted doesn't hold a grudge. And it really was out of place there. Even though in another article it would have been very well written and sourced. Wish you much success and pleasure in editing Misplaced Pages further. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus/Book of Esther

I added a brief section to the historicity of Esther, specifically regarding historical evaluation of Esther in light of Herodotus. The article which I cited questions the historical validity of Herodotus'work. This is relevant to the historicity of Esther because Herodotus' writings offer some conflicts with what is recorded in Esther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elantz73 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not clear enough, imho, but after making an effort, i now understand what you mean, so I will the text intact. I do think it should be explained more clearly, though. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about a recent edit

I'm curious as to why you made this change?

Also, how was "(Minor.)" as an edit summary supposed to convey this information to other editors?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Minor" described the character of the edit. I removed an unneeded external link from the middle of an article. Also, why translate a name?? Debresser (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you even bother to follow the link before deleting it? I'm assuming you did not, as it didn't lead to a translation of a name.

IMHO, something like "(removed link)" would have made a more straightforward/honest/informative edit summary. Perhaps "(removed in-line external link)" if one wanted to get technical/precise about it.

In the interest of providing information to readers—and facilitating a red wikilink's evolution into a blue one—I inserted a link to de.wikipedia.org's Sylvia Hoeks article via google translate. While certainly not an optimal solution, I figure it's more helpful to readers than nothing.

If you'd be willing to assist with a better solution (i.e. getting a "Sylvia Hoeks" article started on en.Misplaced Pages) I'll happily share research links that I've bookmarked. As she's red linked in a number of other articles as well, it seems it would be of benefit to the wiki. I was looking into doing such, but then got sidetracked doing work at the Photography workshop.

In the mean time, I'll go ahead and restore the link and place a quote from this thread on The_Best_Offer's talk page so others know 'what's up'.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramadan (calendar month), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima (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) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Undone edits

Hi! Why did you undo my edits in Template:Examples, Template:Elucidate and Template:Ambiguous? Did the cause any problem? By the way, please also provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field in the future, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. —Kri (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason is usually (to the best of my knowledge always) kept hidden, visible only when editing the source. We do not want every reason to be there in the open. That is why there are standard formulas. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Well, maybe it can be considered undesirable to have the reason displayed as a mouse-over text when reading the article. However, that is the case for a few other templates, like {{Citation needed}}, {{Cite quote}} and {{Clarify}} (for which the source have been locked), so my edits were an attempt to make this kind of templates more uniform. —Kri (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I though that would be the text displayed. You remind me that it is only mouse-over text. I'll undo my reverts. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Chabad messianism

I repeat Kri's request above: Please provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. When I undid your revision, I provided my reason: To match source. So please explain why you disagree. I'm also not so sure about this capitalization business, which is why I recommend following the source. In an article about a doctor, for instance, would you also capitalize the Doctor each time he's mentioned? -- -- -- 21:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What edit didn't have an editsummary in Chabad messianism? The word "Rebbe" should always be capitalized as per Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people. In this regard it does not matter if the source followed Misplaced Pages rules or not (except when that is possibly on purpose). Debresser (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I didn't say that there was no edit-summary. Although you did provide an edit-summary, you only wrote what you did, but not why; which is why I had to go and ask on your talk page. I do appreciate the answer you gave me here.
2. I think that in this case, since the source is quoted within quotation marks, we should change it from "the Rebbe" to "the ebbe". Would you agree? -- -- -- 20:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (Fri. 4:56PM local time)

I understand your point, but imho that is not necessary here. The difference is so minor. And "the ebbe" doesn't really make it clear that there wasn't a capital in the original. I think leaving it the way it is now is the easiest way out. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

OK for now.

By the way, please excuse me for giving you musar, but perhaps now in honor of Elul and the upcoming High Holy Days, it would be a good idea to remove that last Babel-userbox of yours, once and for all,

ובזכות זה תזכה לכתיבה וחתימה טובה און אסאך חסידיש נחת פון חנה שתחיה

-- -- -- 02:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jewish holidays; Shemini Atzeret

Jewish holidays

I take your point (mostly) re Rosh Hashanah and Reform Judaism. It turns out not to be particular to North American Reform, but goes back to the early founders of Reform in Germany in the 1840s. On the other hand, the article does not discuss this issue explicitly with respect to any other holiday; instead, it covers it briefly in the section on Yom Tov Sheni. So my solution is to add two sources that cover the whole issue, to address the whole matter in the Yom Tov Sheni section, and to leave it out of the Rosh Hashanah section entirely.

I saw your edit, and agree with your solution.

I did need to edit out half of a reference that you left in the Rosh Hashanah section. None of us are perfect, of course. But I mention this because I thought your edit summary about "as usual, spacing and punctuation" was a little snarky. We've worked well here over time, and I didn't see a need for that. And forgive me for learning as a schoolchild that commas and periods always go inside quotes, and that periods get two spaces after them. MoS deprecates the first and is indifferent to the second, but you didn't need to be snarky about it.

We have, and I didn't mean it snarky, just matter-of-factly. Sorry, if I offended you. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem settled and done. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret

I was thinking of putting this up for GA. Do you think it is missing any important content?

• It has Ashkenazic pronunciation, but not Sephardic/common Israeli.
• "In Israel, as well as in Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism" I wouldn't mention Reform etc. in the lead, or at least Israel and they should be mentioned separately, somehow.
• "This dual nature" should be sourced, or removed as original research.
• "Observances and Custom" should be "Observances and custom", as wp:mos doesn't allow a second capital in headers.
• I'd remove the commentary of the Vilna Gaon.

Will look further after 9 Av. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks on both matters. Have an meaningful, but not-too-difficult, fast. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and you too. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Copying discussion to Talk:Shemini Atzeret#Aiming for GA, which will be a more appropriate place to resume after 9 Av. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go there. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

613 Commandments

Regarding , do you have a secondary reliable source to support this? I would venture that any secondary RS, even Catholic research into their Jewish heritage, better comports with WP:RS than the raw text of the Torah in English literal translation, which remains a primary source. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is a list of commandments, not of anything else. This commandment is very well explained as "Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dog". Because that is precisely what the commandment comprises! No need for metaphors, and in any case this article is not the right place for them. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, please review the source I cited before reverting my edit. And the article should translate metaphors into their intended meaning, to avoid obvious nonsense: If I barter my dog for another animal, said beast cannot be used as a sacrificial offering. Rather, "price of a dog", in the CSB translation, is a reference to the fees of male temple prostitutes, a practice which Moses regarded as an abomination. Judaism and Christianity generally continue their opposition to "sacred prostitution" to this day. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What you call "obvious nonsense" is what Jews consider to be the Will of God. If I change my dog for your cow, then that cow may not be brought as an offering to God. What do you find to be nonsense about that? Debresser (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, Misplaced Pages is written on the basis of WP:VER and WP:RS, not one's subjective perception of truth, even insofar as concerns the Will of God. I have supplied a secondary RS for my position: an explanatory footnote in an Oxford University Press publication of recent vintage. You are relying on a primary source: a quite literal translation of the Torah. Secondary RS > primary source. My version is superior in its conformity to Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. Q.E.D. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note no 559 describes the "price of a dog" as "apparently a euphemism for sodomy". Q.E.D.^2 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not relevant. This is the meaning, as expounded by Rashi, Ibn Ezra among others. Any source that wants to bring other non-literal meanings, is not relevant in the context of a list of commandments. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How is the actual intended meaning of the commandment not relevant? Your proposed "no interpreting metaphors, even when we have >= 2 RS" rule leads to absurd results. When the source says "Proposition 121 says it does Y, but I believe that it won't cut the mustard", do we write in the article about shearing (physics) and mustard (condiment)? And remember that's with no interpretive RS at all, but merely a common metaphor. For the commandment, the "price of a dog" metaphor is more obscure, but multiple RS tell us what this specific usage means in this specific context. What more evidence could we possibly need? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest: (a) leave literal meaning in place, adding Rashi and Ibn Ezra there as secondary sources, and (b) add footnote to DLE's preferred interpretation? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Good enough, iff Rashi and Ibn Ezra actually are correctly cited as secondary sources for Debresser's position. To be clear, <ref>Rashi</ref> doesn't count. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pray tell me why ref>Rashi ad locum/ref> would not be acceptable. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I do not think that a Christian book can be used to explain a commandment in Judaism, where it offers an interpretation that is not sanctioned by sources in Judaism. Not to mention that it deviates from the literal text, and I find it strange that you insist on adding this interpretation when it is so blatantly a deviation from the original Hebrew text. So no, this compromise will not work for me. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a "Jewish source" that says the same thing: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm item 559 Yet this you have ignored, and instead concentrated on my citation of "a Christian book". You can't use "Rashi ad locum" as a reference, because it's blatantly ambiguous. "Ad locum", as in, find it yourself, I won't tell you what the title, date of publication, or publisher are. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that I wouldn't use "ad locum" unless the verse were specified. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I only just now noticed the Jewfaq source. This source is not very reliable, and in this case might have your source or the likes of it as its source. I'll do some extensive search tomorrow among Jewish sources, and will post them here, obviously including any sources that would support the interpretation you mentioned, if such will be found. Debresser (talk)

Explanatory note just in case

I am not going to reply to the last post of this editor on the talkpage of 613 commandments. Not because I agree with him, but because I hope he will see that he is not correct. Unless he'd pursue his line of reasoning and make an edit accordingly. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My arguments? 1. practice is always as I stated, that the sources are not accompanied by publisher and date of publication. 2. the dispute involves some Christian source, which sources are themselves unclear, by the way, and Christian sources are irrelevant concerning the meaning of commandments in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Update 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, a bot pulled the RfC template. So I went ahead and archived the discussion as "closed without prejudice" along the lines of the discussion near the end. Keep me posted if you hear anything. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed. But thanks for the note. Will do. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DavidLeighEllis. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:613 commandments that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that was not very civil. But then again,you are an annoyingly arrogant editor. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You strive to please? :) Debresser (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish holidays (ethnic holidays)

I appreciate the post. I am confident you'll appreciate my reply there. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I did, and thanks. Will correspond over there on this issue hereafter. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the current version in the sandbox. If you're good I'll publish, and transfer the whole discussion from the talk page over as well. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Miła 18

Debresser, because what happened there on May 8 1943 is often called Masada of Warsaw or second Masada Boston9 (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not mentioned in any of the articles, so can not be linked. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence

Under the heading "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors" the policy quoted by User:Sean.hoyland states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule". Which means that his removing it was in accordance with the rules. But the policy also says that removing such edits is not mandatory, so if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it. But not in the form of a revert with an edit summary that is factually incorrect. Thomas.W 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit". Well, it's not really your edit is it, so I can't really consider it as such. It's the edit of a blocked (on both Spanish and English Misplaced Pages) racist ultranationalist who compulsively lies and unethically exploits a charity for ethno-nationalist reasons through extensive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. My concern is block/ban enforcement in ARBPIA, not the nature of the edits by people who are not allowed to edit. Blocks and bans have to be enforced and someone has to enforce them. If they can't be enforced there's really no point imposing them.

Here, by the way, are some quotes from the real world by the person whose block evasion you are, in my view, facilitating and encouraging by restoring their edit whether or not that is your intent. You can google him.

• lol "palestine" does not exist, never did and never will
• Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM ISRAEL WIN
• Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim.
• Down with Islamoapes

If you have any ideas how you can help make policy enforcement in ARBPIA more effective so that people evading their blocks can't profit from their lack of ethics and are not encouraged to continue evading their blocks by other editors, let me know. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both editors, for your posts. I will check his sources carefully, and if they are correct, I'll make the edit, not in the form of a revert. Of course that does not mean an endorsement of his real-life points of view from my side. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sources checked, and references improved. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the policy more carefully, I found that it says also "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor". So, Thomas.W, I was correct when I said that "That policy bans editors, not edits." And a little further that same policy said clearly "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." With my editsummary of "That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit" I did precisely that. So your revert of my edit was based on two misunderstanding of the policy. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, my revert was not based on a misunderstanding. You reverted User:Sean.hoylands removal of an edit made by a banned user with an edit summary that implied he was wrong in doing so. He wasn't, what Sean did was in fact in total accordance with the policy. Or in other words, he was right and you were wrong. Which I pointed out when I started this thread. At the same time I also wrote that removing edits made by banned users isn't mandatory, but that reinserting material removed in accordance with the policy should be done as a normal edit, made by you and with you taking full responsibility for it ("if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it"), and not as a revert with an edit summary claiming that you're simply correcting someone else's mistake. Meaning that your "more careful review" of the policy confirms what I wrote when I started this thread. So what's new? And why the message on my talk page telling me to self-revert something? Thomas.W 06:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your say my editsummary "implied" that he was wrong. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. You misunderstood. But don't apologize, if you feel you are right. Just know that you are wrong. In any case, it is in the past. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

All the best! Unforgettableid (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied there. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.zionism-israel.com

You might like to replace http://www.zionism-israel.com by a reliable source. That one fails WP:RS rather obviously. Zero 02:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should this be an unreliable source. See http://www.zionism-israel.com/about.htm that "Zionism & Israel Center is maintained by a group of volunteers" and "We try to maintain the highest standards of academic and journalistic integrity in our work."

But I'll move your comment to the talkpage, and we'll see. Debresser (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm honesty surprised by your question, and I answered on that talk page. Zero 10:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Gallery =Add nothing?

I do not agree about that that gallery did not add anything to the article. On the cortrary. Beside that it was a lot of work getting it together, it did gave a pretty good picture of the Mikveh in the past and now. I was attending a lecture about this subject at the university, and I have to say it was rather difficult for all of uss to picture how this mikveh lokked like. We asked a lot of quistions about it, and since I am not Jewis was still wandering how these places looked like, and what kind of mood they had an so on. I found ,loooking for these pictures that they seem to be secret places, dark and privat, and charming. Also shows the water to cover the entire body of capite ad calcem, the whole thing is fascinating and very interesting. I really would like to see more pictures in that article, just to be able to collect a general impression of it. Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There are ten large and beautiful pictures on that page already. I do not want to detract from your efforts, but I do not see the need for additional pictures at all on that page. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• That is of course very sad. You would have made a religion history student very happy if you would think it was OK, that, because I am not going to make a e-war over this.Hafspajen (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Missing information

My changes were discussed at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_12#Template:Missing. It was sitting in the holding cell for 2 months, so I decided to get started on it. Also, what was wrong with my error handling? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. Sorry then. A note on the talkpage would have been helpful. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Chabad Chasidim for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chabad Chasidim 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/Chabad Chasidim 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. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Rebbes of Chabad for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rebbes of Chabad 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/The Rebbes of Chabad 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. Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ohel (Chabad)

I just noticed that someone moved this page to Ohel Chabad Lubavitch and, in the first paragraph, linked Chabad as "Chabad Lubavitch". I tried to fix the new title by putting Chabad-Lubavitch in parentheses and hyphenating it, but now I'm wondering what's going on here. The main Chabad page has not been changed, nor have I seen any renaming discussions about changing "Chabad" to "Chabad Lubavitch". Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I added my own request for an explanation to yours on the talkpage of the editor who moved this page. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

שחזור העריכה שלי על ידך

ראיתי ששחזרת את העריכה שלי. חפשתי בדף שלך, ולא להפתעתי גיליתי שאתה חב"דניק. מכיון שלא רציתי לפתוח את זה בהערות על הערך, וכמו כן אני מעדיף להמנע ממלחמת עריכות בלתי פוסקת, אני כותב את זה כאן (כאמור, הסתכלתי בדף שלך וראיתי שאנחנו אמורים להסתדר די טוב עם דיון בעברית. לנהל אותו באנגלית יהיה קצת קשה, לפחות לי. עמך הסליחה). ברור לכל לומד מסכת סוכה או הלכות סוכה, כי בסוכה ישנן שתי מצוות - לאכול ולישון. מה שחב"דניקים עושים (או לא) בסוכה, זהו עניינם הפרטי, וייתכן שהוא ראוי לאזכור בגוף הערך. אתה מוזמן לערוך אותו באוות נפשך (גם מזה אני לא אהיה מרוצה, מן הסתם, אבל אין מה לעשות, ויקיפדיה לא שייכת לי). אני חושב שהגיוני להסכים שבחלק הראשי על הערך נרשום מה שמופיע בשו"ע, ושינויים אלו או אחרים מכך, לטב או למוטב, נציין בגוף הערך. מה דעתך? (בבקשה בבקשה בבקשה תוכיח לי שאתה שונה ממה שאני חושב על החב"דניקים.) חג שמח! איל דימנט (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not even going to read all of this. Please use English. In any case, your edit is factually wrong, and has been reverted again. For your benefit I added some additional explanation in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but in your user page you wrote you can contribute with an advanced level of hebrew, so i thought it will be OK. To the case in question, your prove is unacceptable (see, for example, the Tosfot on why not bless on sleeping in the sukka). BUT, because i really hesitating that this discussion won't lead us anywhere, i doing this: i will change the Mitsva to "living in sukka". this is the term of the Torah "בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים", "תשבו כעין תדורו", and it can be interpreted by both of the sides according to the interpretation in the real world following the Minhagim. Again, Chag Sameach! איל דימנט (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eyal. And welcome to my talkpage. I live in Israel and have a perfect Hebrew. I just prefer all posts to be in English, since this is the English Misplaced Pages. And also because the Hebrew font here is not so clear. I did of course read your post. :) Debresser (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons makes sense. It will be hard, but I'll try Bl"n. Comment (and the really main reason I'm writing here): my name is Ayal, not Eyal (there is difference between the meanings). איל דימנט (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please tell me what the difference is. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ayal is the animal (deer). Eyal is power. Look here (the hebrew wiktionary). איל דימנט (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew "ayal" and "ayil", but "eyal" not. I do remember Rashi saying that "ayil" is called such because of the word "strength", but I seem to remember he brings an example from "ele ha'aretz". Debresser (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dovid, mostly I am on a Wikibreak until after the chagim. However, איל דימנט is correct. One important point to consider is that in Eretz Yisrael, many/most people do sleep in their sukkot, while in many parts of Chutz they do not, because of cold nighttime temperatures. There is plenty of reason and historical precedent to allow that leniency concerning sleeping when the temperature is cold, but sleeping is really an important part of the mitzvah. I'd recommend that you allow "Living in the sukkah" to remain in place, per the reasoning of איל דימנט.

Moadim l'simcha! StevenJ81 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you StevenJ81. I am well aware of the differences between Chabad and non-Chabad, Eretz Yisroel and Chutz Lo'Oretz. Still, the main thing of the Succah, that unites all the different customs and locales, as well as the only thing that all poskim agree that one may and must say a blessing on is eating in the Succah. And I'd say meals in the Succah are also the easiest recognizable and best-know aspect of the festival even for those Jews who do not keep the commandments themselves. In any case, the first point is clear enough. Also, Eyal Dimant is changing a consensus version, and should have discussed this on the talkpage before his edit, or at least as soon as he was reverted. It is never good to change basic information without first asking the opinion of other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

StevenJ81, please write your things here. Thank you and Chag Sameach. איל דימנט (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Genocide"

Regarding Bar Kokhba revolt, please keep in mind that it's 2000 years old event while genocide is 20th century coined term for describing systematic destruction of groups driven by modern ideologies. There was no any Roman ideology for such systematic destruction, only an armed conflict in which Jews were shamefully defeated. No any difference between Roman campaigns in Gaul, Carthage and many other places, or hundreds of campaigns by other great powers. Such events may be described as massacres or ethnic cleansing, but surely not as "genocide". Describing Jewish ancient defeats as genocides is childish and unencyclopedic, and most important of all - not supported by reliable sources. Provided source is not strong enough, neither are tens in which you can find terms like "Palestinian genocide". Some sources desribe invasions by Gengis or Timur (millions killed just in Iran) also as "genocidal", but categorizing those articles under genocides still would be WP:FRINGE. So please don't take it very personal, baseless accusing really isn't necessary here. --HistorNE (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't personal. You remove a sourced category, you have explaining to do. And you are now warned, that if you do it again, you will again find yourself on WP:ANI, this time for edit-warring and removing sourced information. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see - no arguments, just threats. Very typical. To be honest, your threats are laughable more then your soldiers during revolt. :) --HistorNE (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Dos Yiddishe Vort Magazine Kislev 1977 page 25