Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:41, 2 March 2016

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

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)

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)

I reviewed the article again, and don't understand why you want to add the word "Continuity" to the section headers. Could you please explain that for me? Debresser (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

People don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "continuity." I think they get it mixed up with "incontinence" or something. They keep adding material that has nothing to do with continuity and it makes the article completely incomprehensible. They seem to think it means "The Holy Oil in Rabbinical Judaism" instead of the "continuity of the Holy Oil in Rabbinical Judaism" or "The Holy Oil in Christianity" instead of the "continuity of the Holy Oil in Christianity," etc. I wrote this a long time ago when still relatively new to Misplaced Pages and evidently did not make the point clear enough. It was too wordy and too detailed. There was not enough scholarly references and too many references to 'pop' theories. I think if this section is radically trimmed down and the rest of the article is expanded then it will be more understandable. The calamus debate is quite problematic and simply irritating. The ingredient list has kaneh bosm listed and it's translation beside it as "kaneh bosm" which is repetitive and redundant compared with the listing of the other ingredients. I overdid the section about stench in the section "In the Middle East." After the first of the year I will make an outline of changes and share them before making changes to the article. Shalom. CWatchman (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Looking forward. Debresser (talk) 06:06, 24 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)

Just between us

Reb Dovid, shalom. You have been around Misplaced Pages far longer than me, and for that reason alone you are entitled to the respect coming to you. I have noticed, too, that most of your edits here, on Misplaced Pages, are very constructive, and you seem to have a natural knack for detecting things that might be wrong and improper. For that, I say, yeshar koach! While we have had our disagreements, here and there, mostly, after explaining myself, you have allowed my edits to stand. However, in this recent case, where I posted a new article on the "Yom Tov," I was taken aback and surprised by your objection to the article, since we are both frum. I know that you know these laws, just as much as any one of us. So... I am here, my friend, to appeal to your good senses and to cordially ask of you to reconsider allowing the current article to stand. Of course, I would appreciate it if you could also help bring the article up-to-par, so that it will meet Misplaced Pages's standards. I think that, in essence, this is what we're here to do. I might add, by way of jest, that your name, Dovid, in gematria is 14; and my name, Dowid (note the Yemenite accent) has also the numerical value of 14. Together, they equal 28, which, in Hebrew, spells כח = "power." So, let us take our concerted power and make things work for the better here. Wishing you all the best, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Davidbena, first of all there is no "Just Between Us" on the wiki; if you really want private correspondence you have to go off-wiki. Second, I am also frum, and so are some of the other people who have responded on the subject of this article. The issue for us is not whether the content of the page you created is appropriate—it certainly is—but simply whether this subject needs a separate article in this encyclopedia. That is where we disagree. Understand the following general points:

• Nobody, but nobody, will look this up under "festival-days". That phrase is really limited to the older Mishnah and Gemara translations. That possibly makes the phrase worthy of a redirect, but not of an article itself.
• You could possibly justify this article under "Yom Tov", moving the other page to "Yom Tov (disambiguation)." If the article survives, it has to go under that name.
• Really, the content of the article can be included within Jewish holidays and Melacha without any problem. We do not necessarily see the need for an entire independent article on the topic.
• That said, if two other people support your point of view without your having canvassed them, I will personally change my !vote from delete to neutral. I really don't think you need a separate article, but I don't think it's a terrible thing to do, either, provided the name is a useful one. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81, shalom. Your words are well-taken. So, if there's a problem with "style" or "language" (i.e. "Festival-day"), then let us change the title to "Yom-Tov." As for including the content of the article within Jewish holidays and Melacha, this would, in my humble opinion, seriously distract from the topic, and limit its scope. It's like saying delete the article, Muktzeh, and incorporate it within the Sabbath day article. It seriously takes away from both. As for the people that I personally wrote, asking for their opinion, so-far only one person has answered, and her vote was negative. Would you like me to give a list of the names of the people whom I asked to make a statement? If so, I'll gladly give those names to you.Davidbena (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Dowid, shalom alekha. You need not do that at present; I'm aware of which respondent that was. If you garner more support, I may ask later.

I've made some edits to Jewish holidays to try to incorporate your ideas. Understand that in that context, one must acknowledge that Yom Kippur is colloquially described as a Yom Tov. In that article, I would not concede that point. And if your article survives, you must include somewhere that people refer to Yom Kippur as Yom Tov, even though that may not be precisely correct.

Right now, consensus is strongly against your point of view. I would encourage you to consider how you would disperse the information to other pages should the result be delete. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there much to be dispersed? Debresser (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mostly some items of detail related to the melachot that are permissible on Yom Tov, which probably can go in the article melacha. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Just got back from the shul. Yes, I know where the consensus stands, but "if there's a will, there's a way" (as they say in English). I have a copy of my page, if all should come to worse, and, yes, I could incorporate them into the other articles. Good night.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is for your information: Page from Oxford edition of the Mishnah (Tractate Betzah), showing the English word used for "Yom Tov." See: File:Page_from_Mishnah_Betza_(Oxford_edition).jpg. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Reform Judaism

Well, I tried to tag you. There were no further responses. What shall I do now? AddMore der Zweite (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there is no such thing as tagging on Misplaced Pages. I replied there. Thanks for dropping me a line here. That is always the best way to get my attention. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OTD and List of OTD

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that I think I'm out, so it's all yours, if you want it. Sir Joseph 21:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want out? Please don't leave me alone with that mess. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, did I know you under your previous name here on Misplaced Pages? Debresser (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

as it stands now, he's going to report me for deleting a list of books. It's just not worth it. I can try but explaining why Begin wasn't OTD or Spinoza wasn't to someone who doesn't want to listen is not good for my nerves. Just look at the talk pages. Sir Joseph 21:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) most likely, I changed my name only recently, I think we fought under my old name, not sure if it was under my new name, but the old name is just my Hebrew name. I took a break for a few years though. Sir Joseph 21:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you to disclose me your old name, please? If you want you can use my email (listed on my userpage). Debresser (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the list of books is not proper, and have undone it. Why should he report that? It is a Misplaced Pages guideline, and common sense. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why I told him to feel free to report me.Sir Joseph 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yossiea was my username, feel free to revert or undo.

Yeah, we interacted. I think we disagreed a little. But lately we have been agreeing, so let's stick with that. :) Debresser (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You Have Been Reported

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokshin kugel (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

See? Well, at least we're in it together. I see he deleted your edit war tag from his talk page so that the admins won't see it on his talk page. Sir Joseph 05:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The ANI post was summarily closed. :) That should make some point to this Kugel. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, he is lucky it was closed, because WP:BOOMERANG would have easily lead to his block for a day or two. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI Report

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Midas02 (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I expect this discussion will lead to your block, as per WP:BOOMERANG, since you are indeed, as you mention in your post there, the source of the problem. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Another WP:ANI discussion summarily closed. Are people on a drunk, or something? :) I am referring more to the posting editors than to the closing admins, although the latter can't be disregarded off-hand as well. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that Midas02 was clearly warned that he acted without taking into account the previous discussion, with an explicit mention of WP:BOOMERANG to his address. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Anybody else want to report me in 2015?

You still have a few minutes, and your edit warring clearly proves that you are right, so take your chances now! Debresser (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I was going to put a blocked template for the fun of it, but by the looks of things, you might actually get a threepeat. Sir Joseph 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

After editing for over 7 years, and having reached some very nice compromises on difficult issues, I have not much respect for reverters. In addition, I absolutely refuse to be intimidated by them, which is the reason conflicts often escalate. Still, I think that is preferable to giving in to the brute-force attempts of reverters to push through their incorrect or non-consensus opinions. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw or not, but you were just reported to Editor Request, which is one of the noticeboards. Sir Joseph 19:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I didn't see that. One can't follow all those noticeboards just in case. Apart from the fact, that any normal editor believes he couldn't have done anything wrong. :)

That's why reporting editors are kindly requested, and sometimes obligated, to notify the ones they are reporting. Where is this noticeboard? Debresser (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests I think it's meant for article assistance or something. Sir Joseph 19:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. How do you keep up with all that mischief? :) I posted there also. Now let's see what other editors will advice him. I won't go back there unless invited. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My little notification lit up otherwise I would never had known. I told him on the talk page to go to DR, otherwise perhaps it's best for you to boomerang him. A SPA who only has one article is not worth the fight. Sir Joseph 20:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

One could argue that the second paragraph of this edit is inviting a third WP:ANI post. What do you say, should I remove it? Debresser (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we fix ten thousand pages where intitle and looksfrom templates show up in print?

Dear Debresser, please help fix the tangled issue of {{intitle}} on dab pages. I've tried. It's gone from the template talk page to wp:elno talk page, and now to wp:not talk page, and currently started afresh at wp:dab talk page. Please give some light on the matter. The latest productive incarnation is here. — CpiralCpiral 21:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not just on disambiguation pages. I think search templates should not be used at all on articles, including on disambiguation pages. If we can easily remove them, and if we should replace them by something else, I don't know. I personally feel like removing them and that's it. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 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 Chabad page, your edit caused a cite error (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) 00:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2016 (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. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. In any case, I have posted there. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to 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 are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Lokshin kugel (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you have to like an edit which adds 770 characters to an article if you're a Lubavitcher, no? Debresser (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Friendly note: Returned to sender

Well if you want to pursue this you'd better do it on your own talk page. returned to sender from my talk page. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you would have mentioned the merger discussion in the edit summary of this edit, I wouldn't have reverted. Debresser (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So, your failure to check whether the merge discussion (which has been advertized for the last six months) had actually taken place is somehow my fault? And "Friendly"? Really? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this before. When I was still friendly. :) And I don't hold grudges. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Or apologize either, it seems... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I was wrong. A discussion which opened half a year ago, which hardly had any participants at all, and in which I haven't participated? I have seen thousands of pages and tons of drama since then. Why should I remember such a discussion, and a halfhearted one at that? You should have mentioned the merge discussion in the edit summary. Yes, and I should have checked for one as well. Still no need for either of us to apologize. If anything, your post on my talkpage using "WTF" was unacceptable, as in uncivil, and your apologies will be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want to pursue this?

Do you honestly think WTF (a common enough expression of anger/frustration/surprise, with an implied expletive) is uncivil? Or that your response was any less so? If I had said (for example)“what are you playing, at you fucking idiot” that would have been uncivil.

Do you really think I had no reason to be angry, frustrated or surprised because, after spending a couple of hours sorting the merger mess out, you wander along and undo it in 30 seconds with your bull-in-a-china-shop edit.

You were hardly unaware of the merger, seeing as you put a merge tag there in October nor were you unaware of the merge discussion, as you sent a friendly note/veiled threat to Setareh in June. So if you objected to the merge, why the hell didn't you register your objection at any time over the last six months? And if you didn't object to the merger, WTF was the problem?

And you weren't expected to remember it, you were expected to assume that if a page is slated for a merger, sooner or later people will offer an opinion and eventually someone is going to come along and resolve it. And you are also expected to assume if a merger takes place that someone had a good reason to do so, unless you know otherwise.

And, when you realized you'd made a mistake, you could have simply acknowledged the fact, or (if you are the type of person who finds it impossible to admit you are wrong) you could have just walked away, and deleted my message with an acerbic comment (Oh, hang on....). Instead you try and pass off your failures as being my fault: Mention the merge discussion? It's axiomatic!. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I want to pursue this.

Yes, I honestly think so. That posting WTF on my talkpage was uncivil.

Please have a look at the continuation of WP:MERGECLOSE: WP:PROMERGE where the text of the edit summary of a merge is given Merged content to ]. See ]. Did you follow that instruction, or did you omit the latter part? Yes, let me hear you admit it... :) Debresser (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And in reply to your latest comment (complete with your little smirk symbol :), again)

I don't have any qualms about admitting I failed to mention the merge discussion, what I am a long way from admitting is that my omission had any bearing on, or provides any excuse for your, manifold failures in this matter, viz:

Your failure to assume (or even consider) the merger was done in good faith

Your failure to carry out even the simplest checks if you thought it wasn't (or even to send me a message asking WTF I was playing at)

Failure to mention any objection to a merger any time in the last six months prior to it being carried out

Failure to acknowledge any fault of yours in this, but instead manufacturing some fatuous objection to try and shift the blame

(and, you could add, a failure to recognize rhetorical question/s when presented with them)

If and when you are prepared to admit to all (or even any) of these failures you can ping me. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: And I suggest any incivility assumed from my WTF comment is more than outweighed by the incivility of your reply, so we are even on that, too). Moonraker12 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no imperative reason to do this on my talkpage, apart from your obvious reluctance to have this on yours. Still, I object to the dumping of an ongoing discussion on my talkpage.

I do not think my expletive in the edit summary on my talkpage, not yours, outweighs your expletive in a post on my talkpage. Especially since mine was only in reaction to yours.

I am not unwilling to acknowledge my faults. I would have done so right away, had you been able to give a hint of being capable of the same regarding your post, which, again, came before my reaction, timewise.

I am under no obligation to comment on the merger process.

I never assumed the merger was done in bad faith. Your claim above that I did, is in itself a bad faith assumption. An edit can be reverted even when it was done in good faith.

I agree that I should have checked more scrupulously. The obvious reason I didn't do so is your failure to mention any form of preceding discussion in your edit summary. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well first, the reason we are doing this here is because you are the one who wants to pursue it. For my part we can jack this in any time you like.

Second, you still reckon the term WTF is an expletive; I don't. OTOH you don't reckon telling me “Fuck yourself” is an expletive because it was only in an edit summary, and on your own talk page; I do. So we are at an impasse on that one.

Third, your suggestion that my claim that your assumption the merger was done in bad faith was a bad faith claim, is also itself a bad faith suggestion; and we could go on for a long time in that vein. And I'm well aware that good faith edits can be reverted, but you generally need a good reason, or be acting within the current consensus, to do so. Did you? Were you? But if you look at what I said, I suggested you reverted the merge either because you thought it was done in bad faith, or because you knew it was in good faith but reverted it anyway; to my mind the former is the more charitable explanation.

Fourth, you were “under no obligation to comment...” well of course you were! If you objected to the merge you should have said so. The merger was proposed, discussed (after a fashion) over a six month period, closed and carried out, all without a peep out of you; then once it was done, you wandered up and undid a couple of hours worth of work: Do you expect me not to be annoyed about that? Even if you had commented, then reverted against the closure, that would have been bad enough; but if you reverted because you objected without even having tried to contribute to the discussion, that is borderline disruptive: And to revert when you  didn't object, but just felt like doing so, is borderline vandalism. So what the (insert your own expression here) were you playing at?

And “I should have checked more scrupulously” is a little short of the truth; it's blatantly obvious you never checked at all, otherwise you would have seen the closure notice as plain as day.

Oh, and this (@Debresser:) is a ping, BTW. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Whatever.
2. Okay.
3. I stick with my point of view.
4. You are wrong.
5. I know what a ping is, but it is not as though that ping will show up on my alerts or anything, so it doesn't really have a function.

You ignored WP:PROMERGE, and still ignore my argument referring to it. It is really simple, you know: you made an edit that ignored a Misplaced Pages guideline, so in any disagreement that arises as a result, you are the one who is in the wrong. That's all there is to this, and no reason to waist more words. Debresser (talk)

Actually it's even simpler than that: you made a high-handed edit, and when challenged over it, chose (rather than acknowledging the fault) to resort to bluster and legalistic nit-picking.

If ignoring guidelines is the issue, maybe you should take the plank out of your own eye before looking for the speck in mine; if I offended the letter of one part of WP:Promerge (which I have already dealt with twice, now, incidentally), you offended the spirit and the letter of WP:Merge in general, as well as WP:AGF and WP:Consensus; and, depending on why you carried out the edit (which you still haven't explained), offended against either WP:DISRUPT or WP:VANDALISM. Or, if you are now saying you reverted because I “ignored” ProMerge, then you were editing to make point.

And yes, this is a waste of time and words (and may even be a "waist", for all I know) but as you insist on prolonging it, the argument's waistline continues to expand, doesn't it? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This last post was a lousy attempt to have the last word, rather than acknowledge your mistake. Please feel free to post a reply at your convenience, if it is so important to you to have the last word. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

An attempt to have the last word? What are you on about? This is your argument, on your talk page; if you don't want to pursue it, stop arguing! Specifically, stop saying stuff that requires an answer. To be clear, I have acknowledged the mistake, twice; what I haven't acknowledged is that it offers any excuse for your action (which you still haven't explained, BTW)

If you want to agree to differ, fine ("Whatever", "Okay", "I stick with my point of view") If you are going to throw out a challenge ("You are wrong"), or lie ("rather than acknowledge...") you'll end up with a reply. Over to you... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ottoman Palestine. 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.
and 2. failing to WP:LISTEN / attempt to reach consensus for non-standard dab page i.e. 3. WP:OWN. Two reverts in 24hr, and reverts either side of that making 4 reverts (or more). Although there's discussion on the talk since, continuing to push despite consensus and without gaining consensus and general OWN means this is a disruptive edit warning (but with the ew template, and yes templating a regular). It is your burden to familiarise yourself with MOSDAB before editing dab pages, and taking an aggressive line towards dab project editors who all agree this dab has issues goes against consensus of MOSDAB and editors. Looking at your talk/block history, stop this disruption now. Widefox; talk 14:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You come bulldozing in from some WikiProject, and ignore existing consensus with your edit. You should not be surprised that you are being reverted then. Nominating that page for deletion in the middle of an active discussion on what needs to be improved, is also a faux pas. In addition, your post on the talkpage are inflammatory. I think it is you who should be warned for disruptive behavior in view of these three things. Debresser (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Responding to another editor who's described the situation as an "aggressive editor", I'm not sure exactly who they mean. You were lucky to not be blocked already as your edit summary indicated you're aware this is covered by discretionary sanctions, so you may be blocked for going over the 1RR repeatedly at any time. Added to WP:CIVIL at AfD and talk, plus general WP:OWN / burden of reaching consensus. Widefox; talk 15:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 16:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that discussion will probably lead to your block, per WP:BOOMERANG, since you violated 3RR. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In reality, because that accusation is false and seen as such and dismissed, this is another location I'm asking you to strike, or provide diffs for thank you. Widefox; talk 20:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Palestine 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 are 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.
When knowing that it is a contested refactor which should not be repeated, this is pure disruption - I've already edit summaried that a contested refactor should never be repeated per WP:REFACTOR etc. This is more akin to disruption , whereas the previous also removed my content. Widefox; talk 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from painting my talkpage with these undeserved tags. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The only good thing coming out of these tags, is that since you are the one who is edit warring with me, they prove that you are aware of the problem in your own edits as well, which save me the trouble to have to warn you. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I general, it is considered bad taste to tag experienced editors with standard warning templates. But it seems WP:CIVIL is not much of a guideline for you. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

At ANI, you've been asked by two editors to strike your 3RR allegation, but have yet to do that there, and at all places mentioned (afDs, above etc). Widefox; talk 12:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Which one, the one with 4 edits or the one with 5 edits? Debresser (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI post closed with a warning to both editors to stop the edit war. I am not happy that Widefox wasn't blocked for his 3RR violation and general disruptive attitude. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

no original research includes original translations.

On wikipedia, quotes must be sourced. Translations need to be cited. You cannot provide your own translation, even if it is superior. That's original research. If you want to go around re-translating things, you are going to need a reliable source. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) That's actually not correct. See WP:TRANSCRIPTION. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, says the person who replaced a long-standing good translation with one that is easily proven to be inferior, if not outright incorrect. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the present translation is sourced! The only difference between the source and the translation in the article is the word "And", which is very much in the Hebrew. The new proposed translation was far off from both the source, and the original Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon this intrusion by a talk page stalker. While StevenJ81 is right (of course) that an editor's translation is okay -- it's something I've done myself -- I think you ought to mention it in the footnote instead of giving the reader the impression that we're quoting the English-language source. Just a thought. — MShabazz /_Stalk 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to have such talkpage stalkers as the two of you. :) We are using the source, just adding the word "and", which should be trivial enough to leave unmentioned. You disagree? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked at the article again and I see the source of my confusion: footnote 4 is being used twice for two different translations of Avot, one of which looks like it hews close to the source and the other not so much. Take a look at the "Golden Rule" section. — MShabazz /_Stalk 00:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am looking only at the "And if not now when?" part of the translation, which is the part the editor changed, and it looks the same to me in both sections. Am I missing something? Debresser (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the article's lead section, the famous saying is given as "If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" but in the section titled "Golden Rule", a paragraph that starts "In Avot, Hillel stated "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am "I"? And if not now, when?"" Footnote 4 links to this page, which translates the saying as quoted in the lead. So the middle portion of the saying is translated differently in the two parts of the article, but both cite the same source for the translation. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. I indeed only looked at the third part, which is the part that was recently edited. So perhaps change the second part in the lead. Although I personally like the other translation better, but it is probably easier to stick to the source. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone has a severe case of I hate Israel

Palestinian_wine Sir Joseph 21:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been at it for years. Like in Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian minhag and others. It is awful that someone should good good academic sources to make a political statement based on a choice of words as opposed to the intention of those sources. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate were also informative and significant contributions. Chesdovi (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your rebbe must be beaming with pride. Why don't you give me your information so I can let him know where to send a gift basket? Sir Joseph 14:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Genuine rebbes and their Hasidim boycott the internet. (Jewish boycott of the Internet?) But a well deserved barnstar from you would give me a real ego boost. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I remember those articles as well. We haven't intersected for a while, and I felt the better for it. Nevertheless, on a personal level, since that is where this user talkpage discussion is going, I would really like to understand where you come from. Because I find it hard to understand why you are pushing the term "Palestinian" so much. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I come from the East but my rebbe is from the West. Chesdovi (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean geographically, I meant ideologically. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Restoring a dead link

Hey Debresser, I saw that you here undid my edit and thereby returned "alternative" terms for Targeted Killing, which are sourced to a dead link what may be an online dictionary and to globalresearch.org. In your revert you explained, "Restore sourced information. In addition, I am not sure terms need much sourcing." You didn't leave a note on the talk page, that might have explained how the dead link isn't one, how globalresearch is a valid source, or why sources aren't needed in this case.

We've all (mostly) been guilty of hitting the undo button to bring back unsourced content without actually checking it out, so I just wanted to leave a note here to see if you actually followed that link you restored? If you want to maintain these more partisan phrases (both pro and against Targeted Killing) you'll want to find sources. -Darouet (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether they are "more partisan" or not, which is a question I think can be be disputed, these are terms that are in use. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Better source added. I dislike people disputing facts on technical grounds. It is called "wikilawyering". Debresser (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And I dislike people removing information without having at least the most minor look whether they can provide a better source themselves. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep you likes, and dislikes, in mind next time you decide to revert for milon.walla.co.il or globalresearch. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC) striking snark. -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's annoying when people remove content they don't like on technical grounds and without replacing with better sources. In this case I removed the terms not only because they were poorly sourced, but also because many of them don't appear elsewhere in the article, making their relevance dubious. Thanks for finding more sources. I've also found a few and might add those as well. -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Always happy to see an article improving. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Halakha

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:100.15.134.190 reported by User:Debresser (Result: ). There may still be time for you to reply at the noticeboard to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR needs to be on the same day, not 30 days or so apart. Sir Joseph 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently he has general edit warring in mind. Debresser (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert

"Palestinian wine" means "wine made in Palestine". I thought you had better English skills than that. It even says Palestine on the label. Kindly stop this nonsense. Zero 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you now. Sorry that it took me a while. I do disagree with other things, though, which is why I added a few tags to the article. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That template is well know among template editors

"That template is well know among template editors to do this, and is used in many such case" Such as ? -- PBS (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit War on a topic you are too close to

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

You are simply too close to topics related to orthodox Judaism to be objective and use third party references that are respected outside of orthodox Judaism. You are attempting to delete them, even though the banner is specifically asking for them on the Mikveh page. Time for you to work on topics you are less POV about. VanEman (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so childish. I tag you, you tag me. And accusing me of POV on pages about Judaism is large coming from you. Debresser (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi

I think it's time to report him as a SPI or edit warrior and have him blocked. It's extremely difficult to have to babysit every article. The WW article is littered with his insertions. He basically googles every anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist source he can find and inserts it. I think you are better at this, so do you think this is something whose time has come? Take a look at the article and the talk page. Look at all the sections he has created.Sir Joseph 04:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The page is not "littered" with my insertions. Half the page is my insertion. It seems there is consensus to re-add Leibowitz, but has Sir Joseph done so? Chesdovi (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

See my commentary at Talk:Western Wall, to the effect that I propose to not discuss people, and try to edit together productively. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You try to do so. All he does is revert information without discussing, inserting POV FRINGE, how about I leave the page alone for a while? Are you willing to let the western wall become part of the PA? Have you seen his most recent proposal to insert into the article? Sir Joseph 13:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss this civilly and after Shabbes, on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ref New Haven Power

Template:Ref New Haven Power has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WuhWuzDat 04:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Posted there. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve it! :-) Marek.69 00:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. If you say so. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What good are WP:RS and WP:V if administrators ignore them?. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker 21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have replied there now. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Was this ever modified?

I couldn't find this appeal and it appears this TBAN is still in effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi Sir Joseph 22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the notification he received on January 15, 2012. It is a WP:ARBPIA ban. I see no reason to say it is expired, but on the other hand, four years is a long time. Then again, he has a huge POV, and his edits are cherrypicking and misleading under a veil of reliable sources. A very smart and dangerous editor, who has been disturbing and influencing Misplaced Pages for many years now. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I also had my clashes with him, see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive88#Debresser, and still think he was disruptive and terribly POV'ed then as well. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If a ban is never lifted, then it remains in place and you may revert without restriction. I think you should ask to see if it was ever lifted. If it wasn't, I'm sure an appeal will be filed.Sir Joseph 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not all of his problematic edits are in the ARBPIA field. Like his edits to Western Wall, for example. Although, if broadly constructed...? Perhaps you would care to post an inquiry at ARBPIA, if the sanctions against Chesdovi are still in force? Debresser (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's best if you do it. They don't like me. I've opened too many clarification requests lately. Plus, I just came off a block. Sir Joseph 13:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Done at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles. Note, that you are not invited to comment there. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not? If the TBAN was rescinded, then it was rescinded, but if it wasn't then it wasn't. It's as simple as that. ARBCOM rulings need to be enforced. That is my statements in all my clarification requests to ARBCOM whether it's their stupid 500/30 or other unenforceable or pointless, or admins who get away with NPA violations. If it wasn't rescinded and he does want it rescinded because it's been 4 years, then that's another story and an AE appeal can be filed. But my big thing is following the law, in here and in real life. In this case, we have a TBAN but we don't have a lifting of a TBAN, QED. If you don't want me to edit, you should at least clarify why you are posting a clarification request to ARBCOM. Sir Joseph 21:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am asking ARBCOM to clarify. I would have preferred nobody else answer, if possible. I would even have preferred Chesdovi not to know about it, but the instructions said I must notify him. In your case I would add, that if you claim you are not popular there, then why come there? Debresser (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You may have noticed that ArbCom seems to think unanimously that the topicban is still in place. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

to paraphrase someone, it's just the sitra achra. Sir Joseph 00:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see below, my request for clarification was ]. The unanimous opinion of seven editors was, that the topic ban is still in place. When I asked why then did he create Palestinian wine, they said that any violation should be reported through WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of discussion that might interest you

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Zero0000#Western_Wall_2Sir Joseph 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

All over it. :) Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

The clarification request regarding the Palestine-Israel articles" arbitration case, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Esther

Thanks for message. You are quite right, my talk was not necessary. I'll delete it now! If I shouldn't do that, pls advise. Thx. --Observer6 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if it was a big deal. It just seemed a little overkill to me. Perhaps, if after a month or so nobody supplies a source, then post on the talkpage. By the way, I made a short search, and couldn't find a clear and reliable source. I did see in one place that Esther was among those who were exiled from Jerusalem, but that is not precisely the same as that she was born there. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It was overkill, you are quite right. I appreciate your suggestion about waiting a month, and then taking it from there. My intention was, in the absence of proof, to open up the subject for discussion. If Esther was indeed among those who were exiles from Jerusalem (during the reign of Judean King Jeconiah?) this would make Esther about 100 tears old when she was made (Queen of Persia?) by King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I?)! An interesting concept!
I suspect that the editor who added 'Jerusalem' acted in in haste but in good faith. The article itself says "She had spent her life among the Jewish exiles in Persia, where she lived under the protection of her cousin Mordecai."
It is also interesting to note that the Google page which shows the results of a Google search for esther, says she was born in Susa!--Observer6 (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember that according to tradition she was indeed some 80 years old, so that seems to fit with the idea that she was exiled from Jerusalem. However, I'll have to look into this. I'll try to do so within the foreseeable future, before Purim. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been able to find a few Jewish sources that say she was 75 years old at the time of the story of Purim, and one that says that there are three opinions: 40, 70 and 75. In English, see , that mentiuons 40 and 75. However, I had no luck so far in finding anything connecting Esther to Jerusalem or the exile. Debresser (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to come to the conclusion, that there is no such opinion. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)