User talk:Debresser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
What's up?
I mainly follow up on pages from my watchlist, occasionally adding new pages to it that spiked my interest. I returned to doing low-key maintenance work on fixing pages in error categories.
I am happily busy with my beloved wife.
Add: and daughter, Channa. We recently moved, so that's also a lot of work in the house.


Can you help identify these favicons?[edit]

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)

No 11, perhaps: -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 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 No 17, perhaps No 20, perhaps (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

p.s. Here's an icon I made recently: Recursive camera eyecon-(02-3 4-2)-opaque back-.png, & another version: Recursive camera icon-(02-3 4-2))-.png

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

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

I moved my homepage, and my 'orphan' favicons are now here. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I now have over 9,000 favicons, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Special characters[edit]

{{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 Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC) --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) talk 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token: 2214f14d9938ca34406a77c7801e2c4e[edit]

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,, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

favicon #18 and #19[edit] Zerotalk 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 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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)

December 2013[edit]

For your recent edit to Category:Jews. Please don't reprimand me for doing something (which I admit that I shouldn't have done, but I felt removing some of those categories went too far), and then go and do it yourself.

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Evildoer187 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

At least you admit you should not have done that. That is a step forward. Please don't forget that I am just reverting your non-consensus edit, so your warning is really lame. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Superman/Wonder Woman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | issues = 2 ({{As of|2013|12}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy[edit]

I don't know what sect of Judaism you think I come from, but I happen to be chareidi jew not aligned with any political party or school of thought relevant to Rav Shach. My only problem was when I came to the article I saw that in the synopsis of the subjects biography, it is mentioned that he was a zealot etc. and other controversial things. I hold that that is not in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (see-, and the article was written with bias interests. Once I did that edit, I added in honorifics. I held these do not conflict with any policy as such, but if they do I do not care for their ommission. (please refer me where this rule is in the guidelines). I just hold that the conflict of interest policy must be upheld, even if you are a chabad hassid, wikipedias standards must be kept. P.S. This is not my first time editing Wikipedia, just the I.P. address is new. P.S.S. Thank you very much for all your valuable work you have given wikipedia, it is over here that it seems you have some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is a policy that is not connected to the issue at hand. You seem to completely misunderstand what the subject of that policy is. Please feel free to look it up at WP:COI.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorifics and all it subsection for the relvant guideline.
In addition, please read some additional articles of rabbis and see for yourself that such is common practice on Wikipedia. You are not the first one to have tried this on this or other articles, including by the way the article about the Lubavitcher rebbe, and all have been reverted.
I am a 7 year editor with over 60,000 edits. No need to think that I am pushing some point of view. (See WP:POV , which by the way is the policy you meant above instead of WP:COI.) I know how to edit Wikipedia. Do you? Debresser (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you didn't get my point. I was trying to say that the initial synopsis is quite biased, calling him a zealot etc this is an opinionated position of the person, brought from an opinionated source. And you know this. And there is no denying this. You can carry on leaving a biased opinion on there, all it does it shows how much you care for wikipedia's quality, and all you care is for your own political agenda. It also may reflect on some of the other 60,000 edits that you have made, maybe they are also expounding your ideals and opinions? Besides for the above, what I did with honorifics is not in conflict with the article you brought at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you don't get my point. If reliable sources say he is a zealot, then we can write it on Wikipedia. My personal opinion is not a factor here.
Your reading of WP:HONORIFICS is incorrect, judged by common Wikipedia practice.
But you go on and insist on editing according to your opinions, and you'll be blocked soon enough.
It seems Shach even after his death attracts the likes of his: zealots and idiots. By the way, that is my personal opinion, to which I am entitled on my userpage. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Answered in the diff. I don't understand why there should be so much reverts about an unsourced sentence.--Phso2 (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because you are a problematic editor, who doesn't accept that he is wrong, and insists on reverting instead of discussing? Debresser (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not revert once, i changed the formulation each time to adress your laconic diffs. You kept plainly reverting without trying to improve the article (re-adding wrong statement about this "common opinion" in the process), though it seemed rather obvious that the words in brackets ("otherwise unknown") was not referring to what Herodotus himself said.--Phso2 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Tags at Herem article[edit]

What "legitimate tags" are you talking about? Not even one of the tags was legitimate. First of all, the brick at the top of the page makes no sense at all. The article isn't very technical at all; it's perfectly straightforward in its style of expression. If the Judaic references are a bit beyond you, there are links. I read the article and had no trouble with it, even though my background is not Jewish. I notice that English is not your first language. It could be that your less-than-native fluency (you rank yourself level-3 in English, I notice) makes a text on this subject seem a bit muddy to you. I sometimes have the same trouble with a text not written in my language. Nevertheless, this article is clear and is in no way "too technical". I've seen much more technical articles -- in English -- that nobody has ever complained about (often on mathematical topics). As for your two "who?" tags, they were just thoroughly ignorant. In answer to your first "who?": Click on the link -- have a look; that name is linked -- and you'll find out who they are. In answer to your second "who?": Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal on Joshua 24:33 -- That's right in the article, at the end of the commentary that you flagged. Read on and find it. To me, these lapses suggest a problem with reading comprehension. That's quite common when the text isn't in the reader's mother tongue. There's one other thing: you reverted some textual corrections along with your restoration of the illegitimate tags. Please do not do such things. I notice that another user has also complained about you doing that. Kelisi (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Warn" me all you like! My edits are in good faith, and I think I have every reason to believe what I said just above. You are not helping Wikipedia by doing this. You are marring it. Just cut it out. Kelisi (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not rant on my talkpage.
As to my English, I think it perhaps should be level 4, but I'll leave that to others to decide. I still consider modesty a virtue.
The tags are justified, as they are asking for names of those who hold stated opinions and those names are absent. As to technical. The article is technical, because it is about Judaissm concepts that are not commonly know to the large public. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It's no rant. Those are my reasons for believing that the tags are illegitimate, and they are. Furthermore, Debresser's ignorance of Judaism is in itself no reason to tag an article "too technical". We'd have to tag a great number of articles if somebody's ignorance of the article's subject were enough to warrant that. For Pete's sake, what do you think this website is for? It's full of information that lots of people don't know so that they can come here and get to know it. A reader's lack of knowledge in itself doesn't make an article "too technical". Now, forget about your threats of having me blocked. You yourself have already broken the Three-Revert Rule, which hardly puts you in a position to threaten me with blocking, and despite what you might think about your edits, they are not legitimate, and I notice that you have once again reverted some textual corrections along with your restoration of the illegitimate tags. Now, since it seems clear to me that any discussion on my part is passed off as "ranting", and since you have now violated the 3RR, the matter really should be referred to a third party, seeing as how you won't take me seriously. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to resolve the matter here, you can further understanding by answering these simple questions for me:
  1. Why do you consider the article "too technical"? Can you cite some passages from it that are particularly "technical"?
  2. Why do you flag "Chazal" with a "who?" when it is linked and a reader can simply click on it to find out who the Chazal are?
  3. Why do you flag "Torah commentaries" with a "who?" when (a) Torah commentaries are not persons, and (b) the man who made the commentaries is named at the end ("Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal")?
If you can do that, understanding will be all the deeper.
And if you will not do that, I'll know you're not showing good faith. Kelisi (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Debresser is a rabbi, which at least implies he is knowledgeable about Judaism.
As to the second question. The {{Who}} tag is not asking what Chazal stands for, but who specifically of the sages are of that opinion.
As to the third question. Some as above. If the sage is know, Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal, then replace the words "Torah commentaries" by "Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal in his Torah commentary".
I'll need some time for the first question, but I'll get back to that within 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Anyway, as for Chazal, fair enough, but I would suggest using Template:Which instead. As for ben Yehiel Michal's commentary, yes, why don't you just rephrase the sentence that way? Whatever you do, I am going to go ahead and risk an administrator's wrath by once again correcting the textual errors. Kelisi (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Infobox Australia state or territory/testcases. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As an experienced editor you should know better than to edit disruptively AussieLegend () 03:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I already explained to you on your talkpage that this was an edit conflict (in the technical sense). In the time you made two edits, I made one, and your two edits were lost. No reason to use insulting editsummaries [1] or paint my talkpage with warning templates. If you don't understand, that is no reason to assume bad faith. A trout for you! Debresser (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The above refers to both of your edits to Template:Infobox Australia state or territory/testcases, not just the second. The first inexplicably replaced testcases on the testcases page with a copy of the infobox code,[2] something that could be expected of a new editor, but not one with as many edits as you. The other edit that you claim was an edit conflict was not handled properly at all. If there was an edit conflict, you should have checked to see why there was an edit conflict, instead of simply overwriting what I wrote with your preferred version.[3] That was inexcusable.

Jumping Humpback whale.jpg


You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

--AussieLegend () 06:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, okay. In any case, replied on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Change template[edit]

On User talk:Lovelight please replace {{RFM-Request|September 11, 2001 Attacks}} by {{subst:User:MediationBot/Opened message|case=September 11, 2001 Attacks}}. This will remove the usertalkpage from Category:Pages using deprecated templates, and is part of the deprecation process for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote. Debresser (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Debresser, I've removed the template; didn't see any point to putting the new one on, though, so I didn't bother. Cheers, Writ Keeper  07:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I you could please do it as requested: the reason is that the new template will link to the relevant discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There is already a link to the discussion (immediately following the template, which has now been untranscluded by <nowiki>), and I see no advantage in having another one, particularly since the discussion was deleted seven years ago anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I see. Right then, thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your help please[edit]

Hello i see that you are a Rabbi and if you would be so kind i would like your opinion on a passage i remember reading in the Talmud where Eve complained to Adam about the mode of their intercourse so Adam left her for Lilith who did not complain about Adams needs, i believe this signifies that Adam preferred anal sex, this is my interpretation and i may be wrong but can you please give me further clarification as to the meaning of this passage.--Sleeveman (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopaedia[edit]

Re my revert of your edits to the Jewish Encyclopaedia templates, please see Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Code question 2 -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I already replied there that I agree with you. You missed the same edit on Template:Jewish Encyclopedia, btw. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually I did not, that was the first one I saw in my watch list Face-smile.svg but as JE relies on Cite JE obviously Cite JE should be the first one to change and I wanted to discuss it before making the second change. -- PBS (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I see. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you have changed it back -- thank you. The other edit you made changed something which was there for a reason. That is calling a redirect {{JE1906 cite}} rather than {{Cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} directly. It allows for a differentiation on those articles that use {{Cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} directly and those that use {{JE1906 cite}} which can be useful with applications like AWB. Whether it is worth doing this given an overhead of a redirect is debatable, but you did not ask if there was a reason for it before you made the change, hence no debate, and I bet you never thought there was a reason or I suspect you would have asked before doing so. Face-smile.svg -- PBS (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
That is correct. Now that you mentioned it. I still don't really see the reason (meaning that I understand what you said, but do not think it is a reason good enough to keep the redirect). Would you be able to agree with that? Debresser (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

New message[edit]

See the talk page.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Only for very nice admins[edit]

{{Adminhelp}} I've done some cleanup on Category:Pages with misplaced templates, and the 4 .js pages are basically the only thing left in this error category (I am working on Template:Merge sections). When I had a look at them, I didn't notice the category at the bottom of the page, so maybe a null-edit (opening the edit window of those 4 pages and saving without making any changes and no edit summary) will fix the error message. Would you be willing to try this for me? Debresser (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Tried that, my guess is that one of the scripts they have in their .js is calling the category. And given it's only doing it on those pages I'd guess it's the one that User:Fæ created. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I had a look, but it looks like a horrendous job searching through to find the problem. However, it is true that they all use stuff from Fæ, so it does seem likely that the problem is somewhere in there. (By the way, please forgive me for posting here, even though I'm not a very nice admin.)JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Fæ is still active on commons - Commons:User:Fæ - why not drop him a line there? All admins are nice, only some are more nicer then others ;-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. I will disable the adminhelp template for the time being. It seems that User:Fæ is on a wikibreak though. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Siam and Thailand soft redirects[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Soft_redirects.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:PBS (Result: ) -- PBS (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Let me see what you wrote there about me. I think I have an idea what this is about. :) Pretty silly, if you ask me. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

SIU seal[edit]

The SIU seal is for the SIU System and for SIU Carbondale, and the new SIUE seal is totally inappropriate for both. The new seal needs a new file page. I tried to revert the seal to the actual SIU seal, but it would not revert, so I have requested administrators' assistance. GWFrog (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Deprecated template[edit]

Your recent changes appear to have broken the output when the format {{Deprecated template|Old|New|parameter}} is used. See the template documentation under "Additional" at Template:Deprecated template, or see Template:Basketball-reference for an actual example; a link to the new template is no longer provided after your changes.—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. This is a side-effect I hadn't anticipated. I'll fix it in half an hour. Have to run now. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I tired it Even thought I had found the problem. But no. If I comment out the parameter, the link is there, but with the parameter not. I asked another editor to help out. I'm sure this can wait a few days. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


I closed this discussion, so it would be great if you could merge the two. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done a reverse merge as per the discussion. I am working on the parameter usage, which is not the same for the two templates. As soon as I finish that, I'll update the documentation as well. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on Template:Off-topic caused a bug...[edit]

Hi. I reverted this edit of yours because I noticed a bug appearing on transcluded pages and thought your edit may have caused it:

[[Category: (month given) (year given)]] or [[Category:]] would appear immediately under the template message on all transcluded pages on a separate line; undoing your edit seems to have fixed it.

You may (or may not) wish to troubleshoot this in order to keep your last edit, not sure how important it was. Thought I'd let you know in case you disabled reversion notifications. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank yo for dropping me a note. I had seen it in reversion notifications, but still appreciate you taking the trouble to write me personally. {{Ambox}}'s documentation used to mention this, and for whatever reason this was removed. I reinstated it. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Test category[edit]

Continued from Template talk:Relevance-inline. Recommend using hidden categories to test templates in the future. -- Brianhe (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. It will still show for editors who have 'show hidden categories' activated, but it is definitely an improvement.
On a side note, the three test categories X1, X2 and X3 are all non-hidden. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


There is probably still some cleanup to do (Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Wikipedia deprecated and orphaned templates, Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Can you close Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4#Template:Obsolete_template as a redirect, please? This Jay guy just relists everything. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
All over it (Cfd, Mfd). Debresser (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:NPOV[edit]

Notifies you to update your comments on Template talk:NPOV#Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. since the debate continues. -- (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Template to merge[edit]

Hello, Debresser. I have closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Template:Obsolete_template as "merge". Since you wrote "if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself", perhaps you would now like to perform the merge. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your revert at Talpiot Tomb[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on the article Talpiot Tomb? As you can see at the article you linked to, East Talpiot is in East Jerusalem. In what way is that in Israel? --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I explained myself in great detail in the edit summary. To repeat and add:
Because the link was to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel, and that is correct.
Even if you want to say that the status of that area is disputed nowadays, that does not detract from the fact that at least according to some it is Israel. It is a Wikipedia guideline to clarify that ambiguous status in the lead of all relevant articles. The lead of Talpiot Tomb already does that by clearly mentioning East Jerusalem.
In addition, it is de facto Israel. Just go there and see for yourself that Armon HaNetziv is a regular Israeli Jerusalem neighborhood. No Arabs there. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality. Apart from in politics, it has no connection to the West Bank. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not in Israel. Lets see how it's described here at Wikipedia:
East Talpiot or Armon HaNetziv is a neighborhood in southern East Jerusalem,[1] established in 1973 in the upswing of building that followed the Six-Day War, in an area unilaterally annexed to Israel. The international community considers Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to be illegal settlements,[2] but the Israeli government disputes this.[3]
It is regarded as occupied and it doesn't matter if it's "according to some in Israel". It's not "de facto Israel" just because it's occupied by them. It's not neutral and a fringe view to say that East Jerusalem is in Israel. If you don't self-revert, I will bring this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
That link redirect to Rock-cut tombs in Israel, which it seems that you didn't see. There is a general article about Rock-cut tombs. But still, the big problem is that you put East Jerusalem in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert my edit on Jabel Mukaber makes no sense at all. It was an improvement with the exception of that I by mistake removed "r" of the name when I removed bold and a comma from the sentence. If you look at the edit, I removed space where it was unnecessary and updated the links. It was an improvement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I for one think the spaces and whitelines add clarity. So since you removed the "r" and the spaces and whitelines, I reverted your edit. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
In what way? Compare this with this. It doesn't show different from that view, just when you edit. It's unnecessary space. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
While you can think that it "adds clarity", Wikipedia is not a place about where you decide what is clear and what is not. If you have no argument based on guidelines, then don't revert because you think it "adds clarity". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to know if you add space between a header and text in other articles. Looking at your edits, I can't see that. So it's unclear why it's needed here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If you ever started a new section on a talk page you may have noticed the spaces before and after the == and the whiteline after the section header. It is actually Wikipedia housestyle! And you didn't know that.
Also, if there is no good reason to remove or restore them, then why did you remove them, even though they were present consistently in the article? That is the strangest thing here. Comes along a new editor, and decides he needs to remake the whole style of the article. Now isn't that something that guidelines specifically warn against? Debresser (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that but nearly all articles got no space. They are unnecessary, that's why I removed it and I have explained that. However, reverting it because you think it "adds clarity" is weird and you don't do that in other articles. So you have no reason to revert my removal of that extra space. If you had done that on other articles, maybe I would have some understanding of that.
As you did not self-revert your edit, which put East Jerusalem in Israel, I can't see another action than go forward with this. I will open a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I wrote at the talk page instead. It's better to start there. It's you who should make the case for why it's right to say that East Jerusalem is in Israel. It is not viewed as such, that is why settlements, Old City (Jerusalem) etc. are not listed or described as in Israel. That's why we don't say, amongst others, that Jerusalem is in Israel (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem). Until you get consensus on that, it's not acceptable and any edits should be reverted. So you are welcome to discuss the issue there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Think on that before you revert someone because you think that space "adds clarity", in addition to the missed "r" which could easily be added, especially when you don't change other articles to "add clarity". Removing unnecessary space is not "remaking the whole style", which can also be seen by clicking the two links I inserted as comparison. Such a claim is not understandable at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I replied an the talk page and agree that that is the correct second place to take this issue. We can always take dispute resolution a step further at a later time, should such be necessary.
Your edit was reverted mainly because of the "r" you removed by mistake. Reverting your changes to the layout was an additional gain. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I will reply there now.
When you start to revert those things in other articles, then maybe your action here would not be regarded as unwarranted. Read the guidelines about reverting and use common sense. If you revert any of my edits again for that reason, you will be reported. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said, you were reverted because you removed the letter "r" from the bold repetition of the article's title. Therefore there is nothing to report me for. If you want to thank me for fixing your typo's, you are welcome. You, on the other hand, should not be making changes to layout if that is the only thing you do on an article, or you will be reported. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No, you said you did it "mainly for that" but also because space "add clarity", which you don't "add" to other articles. Don't change arguments now. You didn't "fix a typo", you reverted it, when you could have only changed that. I "can change the layout" how much I want if it's consistent with the policies. I removed unnecessary space, which doesn't mean that I (who, by the way, is not a new editor, as you wrongly called me) "changed the whole layout". In addition to that, I updated the links and formatted other things so that was not "the only thing I did". Go ahead and report me if you think it's not allowed. Unless you have something constructive to add, this discussion is closed. --IRISZOOM (talk)
You shouldn't come to my talk page to tell me when discussion is closed. That is bad taste, to say the least. As I said, the layout I reverted to was 1. the consensus version for quite a while 2. the Wikipedia housestyle. I think you should have a good look at WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
What was there more to discuss? What you think is "a change to a style" and that you think you can report me for removing unnecessary space? No, that's silly. In addition to that, as I've pointed out, you were wrong on several of your claims, such as that I "changed the whole style". Such silly discussions is not my type and I can end those whenever I want. In addition to that, you claim that I "only changed the layout" and that's it's not accepted and that I will be reported. You don't have any basis for such claims. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The one-time most prolific editor of Wikipedia was blocked for precisely this type of edits. Admittedly, he made them with a bot. In any case, you may not believe me, but if you think other editors will take kindly to you making unnecessary edits based on WP:ILIKEIT, then you are mistaken. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of my edits are copyedits, not "unnecessary edits based on what I like". In fact, it was you who reverted because you didn't like that I was removing unnecessary space, which you thought "adds clarity", which you dont change in other articles. So my edits are mostly rewording, updating links, removing unnecessary space etc. I do think it's both accepted and welcomed. If you don't agree and think it's a violation, you can report me as you said you would do. Until you can prove it's wrong, I will keep making edits I think are constructive. Go report me, as you say I am wrong, and we can find out who's right. I am not interesting in any meta-discussion here. Bye. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented there now. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Month abbreviations[edit]

Hi Debresser! Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Month abbreviations would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Posting there now. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

POV template[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I'm not miffed at your reversion whatsoever... in fact, I rather expected it! And that's not meant to be a snide remark... I just wanted the diffs so we could examine what the text would look like as I try to articulate the concept. I'll get a talk thread started in the near term. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understood from you using the word "boldly" that you were ready for this revert. Please let me know when you open a discussion, and I'll comment as well. Or, if you please, we could discuss it among ourselves for the mean time. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Labor Day (film)[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to know why did you remove the nomination from Labor Day (film)? I provided the reliable sources with it? Is it not worthy to be included in an article?--Jockzain (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That was a mistake of mine, which I have now undone. Thank you for coming here to ask me. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem.--Jockzain (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Committee of Union and Progress[edit]

Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'll join the discussion on a permanent basis, but I left a post with my opinion. Thank you for the invitation. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Chabad holidays[edit]

See my reply to your comment on my talk page. (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I follow your talkpage since I posted there. Debresser (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard[edit]

Just to let you know that due to the size of the category, I have relisted the CfD for this category on today's page. Splash - tk 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Thanks for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy anointing oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calamus (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) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


From what I can gather most of the most expert authorities these days favour the lemongrass theory, which was also espoused by Maimonides, so I think there is a real debate, leaving aside the ridiculous cannabis palaver. Also, since there is now a whole section on the debate, it just seems wrong to be directing readers who have only read the first few paragraphs to the "right" answer as determined by Wikipedia editors, not by the experts. I understand that you may have a worry about pointing readers towards a section that includes the cannabis theory, bit I don't see any way out of that. Paul B (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I usually watch talkpages of people where I post, by the way.
Actually, that was not my worry. I dislike the idea of a link to a section for what should be a straight link to an article. but I agree it is probably the best way out. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


This is in regards to the above mentioned article. I do not intend to enter into an edit war over the matter, but I'm afraid that this article's lead is lacking in relevant information. The lead can be greatly improved which is why I added the template. But you stated rather matter of factly that I am not to compare this article's lead to other articles, and that it is perfect for this kind of article. So tell me how is it perfect? And why should it be treated any differently to other articles? It shouldn't. The point of editing is to improve the articles standard and this one can still be greatly improved, and you can't really argue against that. I suggest that you discuss the matter on the talk page before you remove the template again, and explain your reasons for why you believe it to be "perfect" for "this article". I understand that it may not be a massive blockbuster and so won't be as big as others, but the intro can still do with some improvement. And remember that you have already reverted the edits I made twice with a reason that doesn't hold up. If you do it again you will be in violation of the 3 Reverse Rule and you may be blocked by an administrative editor. Thanks. And if you have any questions feel free to leave a message. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talkcontribs) 21:22, 09 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD#Length says clearly "a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic", which is precisely what this lead is. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD that if you make an edit and it is reverted, the burden of proof is on you. Why didn't you open a discussion on the talkpage to establish consensus? Debresser (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
After a discussion on Project Film with another editor it was agreed that the intro was too short and incomplete. I was, however, informed that the template was not needed as the article is a stub and that the templates presence would do little to heighten the awareness that it was in need of improvement. I just thought I'd let you know. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talkcontribs) 21:22, 09 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping me a note. Technically however, this is not true, since the article is not marked as a stub. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. And sorry for any inconvenience. I'm still getting used to all of the rules and guidelines on wikipedia. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talkcontribs) 17:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tziniut: Western Sephardim[edit]

Hi, I am wondering what the issue is with adding this section. Why doesn't it show up? Also, why did you move it? It is sourced and relevant. People should be able to use it and be part of this article. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is on the talkpage section you opened. You and I are both there. So let's keep the discussion centralized. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Spelling[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. According to Wiktionary, "cannot" seems to be more common, however. Graham87 03:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sephardi Jews[edit]

Dear Debresser,

I apologize for not following the correct procedure regarding this article. I don't have much experience editing Wikipedia in the past, so I did not realize how the talk page works. I actually did not realize there was a talk page. I did not mean to be disrespectful, undoing your work. I though the only availability for comments was in the short paragraph next to the actual edit.

Thanks for letting me know how the proper mechanism for editing works, (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. I suppose we can expect you to post on the talk page shortly? Debresser (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I will first look into how creating a user profile works so that my edits do not just show up with my IP address. I have only done minor edits in the past, but I would still like to start a profile for the future. Once I do, I would like to see how people feel about possibly adding or changing some of the individuals who are currently in the infobox, but if the consensus is that people are happy with the current list, I don't feel strongly that it needs to change. (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. We have had similar discussions on the infobox of Ashkenazi Jews (see Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 7) and made some changes. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Wikiproject Judaism[edit]

Debresser, I got into mini-edit wars (1R) with two users over whether to apply the People of Southwest Asian descent categories to several Jewish descent categories (for example, Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent). I was told I was arguing against consensus but I thought the problem at WP Judaism was that there was no consensus (although I thought there was a majority leaning towards not identifying every person who is "of Jewish descent" as being Asian).

I've reread portions of that long, long discussion and I still don't see a definite consensus and I just wanted to check in with you because you were a participant in that discussion. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Liz. I just now noticed your post. I agree with your understanding of that discussion, see also User_talk:Gilad55#No_consensus where I explain this in some detail. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, I'd like to get this resolved one way or the other, so I posted on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion to see if that was an appropriate forum for debating this. But the discussions there usually aren't about what parent categories applied to subcategories and I think it would result in another stalemate. I just wish this discussion was not about identity and DNA and editors could see the overall structure of the "of descent" categories. Maybe one day this pretty boring organizational topic will be less politically charged but it's not going to happen in the near future, I think. Thanks for your response. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Think before you revert. I made a large number of edits unrelated to the removing the superfluous month from the date parameter. Or to you think replacing "hacking" with protein engineering is removing useful information? I am trying to build an encyclopedia by improving content. I am not sure what you purpose is. Please revert your revert. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit that you undid was to remove several unused parameters and to use consistent citation formatting through out the article. This is consistent with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit which you also undid was to integrate this section of the article with the rest of Wikipedia by providing Wiki links. Boghog (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Per this discussion, the {{PBB Controls}} template is no longer used (and in fact was never used) by User:ProteinBoxBot. The Bot maintainer has therefore recommended that these templates be removed entirely. That was the rationale for this edit. Boghog (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit that you also undid was to provide proper in-line citations. The purpose of this edit was to provide a more logical ordering of sections consistent with WP:MCBMOS. Boghog (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See my revert. Boghog (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you keep the discussion on your talk page? Debresser (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at TRPV1 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Boghog (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it is you who I am edit warring with, please be so kind to post this same message on your own talk page as well. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
May I remind you this edit. And we still have not had a meaningful discussion. A good start is to answer the question I asked on my talk page. Boghog (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What did you want to remind me of with that diff? I am discussing this on you with your talk page. As a matter of fact, I still don't understand why you had to come to my talk page at all. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

I confess to having made a slight error in judgment. The categories in question were added in January by an anonymous editor, after the discussion concluded in December. I made the mistake of believing you were going against consensus, and for that I apologize. That being said, you still violated the 3RR, which is grounds for a temp. block.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Evildoer187 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. At the same time, I am quite sure I did not violate the 3RR rule, please check. Debresser (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That's three reverts.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The 3RR rule is for when there are more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period on a single article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. That is what I had in mind. Also, it is not nice to try and catch people on technicalities when you agreed already you were wrong. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you jump on me[edit]

I reverted Liz here ( because the cat was there at the end of discussion, when it was decided there was no consensus for change in either direction. This cat was first removed in February 2014. See this diff, and check the bottom.

If I have made a mistake, let me know. I am human, after all.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The category was added recently (for a category page), and the discussion showed there is no consensus for it. therefore I have reverted to the last consensus version. In simple words: removed both categories. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
See User_talk:Gilad55#No_consensus where I explain this idea in more detail. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand that you never achieved consensus for removing the cats either. The discussion was divided, and no consensus was achieved in either direction. You had no right to remove those categories.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I reverted myself, because I have no desire to get into a war with you. However, I'd like to point you to this passage you left on User:Yambaram's page. "I mean that when this was discussed recently, the consensus was against adding these categories. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_32". This is false. You did not achieve consensus for removal of the cats, and if you read through the discussion, it is clear that there were strong arguments against their removal, and by the discussion's end, more were in favor of leaving the cats as is than in favor of removal. Further, here is the rationalization you gave for removing the cats from Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent, "Note that they were added fairly recently, often by those same editors who are in favor.", and on my page, "Do not add categories that you know very well you have no consensus to add. See the diffs that this category was not on Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent before you came along." You removed them on the grounds that they were added after the discussion ended, so now it is clear you are moving the goal posts.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I thought there was a slight majority, from regular editors that not all "of Jewish descent" categories should have the "of Asian descent" parent category. Some of those editors chiming in were not active editors and I wonder if there was any off-wiki canvassing going on. I'm not sure about that but it's clear that there is disagreement on this issue and neither side can argue that they have a clear consensus on this topic so there is no moral high ground here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Iryna Harper expressed it rather well on User_talk:Gilad55#No_consensus. The idea of "no consensus" is that we go back to the last not contended version. That means that these categories, which were added recently, will be removed as a no-consensus addition. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, the cats were there since December 2012. They were not removed until this month, long after it was decided that there was no consensus for removal or for addition. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself. You over-stepped your bounds this time. Obtain consensus for your change, then revert.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The idea of "no consensus" is that we go back to the last not contended version". Both versions were strongly contended. That's what "no consensus in either direction" means. You did not have consensus for removing the cats, and yet you did anyway.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
These categories were absent till you added them a while ago. It took a while before this was noticed, but then they were contested. Ergo, reverting to a consensus version means removing them. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. The categories had been there until this revert about a week ago, Likewise, the Middle East descent category was there until you reverted it this week. If anybody needs to look at the diffs, click here.
Either you are being dishonest, or you are not paying attention. I am personally inclined to the former, given how strongly you feel about this particular issue (as exhibited in the December discussion), but I will withhold judgment.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about your "personal inclinations", and not you are to judge me. That having said, it is you who conveniently forgets that until you came along the categories weren't there. See this and following edits. That is what I have been saying the whole time, that you added these categories recently and without consensus. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Snap! That's a convincing diff, Debresser. The category wasn't there before December 2013. Maybe this disagreement should be moved to Dispute Resolution....I really hate to cover all of the ground that occurred at WikiProject Judaism yet again but I have the feeling this difference of opinion isn't going away and maybe we can get it settled one way or the other. Of course, DRN is voluntary. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Did you even look at his diff, Liz? It was from December 2012, not 2013. The categories were there almost continuously from that date until you removed them this month (February 2014), long after the dispute in late 2013 ended. If you had achieved consensus for removing the cats in the December 2013 discussion, you would have been well within your right to remove them. However, the discussion ended in a stalemate, so neither of us had the right to make any further changes, but you did anyway. That's the point I've been trying to make. And Debresser, I am well within my right to judge you based on your actions. Even WP:AGF has its limits. If constructive criticism is not something you can handle, then why are you here?Evildoer187 (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was made a year ago, and it does not have consensus. It is simple. All the rest, about AGF and my abilities to handle etc. is WP:NPA. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
And you have failed to obtain consensus to remove it. The categories were there before the discussion began and were not removed at any point through the duration of the debate. They were not removed until February. Why exactly is this so hard for you to grasp? I have also noticed that despite this, you are edit warring two other editors over it as we speak. Do not think for even a moment that rules on edit warring and violating consensus (both of which you are doing) do not apply to you as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, Evildoer187, I thought the diff was from December 2013, not 2012. As for the discussion, I was unclear on what the "no consensus" results of a discussion were. I didn't think that it meant no future edits could ever be made on the subject and I'd like to see where on WP that is explained. I just thought it meant that there was no definitive decision, not a moratorium on future edits.
By the way, what did you think of the idea of dispute resolution? Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion ended in somewhat of a stalemate, although I felt we did have the majority, which is why I initially restored the cats on Canadian people of Jewish descent. However, it is clear there are a lot of people on both sides who feel strongly about this, and I don't particularly relish the idea of getting into another protracted debate over it. My preference would be to wait a few months for things to cool down, then start a new discussion. My issue with Debresser was how he had resolved to take matters into his own hands and remove categories that had been there for at least a year, despite never having achieved consensus to remove them. I'd rather just leave it alone for a while, and discuss it when things have calmed down.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
While I am not eager to launch back into this debate (which was exhausting the first time), there were a lot of editors who wandered in and out of that discussion, airing their opinions and then disappearing. Plus, there are different editors working on gender, ethnic and religious categories and I don't think an informal "hands off" agreement between the three of us will prevent other editors from adding or removing categories. So, it's either let's dive into this mediation now (hopefully, one last time) or keep close eye on all of these categories for months and explaining to every new editor why their edits are being reverted. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, I am inclined to the latter. Getting into another debate about this is just not something I am up for right now. I have enough on my plate as it is (real life obligations), and there are a bevy of other articles I wish to work on. The categories in question are already on my watch list, so I doubt any further changes will be made without me noticing it.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

outdent@Evildoer187 One year is not considered much on a category page. Especially not since the edit was made by an editor who was involved in the discussion which took place later. @ All I also don't want to go through the whole thing again, but I will not relent, believing honestly that the category is wrong and in violation of consensus. The first argument is personal, even though many have agreed with me in that discussion, enough to claim a majority I think, but the second argument is straightforward. I see only two ways out: an agreement from my Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to remove the category in view of the previously shown lack of consensus for it, or a procedural discussion at a location I am not yet certain of to enforce its removal in view of that same lack of consensus. I leave it to Evildoer187 and Gilad555 to decide which it will be. Since I am certain that I understand the Wikipedia rules and guidelines correctly in this case, and have the personal conviction to want to bring this issue to its conclusion, I prefer the first, as being the easiest way to end this. In any case, I think no discussion will re-open the debate, however much some will try to do so. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the categories were there and you didn't have consensus to remove them. As much as you proclaim that you had a majority, anyone who actually looks at the discussion will see otherwise. Editors Kitty1983 and Yambaram also reverted you a couple of times. That's at least 4 active editors who disagree with you, not to mention others such as Ankh, Camelbinky, JSteven, etc who came out against you in the discussion itself. How you could possibly call that consensus for removal is beyond me.
I will not agree to your first proposal, because I still believe you are wrong. My argument is also personal, as were several others on both sides, and borne of a desire for accuracy. That being said, I am too busy (not to mention too old) to waste my day here chasing moving goal posts.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I am sure of this. You pointed out some editors who recently reverted me. I can point to Liz and Iryna Harpy who reverted you and them alongside me. And see the unexpected agreement of Nishidani on Category talk:People of Jewish descent‎. I agree with you that this is a matter of debate, in which we hold opposite positions. I do claim that there was a majority against, but even if the conclusion was "no consensus", your recent addition of those categories (by which I do mean December 2012 also) should be undone as not having acquired consensus. That is the point I will be arguing, as soon as I will go back to working 8 hours a day instead of 14. Debresser (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
That's precisely why I said "no consensus", because there are too many people on both sides who disagree, and vehemently so. You don't get to remove something unless you have consensus for removing it, and you don't. And since the cats were there before the dispute began, you violated consensus.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

gentle notice for you[edit]

Information icon Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Almasworld (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Completely correct. In view of the efforts of two editors acting against consensus, I asked two other involved editors to help. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I find it mindboggling that a week-old account, with 35 edits, is leaving a warning on your talk page about canvassing. This is clearly an experienced editor who either has an alternative account or one who is shedding a previous identity. Is that you, Yambaram?
You left notices on two editors' talk pages who were already discussing this topic and were involved, that doesn't sound like canvassing to me but communication. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz. My point precisely. In addition, this tagging of an experienced editor's talkpage with standard messages, is often perceived as insulting. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I am amused at the use of the adjective "gentle" in this situation.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, Debresser made open appeals to both you and Iryna Harpy to revert me, since he obviously passed his 3RR limit. That sounds like canvassing to me. Why Almasworld's editing resume should factor into this, I have no idea. If there is a rule here supporting such selectiveness that I missed, I'd love to see it.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. That is not canvassing. That is openly asking for help. Precisely. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Actually, as per what Liz says (who is a user who is on your side in this topic of debate): "There was a months-long discussion at WP:WikiProject Judaism and it was far from resolved, with a slight majority arguing against labeling all people of Jewish descent (not Jewish, of Jewish descent) as being "Asian"." I'm not sure if you haven't had a chance to look at the debate at Archive 32, Debresser, but there is a majority in favour, and I reverted your deletion based on that majority, which I did not feel was an unreasonable decision on my part. Clearly I haven't made up that majority, or it wouldn't be mentioned on Liz's page as well. Also, please do not use emotionally loaded and impolite terms like "outrageous" on people's talk pages. This is the first time we've spoken in person and I don't feel rudeness was called for; this is an encyclopedia and a forum for rational debate, not your personal boxing ring. If you do intend to post on my talk page again, I'm happy to speak about this further, but I would appreciate if you would do so in a calmer fashion. Thank you. Kitty (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was part of that discussion (I suppose there was only one major discussion about this subject this year), and remember it very well, including the conclusion that there is no consensus for addition of Asian and (less outspoken majority) Middle Eastern categories to Jewish category pages. I do not understand how you could have come to any other conclusion. If I was a little too outspoken, I still find your revert unsupported by that discussion, if not directly in contradiction to its conclusions, so I think that you should have refrained from that revert. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
And no consensus for removal either. What part of that do you not understand? I counted the editors on our side, and those against us. We had 11, you had 7. That in no way constitutes consensus for removal.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You do not understand the principal rule here. An addition that does not find consensus will be reverted. That is the default. The default is always: revert to the last unchallenged version. What do you not understand here? Perhaps you should read WP:NOCONSENSUS. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The version you proposed was not unchallenged. That's my point.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Debresser :) That's fair enough. My stance on this is that at the time, as Evildoer mentions, there were 11 people speaking for and 7 against. Both sides do, of course, have good points. But I do believe the number of speakers in favour is entirely relevant as well (especially as gaining a complete agreement between both sides on an issue such as this would be an impossible task from the start), and I think that it's reasonable for the categories to be kept in light of the prevalence of Semitic y-DNA markers even in non-Mizrachi populations, so I made the decision to revert based on that. If we go by the logic of absolute consensus needed for any category to be kept anywhere, things could end up pretty chaotic on Wikipedia, since of course the odds are people are going to disagree with each other about almost anything, so isn't the majority relevant as well? Kitty (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not remember this clearly at the moment, but I think of those in favor (and I did not say I agree with your count, since I haven't review this carefully yet, just speaking from memory), a few were one-time contributions to the discussion without much of an argument. I would need to review it more carefully, but please also consider that in counting votes (and remember also WP:NOVOTE) it says specifically to pay attention to the arguments. If an editor just "tags" the discussion with his unexplained opinion, that does not count for much. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Most of the people who posted in favor explained why, from what I've seen. Either way, does it matter if they were active in the dispute? I feel like we're just grasping at straws now.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter. If you have been involved in AfD or CfD debates (and I believe you have), you know it's not like an RfA where there is a straight vote count and I don't think that accounts that appeared out of nowhere to support or oppose and then disappeared should be weighed as heavily as the opinions of long-time editors in this field (and, by the way, I don't count myself as one of them).
This is all moot though because in Dispute Resolution, we will all have a chance to present our argument and the mediator will help negotiate consensus. In DR, only the named parties participate and there won't be any newly created accounts weighing in with agreement to one side or another. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish descent[edit]

You make an excellent point, there (sorry to bring it here, but I'm so done with that conversation for now). Who'd have thought it'd come to you, Nishidani, and me on the same side of a question? Maybe we could solve the problem by turning it around and forbidding all descent categories except Category:People of Edenic descent and then just add it to every article about a person?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we have disagreed on most issues. I see it as an indication that we are on the right track here. May I quote your post here as an agreement with my point of view in this matter in further discussion? Debresser (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Certainly. John 18:20.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha. An anti-Semite verse if ever I saw one. :) Debresser (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox World Triathlon Series[edit]

Last December, you tagged {{Infobox World Triathlon Series}} for speedy deletion. The tag appears malformed, and the template is still there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Nominated for regular deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 3. Debresser (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some users in the Ashkenazi section who completely disregard consensus and additional articles[edit]

I'm making this section, because a user called "Evildoer187" edits and cherry picks as he wills regardless of consensus and additional articles. (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

His non-consensus editing is well-know to me and other editors, but since he seems (at least) to follow the rules and seems (at least) to be seriously convinced of his case, we have to go through a lot of writing to deal with this editor. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3[edit]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sephardi Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sasson (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) 08:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no better link than the disambiguation page in that case. Sasson (surname) doesn't exist yet. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Template names in articles[edit]

Inline, small and/or low-impact templates seem to use lowercase, while standalone, larger and/or more significant ones sport sentence case. At least, that's the tendency I've noticed while editing. If that is the rationale, it seems worthwhile from here. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case. I think it is a matter of who is used to what. Some users just never write capitals; some people never use them in text messages. I was raised to be particular about this, and so I am on Wikipedia as well. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) And fortunately the software is case insensitive when it comes to first letters, so you can both have your ways! How often does that happen on Wikipedia?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, 1001, that is true. And, by the way, feel free to stalk my talk page. :) Debresser (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories[edit]


Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Jordan[edit]

Looked back at an edit you made five years ago on the Barbara Jordan page. Good job back then!! Mvblair (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Would that be this edit? Debresser (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes! Mvblair (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Short term memory? Or....[edit]

You were the one who restored this part of the lede (which Nishidani, and now you, deleted) based on consensus. Allow me to refresh your memory.

Evildoer187 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


I thought for a moment I'd broken 1R until I realized you have restored my edit before the second one. Very decent of you. I should explain that the Holocaust is of course absolutely central, but that section was written in a way that linked to the obvious, and my impression was that an enormous amount of detail was developed on it, to the exclusion of many other things that are required per WP:Lede. I.e., the extraordinary achievements of the Ashkenazi, their pivotal role in the making of modernity in Europe. I have always born in mind a remark by Salo Witmayer Baron who advised his students not to focus on the undoubtedly numerous tragedies of the past, and thereby falling victim to the 'lachrymose' version of one's tradition, to the detriment of what is a very deep and impressive history also of positive achievements. I hope that in rewriting the Holocaust bit, I have given the essential gist of the unspeakable, as opposed to the earlier version. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of reverting, just a note to you, Debresser, you're at 2R at Category:American people of Jewish descent. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Obi-Wan Kenobi noticed all of the category reverts and asked me if there was a WP:DR case on this subject (which had been proposed in March). That's been put on hold for the moment but we might need to revisit that idea. Iryna was going to put together a case but she's busying working on Ukrainian articles right now. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I might have some time on Thursday. Real life is a bitch. :) Debresser (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard[edit]

I'd love to hear your enquiries here. We may have our disagreements but I'd like to see how it goes. Khazar (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Respectful disagreement is not a bad thing, and I'll be happy to comment. I happen to have heard the chief rabbi on this subject myself. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora[edit]

Hello, Debresser,
There have been a number of edits made to this article today and I was wondering if you could spare a moment to look them over. I think the ones by Brewcrewer are okay but Ubikwit's edit deletes a source. I reverted it and then he reverted it back. I don't edit-war but I also am not that familiar with the subject and available sources. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought I restored the source when I reverted your revert, as per the edit summary I left. But then I decided to double check and found that the refcite was somehow not coded properly. I just implemented a fix, but please do have a look and see if everything is in order.
The crux of my edit was to restore the long standing consensus text restored by @Dailycare:[4].
I'm not sure why Liz brought this up here, on another user's page, instead of on the article talk page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit. Liz came here to ask for my outside opinion, which is good practice. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Moses Sofer[edit]

I really had enough of this place, where every Litvak or Lubavitcher messes with my edits with references from such objective sources as Aish or the OU. So here's something for you, and that too. I'm out. מהמברטה (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to remove yourself from editing, if you can't stand the heat. But I do resent your approach to resistance: my personal believes have nothing to do with the many problems your edit posed. I find it more likely that your personal believes have something to do with your frustration. In any case, I would have been willing to discuss your edit with you in more detail, had you been interested in that. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Example needed[edit]

(Undid revision 610406329 by Sardanaphalus (talk) He's doing it again, despite my talkpage post that there is things he doesn't know about templates.)

Please explain to him what things he doesn't know about templates that apply here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You remove the remarks, which are there with a function, namely to show the beginning and end of the template in case the template is by mistake substituted.
On a sidenote, is really see no use for the other additions you are trying to make. And may I notice that you should really consider discussing changes to templates that are in active use before you make them. In any case, I personally don't find them useful, let alone necessary. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I see the purpose of these comments now. (How about something like <!--{{Template name}} starts/ends. It should not be subst:ed.--> or <!--Comment in case {{Template name}} subst:ed. (Start:/End.)-->...?)
I added "[example?]" and "[examples?]" as shorter, more succinct versions less likely to linewrap. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism[edit]

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I was happy to contribute to that discussion. Thanks for the invitation. My point of view is precisely the same now as it was in that first discussion a few years ago. Debresser (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


The content you trying to impose at Levant, apart from being misleading and based on the unusual view that people who have decided to live across the green line outside of "Israel proper" in the occupied territories constitute "excessive detail", is clearly within scope of the ARBPIA 1RR restrictions. Both of your edits were reverts. You broke 1RR. You were edit warring. I'm not going to report it because you didn't have an opportunity to self-revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

In some places it is excessive detail. Not everywhere where it says "Israel" in Wikipedia do we need to explain if it means with or without the occupied territories. That is just some politically motivated sense of preciseness which is subject to change every few years as the political climate changes.
Feel free to report me. I do not respect every bureaucratic rule on Wikipedia to the letter when I feel I have a good point. I am sure you understand which Wikipedia guideline I am referring to. You will noticed I didn't revert an additional time, recognizing the cause as lost. By which I mean to say I am not an edit warrior per se, but I do not like a valid point I make being reverted summarily by bureaucrats and politics.
Which leads me to mention that I have noticed you are one of the editors on the forefront of this struggle for political correctness. Even your name seems to connect you to the subject. You might want to consider getting a larger perspective at things in the view of the futility of your endeavors in the face of historical forces. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The argument that Not everywhere where it says "Israel" in Wikipedia do we need to explain if it means with or without the occupied territories is not worthy of a response. You can be sure that someone will revert you if they see you make an edit based on that distortion, because it's a clear policy violation. The fact that you apparently can't see why isn't Wikipedia's problem.
  • Just like in real life, people here are free to do anything they want and face the consequences. If you make a habit of breaking 1RR for ARBPIA related content, someone will report you and it would likely result in a block. Admins would probably assume that you should know better given your block log.
  • I'm not part of a struggle for anything. I'm here to help build an encyclopedia based on a set of rules. That involves dealing with the attempts to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia, something that is commonplace in ARBPIA because many people are dumb enough to edit topics where their personal views compromise their editing and degrade content.
  • Your comment "You might want to consider getting a larger perspective at things in the view of the futility of your endeavors in the face of historical forces" is the kind of comment that keeps me editing in the ARBPIA topic area. If you can imagine what it is like to not have any of the beliefs you currently have or any of the beliefs you believe others in the ARBPIA topic area hold, that will get you close to understanding my perspective, which is that there is information published by reliable sources and the content rules. If someone does something that is inconsistent with information published by reliable sources and the content rules, and I see it, I may take action to correct it.
  • My user name is my real name. I don't think editors should be allowed to edit anonymously, so I don't. The origin and meaning of my surname is unknown. It doesn't connect me to anything, so be careful about what you think you can see. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If that is really your name, then I apologize for that one remark. I am sorry it seems that our mindsets are incompatible. But I am sure we'll manage to live with it, and even collaborate successfully. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Unknown? I thought your real name referred historically to a 'John', certainly Irish, set on highground? (2)'in the view of the futility of your endeavors in the face of historical forces.' Debresser. You really should think before making statements like that.' Anyone with a long-term memory can see how dangerous that kind of mindset has been, esp. to Jews. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope you two didn't misunderstand my meaning with that sentence about "historical forces". I was referring to their everchanging nature. In some places history has been re-written actively over the last decade alone. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you intended, it sounds, thus put unnerving. I personally was reminded of Ignacy Schipper's argument against mounting a Jewish resistance against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto. I can't recall exactly where, but his language was similar to the phrasing you used.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jerusalem Talmud may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [Category:Judaism in Jerusalem]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion that ALSO involves you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Edit warring. Per numerous violations across two articles. Thank you. --Inayity (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It is I who created that section and reported you. Are you with us? Debresser (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you with us is this how you talk to other editors? If you are engaged in an edit war it is hypocritical to accuse someone else of doing it. Reports like this usually come from non-involved editors. --Inayity (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Another rule you are making up. In any case, you started it, so I warned you. I am only trying to keep you from censoring Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy birthday!!![edit]

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Themainman69 Is pushing POV and removing sourced information[edit]

This user is Pushing POV and removing sourced information on the page "Jews", he ignores the sources and has an agenda. Guy355 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the issue has been solved. Guy355 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I keep the Shabbat, and only now saw this post. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite alright, fortunately, he has been banned. Guy355 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)