User talk:Debresser

What I do on Wikipedia.

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)

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

Yes! You're awesome. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried using Google Images' search by image function. benzband (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) _{Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply}

Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{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)

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) ^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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)

Barbara Jordan

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....

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923

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

Thanks

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

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

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:[1].

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

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AExample_needed&diff=610416743&oldid=610406329

(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

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)

1RR

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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

Themainman69 Is pushing POV and removing sourced information

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)

Islamization article

What's up with you? You're a highly experienced editor, so you know perfectly well that you don't have a leg to stand on. Zero^talk 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The source is reliable. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You made no case for reliability. See you at WP:RSN soon. Zero^talk 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I made my case on the talkpage, and in my opinion very convincingly so. I asked editors at WP:RSN to comment on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Section-sort

Template:Section-sort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'll have a look at the discussion. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Avicenna

Hello, Debresser:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avicenna&diff=620649760&oldid=620631422

(Revert removal of sourced information and a lot of unnecessary formatting "improvements".)

Does the first part of your summary refer to "Galen (and Hippocrates)"..?

This nonetheless looks like a wholesale reversion of the edits made to the start of the article. If so, does that mean you feel there was nothing worthwhile in what I was trying to contribute..?

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The sourced information was "He is regarded as the most famous and influential polymath of the Islamic Golden Age.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/45755/Avicenna |title=Avicenna (Persian philosopher and scientist) - Britannica Online Encyclopedia |publisher=Britannica.com |accessdate=2012-01-07}}</ref>".

Please edit without using all kinds of templates and comments, like in {{thinsp}}; {{nowrap|{{circa}} 980 (August)}}{{spaced ndash}}, or "--------------Reference set begins--------------". All these things are not really necessary and just make editing harder. In this regard, please see WP:KISS, last sentence. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• The information and reference you mention hadn't been removed, but the description "is regarded as the most famous and influential polymath of" had become "polymath who is generally considered to be one of the most significant thinkers and writers of". I've restored an amended version of the previous version's opening where this description is now "polymath who is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers and writers of" – is this acceptable to you?

The other amendments made are the replacement or removal of the various inline templates – apart from those resizing the otherwise near-illegible Arabic script – and the removal of the comment tags structuring the <ref>...</ref> code. (I find it's the inline referencing that usually makes editing noticeably harder.) Again, hopefully this is acceptable to you..?

Thanks for pointing out WP:KISS. The second to fourth sentences here might be of interest.

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, both are acceptable to me. Thank you.

I don't remember if I ever saw Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (probably did), but I certainly try to abide by this rule. If I reverted you here, it is because I found it necessary. I had 3 reasons to revert, which I would prefer not to go into, but just that you should know this is a rule I actively abide by. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• As regards the infobox, I felt the way it presented some of its information was too serial, so would you mind if I restored the structure added there – but with thinsp, nowrap, etc templates omitted – ? (I think there were also a couple of typos.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose representing information in a serial way makes sense in an infobox. I don't know. But that would probably come under "don't interfere if not really necessary", so try me. :) Debresser (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Avoiding linewraps (i.e. information break-up) and offering a little more structure was what I had in mind. What do you make of it now? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In the very first line I saw some 3 templates related to formatting. Sorry, but no. Please keep things simple (WP:KISS). If it ain't broken, don't fix it. (WP:BROKEN, another useful link.) Debresser (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• How about the following?
  Other than the {{big}}and {{resize|145%}} – otherwise the Arabic script is easily illegible – I think I've removed/replaced the extra templates; {{ublist}}, {{hlist}} and {{Aligned table}} are now replaced by <div>s. (It's these and the footnotes that provide the structure which I feel present the infobox's information more lucidly. (Translation: "I feel it is a bit broke, so here's some fixing."))

suggested

current

Ibn Sīnā  ابن سینا (Avicenna) Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) as represented on a Tajik 20-somoni banknote. Born circa 980 CE (August) Bukhara, Greater Khorāsān Died June 1037 (aged 56–57) Hamadān, Persia (Iran) Other names Avicenna Sharaf al-Mulk Hujjat al-Haq Sheikh al-Rayees Bu Alī Sīnā (بو علی سینا) "Father of [modern] medicine" Academic background Influences the Quran Hippocrates Aristotle Galen Neoplatonism al-Kindi al-Farabi Rhazes Biruni al-Masihi Academic work Era Islamic Golden Age (Middle Ages) Main interests Medicine and aromatherapy Philosophy and logic Kalām in Islamic theology Science Poetry Notable works The Book of Healing The Canon of Medicine Influenced Biruni Omar Khayyám Averroes Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi Tusi Ibn al-Nafis Albertus Magnus Maimonides Abu 'Ubayd al-Juzjani

Ibn Sīnā (ابن سینا) Born August c. 980 Bukhara (capital of the Samanid Empire), today Uzbekistan Died June 1037 (aged 56–57) Hamadan, Iran Nationality Persian/Iranian Other names Sharaf al-Mulk, Hujjat al-Haq, Sheikh al-Rayees, Bu Alī Sīnā(بو علی سینا), Avicenna Academic background Influences the Quran, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen, Neoplatonism, al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Rhazes, Biruni, Al-Masihi Academic work Era Medieval era (Islamic Golden Age) Main interests Medicine, philosophy, logic, Islamic theology (kalam), physics, poetry, science Notable works The Book of Healing, The Canon of Medicine Notable ideas Father of modern medicine; pioneer of aromatherapy Influenced Biruni, Omar Khayyám, Averroes, Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Tusi, Ibn al-Nafis, Albertus Magnus, Maimonides, Abu 'Ubayd al-Juzjani

Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with your latest edit to the article. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion looks good. I have 1 question and 1 remark. Question: since Avicenna will be part of the title of the infobox, albeit in brackets, does it still need to be repeated under "other names"? Remark: I am not comfortable with "Father of Modern Medicine" as a name. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I reckon it's worth retaining the repeated "Avicenna", not only as its first mention is in brackets but to be clear that it's an "other name" (of which I imagine "Avicenna" himself was never aware). I agree that labels such as "father of [modern] medicine" (reference notwithstanding) are probably too tenuous to merit inclusion in an infobox, so have struck it out above and will omit if you're now happy to see the infobox updated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and updated the infobox as above (and without "Father of [modern] medicine"). "Avicenna" is one of ibn Sina's "Other names", so I reckon it should remain in that section – but also as the parenthesis in the title, as it's well-established in the English-speaking world (and the article's name). Hope that's okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Very well. A pleasure working with you. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBPIA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am familiar with WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments - WP:RS - WP:3RR

Hi,

According to you, here, I made a "bullshit claim" [sic] when I stated that the "Ministry of Foreign Affair" was not a "reliable source" to provide the cause of the Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands. In more of not being WP:CIVIL, your comments are quite questionnable. It is obvious that a political organisation (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a contry) is not at all reliable and even not pertinent on a topic related to History (exodus from 1948 to end of the 80ies, around 40 years ago...) in an article dealing with Human Sciences ("Jews").

I add that on the article about the Bar Kokhba revolt, you have made 3 reverts in 24 hours versus 3 different contributors, which is an edit war. Given the reasons of your reverts are related to the I-P conflict, I have added this to the ARBPIA article lists for which WP:1RR applies. You have been warned about this and you should stop any edit war and find a comprises on the talk page.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I reverted 2 editors on Bar Kokhba revolt, not 3. Secondly, that article is not related to WP:ARBPIA, and I have accordingly removed the WP:ARBPIA warning from that talkpage, where you had added it incorrectly. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you want to make the point a government ministry is not a reliable source, please do so on the talkpage or on WP:RS/N, but until you get consensus for that claim, I think it is bull shit. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

On :

• "Jews", you have finally been reverted by Oncenawhile
• "Islamisation of the Temple Mount", you was finallly accepted you was in a minority position
• "Bar Kochba Revolt", an article indirectly linked to the I-P conflit given what shlomo sand published about this, you have been reverted 3 times and 3 times you re-inserted your edit.

You behaviour is not appropriate as well as going on with comments such as "bull shit".

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Jews. I have no idea what you are talking about. Oncenawhile edited a paragraph I never edited before.

Regarding Islamisation of the Temple Mount. Yes, I accepted that after the long discussions on the talkpage. That is a good thing, no?

Regarding Bar Kochba Revolt. That article is not even indirectly related to WP:ARBPIA, imho. I don't know Shlomo Sand, and I don't really care about every person who likes to see connections (conspiracy theories come to mind).

Regarding Bull shit. If you say bull shit, it will be called "bull shit". I have seen admins say a lot worse on WP:ANI, so don't even think to lecture me for my language. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, I disagree on the Bar Kochba revolt, because it is a fundamental part of Israel's national myth. See e.g. [2], which contains some good material for additions to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, I don't have time to lose with pilpuls. What is clear is that your edits are problematic. The reference to MFA was removed by Onceanwhile and your theory on the islamisation was removed by Zero0000. The fact that you agreed is good, indeed. It is sad that you don't realize this by yourself.

About your behaviour on Bar Kochba Revolt, this article falls under ARBIPA but don't be afraid : you will not be reported. I do act as an adult. You shoud understand alone that reverting 3 editors is not acceptable.

About the content. It is accepted among scholars that the numbers of 585,000 and the destruction of 800 villages are exagerated. Of course, nobody has the real numbers. So based on that uncertaincy, you want to make a genocide from this, just with 1 source to assess this. If you want to believe this, I don't see how to convince you. But given it is sourced that this is part of the Israeli national narrative to believe so, it will be hard to convince other contributors and to get a compromise on a belief. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012 I do agree that figures might be exaggerated. That still doesn't mean the results of the uprising don't qualify as a genocide.

@Oncenawhile I have also heard of the Bar Kokhba Revolt being overly stressed in Zionist ideology. The source you bring is still a bit removed from that, but comes close. But even with that, I think it is still a long way to a connection with ARBPIA, even broadly constructed. I'd like to see that discussed somewhere first. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Newman

Not sure if he is the same guy but this nor is up for a topic ban at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look there Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Jews collage

Hi :-)

I saw you took part in a past discussion regarding the people appearing in the infobox. I have some issues with it (mostly regarding the style and the people represented in it, with some notable figures being passed out).

I started a discussion about it and proposed a new collage. I would really like it if you took part in the new discussion and suggested ideas/opinions that will help make the collage better. After all, it's all about consensus.

I do have an account and if you want to leave me a personal message leave it here: User:Mr. Sort It Out. Thank you! 90.198.246.7 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did some asking about the people you mentioned, ever Israeli knew Agassi and Yonah, but all of them mentioned Becky Griffin is irrelevant. I suggested someone else instead of her on the collage. Could you please also leave your comments about things like style and other issues? 90.198.246.7 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Menachem M. Schneerson

I saw you undid my changes on Menachem M. Schneerson. You stated that you object to some of them and that I should make smaller edits. The reason I made big edits was because I moved sections and did not want the history to give a wrong impression that I blanked sections. I imagine you don't disagree with the new sources I added or the text I tightened. Can you please specify what changes I made you disagree with? Thanks. TM (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You removed some sourced statements from the lede like that he was called simply "the Rebbe" and that he was one of the most influential leaders of religious Judaism in the 20th century. These phrases may remind you of hagiography, but they are true and important. Likewise you removed a source for the statement that he is noted for his contributions to religious thought, without any indication why that source didn't satisfy you. Moving sections is a regular thing and can be done in one edit, no reason not to separate that from other edits. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you support this on the "Rosh Hashanah" article?

Hi, Dovid. I'm asking your advice here. Here, as you can see, I deleted references to Yemenite Jewish customs. Can we put it back on in the article, under a new sub-title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbena (talk • contribs)

I'll reply to your post on the talkpage. Thanks for coming here. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We already had that

Hi Debresser, just following up on your revert. I don't know what you mean by "We" or "that" and am confused as to why you are removing well sourced content. Thanks for any clarification. Lexlex (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant that the conclusions of Ostrer's research were mentioned in the same section of the "Jews" article, just a little higher up. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for your information, these genetic studies were the subject of heavy argument a few months ago, I think it was on the Ashkenazi Jews talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

HaShem

Thanks for fixing the vandalism. As it is in life, good deeds often get rewarded with requests for more. :-) So, I looked at your user page, saw a link to HaShem, and ended up reading that section. Less than half of it actually discusses HaShem; in particular the first paragraph starts out with another name, and ends with a discussion of sound changes that for me don't seem to apply to the topic. Is this something you might want to look into, or should I post it at the WP? — Sebastian 19:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Rebbe and HaShem are on my agenda. If it will wait a little, then I'll be happy to look at it. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there's no rush. I'm aware that we're all volunteers here, and I never take peoples work here for granted, particularly now that I'm much less active here than I used to be. — Sebastian 06:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I edited Hashem, see this diff.

Likewise I edited Names of God in Judaism, see this diff.

Are these the articles you feel needed improving? Debresser (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits, and thank you also for all the links here. I had only meant the "HaShem" section of Names of God in Judaism. I'm happy with the way it looks now. So, now I'm wondering: Was the text about the "k" replacement just vandalism or original research? — Sebastian 21:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good, then I did solve the issue. It was original research, yes, and off point. It was related, but not directly to the HaShem section.Debresser (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Intervention

Dovid, shalom. There is a question about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page in terms of photos because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor, User, PacificWarrior101, and lately supported by User, Amire80, have posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer and transgender, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page, Yemenite Jews, that treats on ethnicity, and to a large extent, the history of Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. While I have no personal problems about discussing issues of transgender, here the matter is different. Dana International's photograph on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of a serial killer on an ethnicity page. Or, let's say, Israeli troops shooting at an Arab child, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not, particularly when the photo is controversial and evokes shame. See the Talk page on Yemenite Jews, and the sub-section: "Flouting an Ethnic Group." Any advice will be much appreciated by you.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't remove my comment again, especially as you were canvassed to the talk page. Limiting photos of transgendered people to transgender-specific articles is ghettoization. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Such unproductive and antagonizing comments will be removed by me and any other editor at will, as they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eliezer_Melamed#Honorific

Since we seemed to reach an impass on Talk:Eliezer_Melamed#Honorific, I have followed the WP:3O process to get a third person's input on the matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Marceau

I have to say that you feel that in the actress's personal section that the only realistically bit of tat and trivia is that her ex partner is older than her pretty weak and the fact that you take this so seriously by repeatedly adding this fact back in shows that this website needs some a bit of fresh air.....

There must be 100s more interesting facts about her personal life to add rather than a 26 year age gap.

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

True as that may be, I didn't add it. I just oppose removing it. A bit of an age difference is not noteworthy. This much of an age difference is. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Another source removed Talk Sukkot

Please go to this page to enter your comments on this dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sukkot.23Another_.22source.22_removed_discussion

regardsTheredheifer (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should say "Thank you" for posting this notification. In any case. That discussion was closed with edit summary "Closing as premature, insufficient discussion". I told you on the talkpage that taking this to dispute resolution was premature. When will you start listening to me? Debresser (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you is not required, that was part of the process. When will you stop removing non religious material?Theredheifer (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When it is relevant, reliable and worded correctly. Debresser (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The material that I add meets all these criteria.Theredheifer (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is often worded unlucky, and not necessarily relevant at the precise location where you want to add it. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well please reword it, and put it in the relevant place instead of edit warring. PS If you are going to continue to criticise my writing you should not use phrases such as worded unlucky.Theredheifer (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah dispute

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&action=edit&section=3&editintro=Wikipedia%3AThird+opinion%2FInstructions

See this page for third opinion request for resolution of the three disputed words.Theredheifer (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your post therewas removed. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I will try RSN first before going to dispute 3ORTheredheifer (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RSN

I have asked for advice on the disputed RS here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sukkot_section_removed

I should probably add the rest as well.Theredheifer (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You should have linked the rest of the discussion on Talk:Sukkot#Another_.22source.22_removed as well. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shabbos App for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Thanks for dropping a note. I'll give my 2 cents as well. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your POV

Dear Debresser, I need your help: after reading your user page and looking at your edit history, it would seem you almost exclusively work on articles relating to Jewish subjects. It raises a red flag because you are a) such an active user with these articles, regularly/daily answering talk messages, often in the first person with what could be considered a sense of ownership; and b) you state in your user page that you are a member of Jewish clergy. Because of your long edit history it almost ridiculous to say this, but I want to make sure you've read WP:COMPORG —which explicitly discourages members of an organisation editing pages about their organisation, simply because it's too easy to fail one of the three cores of Wikipedia: Neutrality. Please let me know if this has come up before and how you responded, or how you feel you maintain a sense of neutrality when working on articles which are likely very near and dear to you? Thank you very much for your help in advance. Lexlex (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lexlex. Thank you for visiting my userpage. I am active in science-fiction articles as well, articles about films, and used to be active in maintenance templates, both their standardization as well as error fixing. Please see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia for details.

There was once another religious Jewish editor who was worried about a cabal of editors from a specific Orthodox Jewish movement, and took his concerns to WP:ARBCOM. However, ARBCOM did no see things his way, and I can tell you that his suspicions were indeed unfounded. That was in 2010.

I am by character rather sure of myself, and that may show in my posts. I am a rabbi, in the sense that I finished a talmudic college (a yeshiva). I am however not actively involved with any community, so the title "rabbi" is in my case more like an academic degree than a job-description, and I don't consider myself to be clergy.

By virtue of my secular education (elite Dutch high school and unfinished studies as a theoretical physician), I think I am actually well-equipped to view even subjects in which I have extensive knowledge from a religious point of view, from other sides as well.

I hope my reply was able to set aside your concerns. I am open for constructive criticism, so please feel free to post here in the future, if you see the need. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your comment below regarding well poisoning, this is not an attempt at an ad hominem attack, I believe good editors are hard to find and better to keep. Frankly I'm bringing this up because I am uneasy. I am feeling uncomfortable with what I see over time in your editing style in articles specifically related to Judaism and related subjects, and feel your close connection to the organization may be running afoul of the spirit if not the letter of WP:COMPORG. I understand you're not practicing clergy, but you've stated you still consider yourself a member of the organisation, strictly subscribe to its rules and consider yourself an authority on the subject. While well and fine, I want to ensure other editors (myself included) attempting to modify articles, perhaps by adding things which may make you uncomfortable due to your connection, are free to do so without needless interference. Lexlex (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note also that here I am addressing WP:COMPORG whereas below it is WP:Ownership. Lexlex (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My reply above was more regarding WP:OWN. What organization did you have in mind that encompasses all of Judaism articles? Debresser (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

See organized religion. Lexlex (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems rather far-fetched. In any case, that is not the case here. Please notice that I am as opinionated about other issues as about issues related to Judaism, see e.g. here. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

On my talk page, there was a request by User:PBS to unprotect a template that you were involved in a content dispute with last December. I've unprotected it and made some changes to the template. If you have any objections to my edits or the unprotection then let me know and I'll protect it again and revert all my changes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is some kind of compromise version. On the one hand it does show the output, on the other hand it avoids the error message. I suppose that should be okay. I do think that most citation templates don't show on the template page itself, but as long as there is no error, having the template output on its own page is not in itself a bad thing. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish seminary

Your actions on this page are bizarre. You can not "warn" someone for bringing a page in conformance with strict guidelines for the contents of disambiguation pages. If you are incompetent to edit in this area due to a lack of understanding of how disruptive nonconforming pages are to disambiguation efforts, then you should either learn the rules or avoid the area. In this case, you'd be just as right throwing a "Featured article" tag on the page, and "warning" anyone who dared take it off. bd2412 T 01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Debresser you're a very experienced editor—hardly incompetent, but it seems you may be attempting to claim WP:Ownership on all articles relating to Judaism with what could be seen as an almost autocratic editing style-summarily reverting edits that don't meet with your approval on a regular basis. Do you think this is a possibility? Lexlex (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor can be highly competent in general and yet incompetent in a specific area, such as disambiguation, where the balance is delicate and the potential for disruption is extraordinary. bd2412 T 16:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Lexlex, you asked this above, and I already replied. I think your repeated suggestion, however well-meant it may be, results in discrediting me and my edits with well-poisoning. Not to mention that the assumption itself is quite preposterous.

BD2412 I simply disagree with your unfounded assumption that entries on a disambiguation page must be one-word links. Nowhere in WP:MOSDAB does it say so, and practice on Wikipedia is precisely the opposite, to add a few words of explanation to each entry on a disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not said that entries on disambiguation pages must be one word links; however, per WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line, the introductory sentence is to say only "Term may refer to:"; there should be no links on the page other than links to terms to which the title is ambiguous, because other links confound the software that offers solutions for fixing links to the disambiguation page. Unless you can provide sources for the proposition that "Rabbi" and "Judaism" mean the same thing as "Jewish seminary", then they must not be linked on the page. Also, please do not remove valid cleanup tags from the page so long as these issue persist. You must be aware that I have had no previous involvement with this page, and I have come to it solely in my capacity as an administrator to prevent breaches of the guidelines that are harmful to the encyclopedia. My actions in this capacity are administrative actions, not merely "content editing" actions. Accordingly, I need to know that you are willing to conform your conduct to the requirements of this project. bd2412 T 22:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

BD2412 As you probably noticed, my reverts have been based on those same guidelines, as stated in my edit summaries and on the talk page discussion. We understand those guidelines differently. Therefore your question if I am willing to abide by the guidelines is strange to say the least, and comes close to attempted intimidation. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that having any links on the page other that those that are directly ambiguous to the term at issue is harmful to the disambiguation tools, and is therefore clearly prohibited on disambiguation pages? bd2412 T 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:DABENTRY that refers only to entries, not to the introductory line. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that having any links anywhere on the page other that those that are directly ambiguous to the term at issue is harmful to the disambiguation tools, which do not distinguish where on the page these links are? Can you show me anywhere in WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line where an introductory line looks like that? bd2412 T 20:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not mentioned anywhere on the guideline, so 1. you can not enforce it 2. if that is the case, and you will have to prove that, then the tools should be fixed, rather than lower the informative quality of the pages. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a playfield for tool wielders. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, wouldn't you agree that my last edit s a lot more to your liking than before? So now your only problem is the link in the introductory sentence? Or do you have more problems with the current version? Debresser (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on your conduct with respect to this matter, I have proposed to impose a short block on you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Debresser conduct at Jewish seminary. Your comment about the "informative quality of pages" suggests that you do not understand the function of disambiguation pages, which basically serve as redirects with multiple options. bd2412 T 20:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have replied there. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Goel Ratzon - Needs a factual basis or citation

The Goel Ratzon needs a factual basis or citation to support the contention that he "claims to be a Jewish Messiah." A single attribution is all that is required. To include without support is to do so based on an assumption, which is therefore not factual.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You posted the same on the talk page. I saw it there. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Debresser

What do you think about this edit? I think it is problematic. -AsceticRosé 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I had noticed the edit, and also frowned at it at first, but then calmed down. What do you think is wrong with it? Debresser (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken the issue to the article's talk-page. Let's discuss there. -AsceticRosé 05:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with you there. Thanks for catching this. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your offensive revert

I find it quite offensive that you labeled my adding a reference "spamming". The book is completely relevant to the subject of the article.

Here is the description of the book (presumably the publisher's description) from Amazon:

This wide-ranging anthology takes a close look at the breadth of human sexuality from a Jewish perspective. The essays begin with a look at biblical and rabbinic views on sexuality, and then proceed to explorations of sexuality at different moments in the life cycle, sexuality and the marital model, diverse expressions of sexuality, examples of sexuality education, the nexus of sexuality and theology, and the challenges of contemporary sexual ethics. The Sacred Encounter is a thought-provoking and important Jewish resource. Perfect for personal study, or for high school or adult classes.

deisenbe (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. I see you didn't wait for me to agree and already restored the book to the article. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Marceau

Hi, I'd rather not get in to an edit war so best I come here instead,
As far as I know 3-4 images on a blp article is fine but a gallery's seen as pointless as we have already commons so anyone wanting to see the images should visit Commons,
WP:GALLERY also states "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons"
Thanks :), –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange how you first revert and then say you don't want to get in to an edit war. Please study WP:BRD.

You do have an argument, but it can easily be countered by asking, what then are galleries for? I think this article struck a fine balance before, and I had hoped you'd address the issue rather than quote me the guideline. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I realized after I reverted that you were then gonna revert me and it would be one big war ....

I've self reverted - I 100% disagree with it but we both have our reasons and since I've had 4hrs sleep I think it's best all round if we just revert and move on ,

Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was not going to revert you. :) The question remains though, if we have this guideline saying to use images better, then why do we have galleries sometimes? If the photo sheds some new light on a subject, I'd expect it to be treated in the article. Or is this like trivia sections, which are removed on sight? Debresser (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca De Mornay

FYI: User talk:JohnCD#Rebecca. JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted there. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A matter of stupidity

In regard to your revert at {{Dabprimary}}, did you even bother to read the talk page? A fine contributor (like yourself) found this form to be less than intuitive. If I were more adept at Module (Lua) code, I would have altered the parameter from "all=" to "all category=", which is the same as in the {{Redirect template}} used in many rcats, for example in {{R from short name}}. You get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did bother to look at the talkpage. I don't think there is anything there that justifies the addition I reverted, as per my arguments (plural) in the edit summary. Would you like me to discuss it on the talkpage there, or do you want to argue with me about it here, or do we actually agree? Debresser (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you understood that I was not referring to your stupidity. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was clear; however, your message also clearly disparaged people like the editor on the talk page whom I greatly admire and definitely consider one of our most intelligent co-editors. I was familiar with the template and its parameters, so I knew how the all= param is used. Other editors obviously do not find that param to adequately portray its usage from just looking at the edit screen of a page where it is used, such as at Dabprimary. I do agree that there is a much better way to solve the problem, which would be to include a more intuitive param in the Ambox template. Perhaps there are other even better alternatives that you've come across? Also, I have no problem with taking this to the talk page of the template; I was just concerned that others might cloud the discussion with issues that really have nothing to do with improvement of Dabprimary, such as the negativity of your edit summary. I would very much appreciate it if you would return to your more objective positive reinforcement in your edit summaries; whatever you do, please trust that I will continue to value your opinion in all future discussions. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Deal. Thank you for posting on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine  19:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tumah and taharah

Hi. Nice to run into you here. Just want to commend you for editing out both euphemisms and dysphemisms! Is this an article that you will continue to work on? That would be terrific. I'm in the midst of putting together a course proposal, via the WP Education program, and I might ask my students to work on this article or its subcomponents. If nothing else, they'd benefit from your critical apparatus. HG | Talk 20:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made minor contributions to this article in the past, and it is on my watchlist. As such, your students' edits will be noticed, and if necessary, I'll react. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Debresser, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Speedy

I declined your nom as the suggested criteria didn't make sense to me. Ping me if you have any questions. Ben MacDui 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

G8. But you're right, that was the wrong one. I always mix them up. :) It was a nonsense creation, something between G3, G5 and G6. I has been deleted since. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Debresser!

Happy New Year!

Debresser,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, and same to you! Debresser (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue to revert on Chabad messianism instead of discussing and seeking consensus, you are in violation of the Wikipedia pillar of consensus and harm this project. Also please refrain from making untrue claims. Feel free to raise any issues you have on the talkpage, but if you revert again, I will ask for admin intervention.172.56.19.60 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You just copied the warning I wrote on your talkpage. Which is childish. The main point, however, is that [{WP:BRD]] means the burden of proof is on your side. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if you plan to edit on Wikipedia, perhaps make an account. You use many (similar) IP addresses, which makes it hard to contact you. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When parallel projects exist

I am concerned this reminds me of the problems of the projects espionage and intelligence were in mutual stalemate and inaction about 2 years ago - this is now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lede_Improvement_Team and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lead_section_cleanup... sigh.... it seems these days there is nothing like 'waiting times' or discussion before the creation of a new project, or even a sense of discussion about the most appropriate title of the project or anything... satusuro 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, been here for 8 years and never seen them before....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's telling.... there are some articles with such crappy leads, or ones that contravene ever WP:MOS - or dont even exist - the need is there, but hey, 2 projects... one dead and one scratching, that's telling as well satusuro 00:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with the various problem regarding leads, and have done some serious work on the related templates and categories, but never heard of these 2 WikiProjects before. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

there is that problem where projects get created and hide in the woodwork, this is a classic example. satusuro 10:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Alphabetize

FYI, while the parameter "works" as in it displays a date on the page, it doesn't work as in the dated categories such as Category:Lists that need to be alphabetized from January 2015 don't get automatically created and so on unless someone actually sets things up correctly. Are you volunteering? Do we even want that category dated? Anomie⚔ 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Anomie. Yes, you are right. I know that too. I alluded to that when I mentioned that Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category contains a lot of instruction crap. By which I meant precisely this, that the date parameter fulfills a modest function even without creating a dated maintenance category structure. I see nothing wrong in using the date parameter just for that. In fact, there are other templates that have the date parameter and do not have a category structure. Some templates were created that way on purpose. The idea being that it would allow for adding the category structure in the future, if the need would arise, without having to add dates to all previously tagged instances of the template. For example if the template would prove useful and the number of transclusions would rise. As a matter of fact, some templates have already received their category structures, so the idea has proven its worth. I therefore strongly suggest to keep date parameters, even when there is no category structure (yet). Moreover, I'd recommend to add a date parameter to all maintenance templates, both new and existing, for the two reasons explained above. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your plan will be putting red-link categories on every page that actually uses the date parameters on these templates. Anomie⚔ 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm. That is also a problem. By the way, creating a category structure isn't that hard, just a few minutes. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

True, it's not hard. But it is a few minutes worth of work, and I'm not sure whether "we" actually want that category dated considering it only has 13 entries in it, which is why I didn't. Anomie⚔ 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is indeed the main reason not all maintenance categories have their category structures. Although in time, any category is likely to receive more and more articles. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe the redlinked category will push some editor into creating the category structure. The question is if it's worth it. My ideal who be that all maintenance categories be dated. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, it's more likely some editor would create it wrong. Unfortunately, doing it right is tricky enough that I had to write a page explaining how to do it. Anomie⚔ 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I used to do it without the page. But again you do have a point, that for many editors it may be a little too complicated. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're undoing all my comments?

I'm asking for request of citation and they are being removed without reason at all? Is there a reason for this? Will you continue to undo everything I write? Am I allowed to participate on wikipedia like everyone else, or does that choice belong to you? Any help is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be a very new editor. I am happy to see you on Wikipedia, as any editor can make this project better. Let's start with a few things: 1. Comments on talkpages should be signed by adding ~~~~ at the end of the comment. 2. Comments on talkpages should be added to the bottom of the page. Use the "new section" button at the top of the page, and your comment will automatically be created at the bottom of the talkpage. 3. Preferably use {{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} as format for tagging, not just {{cn}}. Even though that will also get the job done, but it is always best to use the correct and complete format. 4. You sometimes tag an article with 3-4 different tags, like in this edit where that is hardly reasonable. 5. Your insistence on certain types of references, like in this edit is not based on Wikipedia policy. 6. It would be more productive if you started looking for sources yourself, instead of going on a tagging spray. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize for not explaining earlier why I undid your edits. I was at work, and didn't have time to leave you a message on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply,

The point is no evidence can be found to support the stated facts on the articles. I see uncited claims as factual, or claims that are based of 'third-party info' which is basically 'story': "I heard that he heard that she heard..." If you want to keep the claims that's fine, but it then becomes a 'belief' statement rather than a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right, and that is not necessarily a problem. Many articles about religion describe the religion as seen from the religion's own point of view. Even then, many statements may need sourcing, but sourcing from within the religion's writings could be accepted. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But this isn't about a religion as the majority of Jews don't follow things like the Mishnah, eat Kosher, etc. This is about the Mishnah writings (not Talmud or commentaries). If there's no evidence aside from third-party info, then sentence should be 'The Mishnah is believed to be redacted by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi before his death around 217 CE' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:RS? Debresser (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I just read it and sure enough i was right. The source you quote is third hand info - basically opinion with no citation of evidence on that page. Here you can see that you have to preface it with 'believe' because you are presenting something as fact, which is really a belief. The date of a book is not a 'faith' or 'religion', it's a quantifiable number. See for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you will pardon my lurking here, I'm not sure how we can take Mikedavid00's interpretations of the rules as "correct" if he cannot even manage to sign his posts on talk pages, as the rules certainly require—and as you explicitly reminded him to do above. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Lexlex that he still posts at the top of the talkpage and doesn't sign his comments. As to the point, third-hand info is per WP:RS the best info around. If he didn't get that, then he will have to reread WP:RS till he does. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for a citation that requires one by guidelines for a blatantly, impartial claim that doesn't belong in the lead. Wikipedia is supposed to show both sides and be neutral, not to pass of third hand info as factual or make broad claims that you heard someone who heard who heard. Etc. But instead of just finding the cite, you warn me and are now making me go through you as a proxy so you can decide what goes on the page and what doesn't? I also saw a post above that you unfortunately have a special interest in 'policing' certain types of articles. That again is a violation of rules and you aren't acting in the spirit of why Wikipedia is here. I have a lot more to contribute to the Mishnah Wiki because until this point, no one is serious about this wiki page and I'm amazed at the sheer amount of uncited conjecture, hearsay, un-neutrality, and third hand information. I'd like to contribute to the page, but you obviously have another agenda judging by what someone else said above and you cant be a proxy to decide when I'm allowed to cite credible, factual information. It is *believed* it was redacted around 200 AD. You cant go by the persons death because he wasn't even in charge of the project. The guy who funded it was a wealthy Greek speaker who was very friendly with Rome. So much so he was a spiritual advisor to the king. Does this sound like persecution of an ethic group? So much that this kind of uncited claim is in the very lead of a wiki article for such a major religious work? Come on lets be impartial, fair, and neutral. I prefer not to be policed so I'm being forced to put in a complaint because I haven't been treated fairly. I've given you all the cites you need and have spent a lot of time wasted on these kinds of roadblocks your seemingly pitting in the way over the simplest things. I'd like to participate and continue to work on the page long term until it's a serious neutral, factual page.

I am going to ignore your bad faith assumption and your post on User talk:Lexlex‎ (but please see what he replied to you), for the moment. As well as your 10+ mistakes in the English in this one post above (I removed most of them).

If you are not willing to understand that I don't have to agree with you, and that there are ways on Wikipedia (which not I conceived) how to behave in case of disagreement and how to solve them, then you are in for a lot of frustration. Not to mention that your stay on Wikipedia will be short and unproductive. If, however, you care to read a few basic Wikipedia guidelines (and fucking edit as outlined there, instead of ignoring completely what people tell you), then I am sure you can be a worthy contributer to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:DaoXan

You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw this went to archive. But was any action taken? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was not closed, and so no action was decided upon or implemented. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

SWP map

Please to not delete one version of the SWP-maps. I link to two versions for a reason: the commons-link is useful, as we can copy and expand from it if we need. But please do not delete the IAA-link: if you compare the commons-link and the IAA-link, you will see that there is a much better detail on IAA. I often find places on the IAA-map, which I cannot manage to spot on the commons-version of the map. Please don´t delete it in the future, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I really think one should be enough. The gain of having both is technical at best, nothing essential, which per WP:EL would mean we shouldn't have it. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You don´t spend much time on the SWP-maps trying to locate places, finding out exactly how their names were spelled in the 1880s, and thereby finding the Conder and Kitchener-references, and the Palmer-references, do you? I do, and can assure you that the IAA-maps (the best) are essential. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I do not work much with maps. So, now that you convinced me we need the IAA map, why do we need the other as well? Because I am unconvinced we need both. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I don't like "Map V" on one and "Map 5" on the other, as if they are different maps. Suppose it is done in one line, like this:

• Survey of Western Palestine Map 5. IAA Wikipedia commons

(thereby also explaining to newbies what "SWP" is). Zero^talk 01:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea by way of compromise. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, so do I; I´ll do that in the future. @Zero0000: : There was a reason for making "Map V" on one and "Map 5" on the other: some people do not know Roman numerals, and that was a way to get both. But this was really a small point. Debresser: I started adding the IAA maps, then the uploader of the commons maps made me aware of them. A part can be useful in an article (see e.g. Al-Ghabisiyya), illustrating the area. Huldra (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Messianic Claimants

I take issue with undoing three of my edits on this topic. Please contribute to the discussion if you chose to re-undo my work. Yserbius (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the 3 edits were in 2 fields, and I did provide 2 reasons, so nothing to take issue with. In any case, I will be happy to reply on the talkpage. May I also remind you of WP:BRD? Debresser (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn or Zulqarnayn

Hello, Thanks for your input. How would you pronounce Dhul though? The "dh" here is an Arabic letter that is pronounced something between a "d" and a "z". It is closer to and easier to pronounce it as "z", as is the case in many languages like Persian or Turkish. -Yozer1 (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally would pronounce it like the "g" in the name "George". I have noticed the preference for "z" on other articles before, like Ramadan -> Ramazan. Nevertheless, there is a main spelling of every article and name on Wikipedia, usually based on the way a word is most commonly spelled in English language sources. That spelling should be the main spelling in any article, and alternative spellings are mentioned in the lead of the article, just for information. If you want to change the main spelling and move the article, you can open a discussion about that on the talkpage. From my experience, the Turkish and Persian spelling is usually the less accepted one, so such a proposal would probably not be accepted. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

But I speak Arabic and still think "z" is a better preference. You are right about the rest. No need to take it further. Thanks for the explanation, -Yozer1 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to remind you of the obvious, that Arabic is a language with many widely varying dialects. Debresser (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Religion in Israel

Hello there, Dovid! Thank you for copyediting my contribution- you actually seem to excel at that, so I appreciate it. I do apologise again, if I came on a little strong. I actually got a third opinion on my comments to you from an admin, because I felt a bit unsettled that you were unsettled; they said it was completely warranted, even if it was strongly worded. We all have at least slightly differing worldviews, and sometimes it takes someone else to give us pause and consider it might not be NPOV and/or global. As far as removing "coreligionists", I'm technically fine with it, though I do think it obscures the meaning a bit. Obviously, they're a minority in every respect (globally, and in Israel), but it sort of removes it from the intended context. We can try it out. While not an expert, I do have some familiarity with both their community and the Samaritans, so I think I can expand those sections despite the paucity of sources on both communities (the non-Jewish world just really became truly aware of them this past century). We actually have a fair amount of overlapping interests, and many views in common, so I really just wanted to clear the air, since obviously we'll be collaborating in the future.

On a slightly related note... Just out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with other Jewish ethnicities and minhagim? Such as the Yevanim, the Italkim, the Gruzim, etc? I'm going to try expanding the content on their articles, and I could really use some help. Being such tiny communities today, just like with the Shomrim and Karaim, they're not very widely known. Let me know. Thank you again for the polishing. I really do look forward to working with you in the future. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a personal note on my talkpage. I too look forward to working together with you, as with any editor in general, and especially in fields which interest me. I'm afraid I am not strong in communities, so I won't be able to help you much. Let me just say, that I very much appreciate your edits and the talkpage discussion. Obviously, we do not have to agree on everything to be able to respect each other. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, on every point. I wanted to try to maintain good form here, because as might be obvious from my frequent statements saying as such, I do actually respect you and your contributions. Glad we sorted this out. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest Chabad attack

You might look at what I just wrote at Talk:Chabad. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian prefix mishnah-related articles

Hi Debresser - just saw your reverts and i consider them WP:GF. I do however want to consult you regarding what to do with several articles (mostly created by Chesdovi a couple of years ago): Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian Gaonate, Palestinian minhag, Palestinian Patriarchate and maybe a couple more. All those articles seem to take various topics, mostly from the Talmudic priod, and prefix them with "Palestinian" for no obvious reason - neither historic and neither in sources. I've never heard of "Palestinian rabbis" in reference to the Mishnah period - they are simply named "Galilean rabbis" or "Mishna rabbis" as far as i can remember - there is even a category category:Mishnah rabbis (or specifically Amoraim, Tanaim, Rishonim); neither in Ottoman Syria or Mandatory Palestine (Eretz Yisrael) was the Jewish community referring to Rabbis as "Palestinian", but rather as "Rishon LeZion". It looks to me all those misleading title articles were created for a dubious reason, and i suspect it was intentionally switching to use "Palestine" for political reasons. The question is how do we fix it? Renaming? Merging into existing topics? In current form it is clearly misleading as Palestine is increasingly used to refer to the modern Palestinian administrative entity.GreyShark (dibra) 17:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I butt in here? There are two ways of looking at this. 'Pro-Pal' editors want 'Palestine' everywhere. 'Pro-Israeli' editors want to restrict the term to post-1948, and that both see this as wearing modern political associations.

Though commonly identified as 'Pro-Pal', I came to Wikipedia with a fairly good knowledge of Middle Eastern history, and, even in my mother-tongue, 'Palestine' was the neutral word for what other communities commonly called 'The Holy Land'. Anyone can confirm that 'Palestinian' is the default adjective for that area in scholarship, and has been for centuries, and that terms like 'Palestinian rabbis', etc., don't disconcert scholars because the use it toponymically. I once documented 120 academic books on some page here using it for the biblical and Christian periods. I won't repeat the exercise, but I think we should get used to the fact that Palestine doesn't mean PLO/Arafat/Hamas etc. When Jews like Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, to name but a few, wrote in Greek, the lingua franca of the time, they wrote of Palestine. 'Palestine', finally, is just as much an integral element of Jewish history and identity as the more religiously restrictive 'eretz israel', and shouldn't create problems. It certainly bears no such negative or political shading among Talmudic scholars writing in English.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, i'm familiar with your affection to Palestine, but that is not the issue - there has never been such a thing Palestinian Gaonate, and if you ask an average person in Jerusalem who are Palestinian rabbis, he would direct you to Neturei Karta.GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GreyShark, for the good faith assumption. I do understand why you made the edits you made, and I remember we discussed this issue before. Nishidani, you are most definitely welcome to this discussion. We have managed to reach consensus on many hard issues in the past, and in this case I for the most part agree with you as well.

The Jerusalem Talmud is in many sources called the Palestinian Talmud. That is a fact Chesdovi and I agreed upon. On the other hand, I vehemently disagreed with him creating all those so-called Palestinian articles, because apart from the term "Palestinian Talmud", those are terms that are mainly artificial, made up by him, and are not used in reliable sources. I stress the word "mainly", because they have some minor usage. Perhaps they could be merged into other existing articles.

As to the specific reverts I made, I explained the reasons for the reverts in the edit summaries, and would be happy to explain again in more detail here. By the way, I moved Luttif Afif from Category:Palestinian Jews to Category:Palestinian people of Jewish descent, which I created. Weren't there more article sin that category, some 4 or 5?

In any case, I'll be happy to think together with you about any specific problematic category. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a curious question - how do you determine that Latiff was a Palestinian? Participation in Palestinian militant organizations shouldn't automatically brand you as "Palestinian", but rather there should be some criteria for such definition.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree on Palestinian Talmud being sometimes the reference to the Jerusalem Talmud, but you nail the point - it is perhaps the only time "Palestinian" is used as prefix to Talmudic topics. We first have to determine what is the exact topic of those articles and how it is referred in sources per WP:COMMONNAME. In case of Palestinian Gaonate, Palestinian minhag, Palestinian Patriarchate those are specifically Talmudic topics regarding Jewish community in Galilee during late Roman period. It seems that Palestinian Gaonate is WP:FORK of Sanhedrin; Palestinian minhag is obviously meaning "Jerusalem minhag" or simply Ashkenazi rite (since Ashkenazim use the Jerusalem minhag); Palestianian Patriarchate seems like the second WP:FORK of Sanhedrin (or Beth HaMidrash). Regarding Palestinian rabbis, it should certainly redirect to something like Neturei Karta, but the content might be useful and can perhaps exist as Rabbinic eras?GreyShark (dibra) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Greyshark. I never ask 'average people' their views on anything. 'Average' means uninformed. Anything that averages out bores me. If I have a perplexity, I look at what specialists say. They at least have the good sense to disagree among themselves while generally taking their peers disagreements seriously. As for Palestinian Gaonate, Shlomo Dov Goitein's old book New Sources on the Palestinian Gaonate, (1976) is widely quoted in the academic literature, which has adopted the term. Average people in Jerusalem might not know this. Informed scholars in Jerusalem would have no problem with it.

Google books yields 1.510 results for "Palestinian rabbi", 2.960 for "Palestinian rabbis". It is, I would add, extremely common in academic books.

My 'affection for Palestine'?. It's not particular. I was raised rigorously, but unideologically, to be very careful about historical minorities, the dispossessed, groups subject to prejudice, extreme or 'urbane/sophisticated'. I come from a people with a huge history of dispossession. I dropped a good many school friends when, on vising their East European homes, I caught anti-Semitic undertones in stray bits of conversation. I have no particular affection for Palestine. I do have a marked interest in the history of cultural prejudice, which is thick on the ground in this area, and fascinates me. One of the things that affects my POV is this: I dislike attempts to make an homogeneous soup of Judaism and Jews: its (their) history is almost unique for the extraordinary rich variety of contrast of its major subdivisions and its infinite subcultures. It is politics that presses for a uniform front and shared identity. Historically, this was never so - except for the profounbd and warranted commonsense that one owed a duty to extend a hand, make common cause with, and extend charity to one's far-flung brothers and sisters in the creed. That's why restlessness about 'Palestinian' Judaism, or the 'adjective' is, in my view, 'political' because it contaminates complex histories with a broadbrush worry hanging over from the contemporary conflict. Jews were 'Palestinian', and, if one must think politically, it's time 'average' Arab Palestinians and Jewish Israelis learnt this, if they haven't already. It's called catching up with the real world of scholarship just beyond the endwarfed horizons of politics. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In sum. Look at sources neutrally, without prejudging. Take Debress's agreement with you on 'Palestinian' as in 'Palestinian Talmud'. It's counter-factual, as many sources state:

'Although it is popularly known as the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi), a more accurate name for this text is either "Palestinian Talmud" or "Talmud of the Land of Israel." Indeed, for most of the amoraic age, under both Rome and Byzantium, Jews were prohibited from living in the holy city, and the centers of Jewish population had shifted northwards, . .The Palestinian Talmud emerged primarily from the activity of the sages of Tiberias and Sepphoris, with some input, perhaps entire tractates, from the sages of the "south" (Lydda . and the coastal plain, most notably Caesarea.'(Lawrence H. Schiffman,[From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism,] KTAV Publishers 1991 p.227)

The 'Jerusalem Talmud' is an hisatorical misnomer.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for gate-crashing this party. I noticed Greyshark's comment "prefix them with 'Palestinian' for no obvious reason - neither historic and neither in sources" so I thought I'd check out that assertion using one of the mentioned articles: Palestinian Gaonate. In that article there are at present 9 sources. With the possible exception of ref 6, for which I cannot see sufficient snippets, every single one of these sources uses either "Palestinian academy" or "Palestinian gaonate" with the meaning of the article. For ref 7, I also checked the same article (Machpelah, Cave of) in the newer edition of EJ, and it is the same in this respect. In conclusion, Greyshark's assertion failed verification. None of this surprised me, because such use of the word "Palestinian" has been the standard in scholarly English for most of the past two centuries. In recent decades some scholars became brave enough to use the Hebrew phrase Eretz Yisrael in English, but Palestine is still very common as the English equivalent. Zero^talk 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Was asked to comment by User Debresser. Agree with User Zero0000 and those who are obviously aware of the fact that for a very long time the preferred academic and scholarly term for rabbis and Jews living in the general area in that part of the world that Jews historically referred to as the Land of Israel but was renamed after the Roman conquest 2,000 years as "Palestine" that was in use until 1948 and generally, when talking about Jews, meant those who were living in the land/s that was/were known as Palestine. One could consider the term to be archaic in the sense that since the 1960s with the rise of the PLO that the label "Palestinian" has only now in recent decades come to refer as Arabs co-habiting and rivaling in the same geographic and political space/s as the Israeli Jews, but being quite different to them. A lot of very good arguments are being made in this thread to explain various angles to this term's use so that User Greyshark09 needs to back off his attacks on correct encyclopedic usage of the term and find another way to indicate topics that refer to the very modern Arab Palestinian/s notion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify a little: almost nobody would use "Palestinian rabbinate" or similar to refer to rabbis living in that geographical region since 1948. However, neither 1948 nor 1967 saw a cessation of that phrase in reference to earlier times. It's easy to find examples even after 2000. Zero^talk 05:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Agreed, you are correct. Not sure about what Greyshark09 has a bee in his bonnet here. IZAK (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy with the broad input here, and welcome Zero0000. I think we can agree that the term "Palestinian" has been used historically in certain cases. I have my doubts regarding the term "Palestinian minhag", and would like to hear your opinions about this specific term. We are still left with the two main questions:

1. Are the articles correct in using the term "Palestinian" for both the period of the mishnah-talmud-geonim and the British mandate, or is that gathering of eras the fruit of User:Chesdovi's edits and approach? Mind you, I am sure at least one source can be found that uses the term "Palestinian" for any era, but in this question I am referring, of course, to WP:COMMONNAME.
2. Are the articles basically WP:FORKs of other articles, that have been spun out with many details and information that is only tangentially related to give them some meat, and therefore should be merged with other existing articles (per era), or should these be independent articles on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to lurk in good faith for a while. But I would point out, consistent with the discussion above:

• At minimum, the use of the English-language term Palestinian Talmud, intended in a neutral way to refer to that Talmud (as opposed to the Babylonian Talmud), is of long standing.
• The term Jerusalem Talmud may or may not be a misnomer, academically. But it is the English rendering of the equally long-standing (or maybe even longer-standing) Hebrew-language term for that Talmud, Talmud Yerushalmi (תלמוד ירושלמי).

So whatever else we decide here, I think either of those terms has to be accepted as a fair and neutral descriptor for the Talmud that is not the Babylonian one. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

One goes by sources for everything. The stronger the quality of sources, the stronger the argument. I see no problem with using either Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud, as long as the introductory lead line clarifies the difference in usage. Neither should trump the other. As to Palestinian minhag or minhagim of Palestine, there is good RS for that (dating back earlier than Israel's foundation), and the same goes for Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate. As far as I can see Common name would privilege 'Palestinian' if we take what our major contemporary scholarly sources use. To circumvent this by periodizing rabbis, for example, as amoraim, etc., is to (a) introduce terminology that lacks the geographical specificity in 'Palestinian', for amoraim were equally spread in Babylonia and Palestine (b) common name in this English (global) encyclopedia should be based on scholarly usage accepted by the academy rather than in-house or infra-creedal usage favoured by the specific culture itself. I can't see the argument for forking, but that may reflect my relative unfamiliarity with the history of these articles. On the other hand, Greyshark, and he is an excellent editor, is from the record consistently uncomfortable with the word 'Palestinian' and I think it important for us to thrash this out here, at least to suggest to him that opinions within his own community do not necessarily share that discomfort, which is almost non-existent in historical scholarship.

Chesdovi and I often clashed (well Dovid (if I may) and I did too, but more often than not, we've found a mutually agreeable compromise solution), but I thought his boldness in accepting the scholarly usage index to assert Jewish rights to 'Palestine/Palestinian' compatible with what very strong sources say, so, whatever the POV might have been, is a matter of indifference to me. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: i wasn't intending to open a Pandora's box, but it turned out entirely a defensive discussion on "Palestinian" instead of the article's content. The main issue is that Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate are WP:FORKs of Sanhedrin. Whatever the issues with Palestinian or not, Sanhedrin is an older article and it is the certain WP:COMMONNAME. Just forking articles for no exact reason and naming them "Palestinian" (or "Israeli") is completely redundant.GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

But the Sanhedrin was dissolved mid-fourth century, several centuries before the Palestinian Gaonate, wasn't it? Two separate things.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While the Palestinian Patriarchate article is a clear WP:FORK of Sanhedrin, the Palestinian Gaonate article is perhaps too poor to exist on its own right - it should belong to "revival attempts" section in Sanhedrin article (it is not even clear when and if the Gaonate was functional).GreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

One part has some reduplication, but it is well sourced (2) had 10,000kb which is fair for an article and outsized for reinclusion in Sanhedrin (3) where is your source for the idea that the Palestinian Gaonate was a revival of the Sanhedrin (4) Excellent sources, I cited one, refer to it with this name. There is nothing exceptional in Wikipedia retaining short but detailed articles on specific institutions. All I can see is unease with the use of 'Palestinian' connected to a Jewish institution, against the fact that great scholars are comfortable with it.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried before to get the discussion back to track. Nishidani, I see no unease here with these terms, and even GreyShark, who initiated the thread and the edits that lay at the basis of it, denies that. So let's stick to the real questions:

1. Are the articles correct in using the term "Palestinian" for both the period of the mishnah-talmud-geonim and the British mandate, or is that gathering of eras the fruit of User:Chesdovi's edits and approach? Mind you, I am sure at least one source can be found that uses the term "Palestinian" for any era, but in this question I am referring, of course, to WP:COMMONNAME.
2. Are the articles basically WP:FORKs of other articles, that have been spun out with many details and information that is only tangentially related to give them some meat, and therefore should be merged with other existing articles (per era), or should these be independent articles on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See above. You get, to repeat, 444 hits at google books just for "Palestinian Gaonate". Usage is informed by source example, which, as I have indicated several times in these endless discussions, justify these usages, for minhag, gaonate etc. No one need trust me. Just google. I don't know why the authority, for example, of Shlomo Dov Goitein is being contested here. Greyshark worries about a term that one of the great scholars of his generation used unproblematically. I'm not here to resolve his perplexities. Everyone expects me to answer the points that interest them, yet of the numerous points I raised, I see no documentary or logical response. I think wiki editors are obliged to be secretaries of scholarship, not kibitzers.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishindani. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for being a repetitive nuisance. I fully understand that a failure to be laconic tests the patience of the best editors round here. regards.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly on Nishidani's side here. The problem here is that modern political issues really do overlay the current discussion, and it's awfully hard to get away from that. (Let's face it. There are efforts in at least part of the modern Palestinian Arab political community looking to erase the history of the Jews on the Temple Mount, no less!) But use of "Palestine" during the period of the Mandate, at minimum, should remind us that there are times that the Jewish community embraced the term Palestinian, at least for use in English. (Anyone remember the original name of the newspaper that has since spawned JPost.co.il?) And once we get past that, then we can remember, as @Nishidani has said, that "Palestinian" has been the preferred English-language term in academia for quite a while—even if Jews prefer something like Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew.

Now, to answer @Debresser:'s questions as to the specific articles at hand:

1. I am very comfortable with Palestinian Gaonate, unless someone has a better English-language term to use for that.
2. I'd need to see better justification of Palestinian minhag. After all, the word minhag is a Hebrew one, and I'm not altogether sure that it has been fully incorporated into the English language like, say, Torah or Talmud. So I'm not sure that Palestinian minhag is really a justifiable term, unless someone can show me sources for it. Minhag Yerushalayim is probably the term of art in Hebrew, notwithstanding whether it is really accurate—just as the Talmud is known in Hebrew as Yerushalmi. But I'm not sure one is justified in using the word "Palestinian" to describe minhag.
3. I'm pretty convinced that Palestinian Patriarchate is a FORK. If the article Sanhedrin is accurate, then it may be appropriate to mention the phrase Palestinian Patriarchate in the context of its legal recognition by Rome. (And that's probably also enough to justify a redirect.) But even if the Sanhedrin ceased using the term Sanhedrin at some point due to political pressure, I think everyone still thinks of it in those terms for as long as it continued to function in substantially the same manner.
4. ...which brings us to Palestinian rabbis. That's a tough one. After all, Palestinian Jews refers to the period of the Mandate, or at most the period of the Yishuv in the fifty years before the Mandate. Yet this article's lead says it refers "most significantly" to the Tannaim and the Palestinian Amoraim. I don't know. I can easily see an article of this or similar name that focuses on the period of the Yishuv and later. And frankly, I could see going as far back as the reference to Jacob Berab, as the line of continuity from there forward is pretty clean. But how much connection there is (beside geographic) between the Palestinian Gaonate and the sixteenth century is pretty murky.

If it were up to me, I'd move most of the section "Early Palestinian Rabbis" to a new section in the article Amoraim, then limit each of the first two sections of this article to a 1-2 sentence paragraph with appropriate hatnotes, and start this article in earnest at Jacob Berab. But I don't know if that's WP:OR any more than what Chesdovi did, to tell you the truth.

StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a commendable set of suggestions. Palestinian rabbis to my mind is something one frequently encounters in the first four or five centuries of our era. I don't really associate it with modern times,(though there is an argument for it). Palestinian Gaonate seems secure. The Palestinian minhag is interchangeable with Ashkenazi minhag, since the Ashkenazi were influenced by Palestinian customs (oversimplified, but they are used as interchangeable, and the point is to maintain the notable divide between the Yerushalmi(Jerusalem)/Bavli traditions (it is extremely important because the former looks much like it carried on the influence of Greek logic in Hellenic Judaism, perhaps even Plato (so Moses Hadas argued that Plato was a major influence on Palestinian rabbinical traditions). In any case, well done, both of you. I've had my say, and will accept what the consensus emerges to be. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the discrepancy in content between Palestinian rabbis and Palestinian Jews is that the latter is written with a much more limited scope than that which the phrase is used. Most of the sources mentioned in the other articles used here, including scholars like Goitein, use "Palestinian Jews" for a much longer period of time than the mandate. The phrase is even common in writings about Talmudic times, usually in distinction to "Babylonian Jews". We should attempt to adopt the usage of the best sources, which Wikipedia articles are not. Zero^talk 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Hi. I have filed a request at WP:DRN about an issue in an article that you have been involved in. Welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I see you keep your word. I have commented there. Debresser (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Careful

Dovid. No one in his right mind would report you, I hope, but it is good practice to note when ARBPIA sanctions (1R) are applicable, as on the stone-throwing page.

• revert 1 22:14, 21 March 2015‎
• revert 2 00:35, 22 March 2015‎

Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had indeed not paid attention to the WP:ARBPIA restrictions on this article, but, now that you mention it, more than 24 hours past. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)