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.

Can you help identify these favicons?

I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.

I collect favicons. At the moment I have over 5400 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) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated: some I found, and a few new ones came along. There's now only 23 of them. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2009 (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 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

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

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

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

Merger (redux)

It would be great if you could merge these

{{Wireless systems}}

{{Mobile telecommunications standards}}

Now that the TFD has been closed as merge. You could probably enlist the help of the other editors who voted to merge. Let me know if there is a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I revise the close to keep? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted the only editor I could find who had edited both templates and is presently active on Wikipedia, but he hasn't replied yet. I myself am certainly not knowledgable in the subject to be able to merge this on my own. Even though the discussions show that the templates are supposed to be almost identical, I do not see this. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I suppose they will not be merged. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yazidi and monotheism

Slight misunderstanding I was simply removing redundant categories. Since Category:Yazidi is already a subcategory of Category:Monotheistic religions, I was streamlining the organization of information rather than making a theological statement. My recollection is that Yazidis have (like e.g. Zoroastrians) a number of divine beings, but with one ontologically separate deity. But what do I know? Your question is a perfectly legitimate one for Talk:Yazidi, though. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate categories Sure. I was simply using the example of Christianity and Bahá'í Faith, which are in minimal categories. Certainly, either of those articles could be in (e.g.) Category:Monotheistic religions or Category:Abrahamic religions, but they aren't. Why, I'm not entirely sure, but it's true. My general rule of thumb is to delete redundant categories, but you correctly point out a (entirely understandable) ambiguity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC? I completely see what you're saying. At the same time, once we start adding these categories to these pages, it is inevitable that there will be back-and-forths and inconsistencies abounding. I simply noticed that there were only three (as I recall) articles in Category:Monotheistic religions as well as a parent category within it as well, so the easiest thing to do was to remove that category from the articles, rather than add it to the dozen or so pages that didn't already have it. If you want others' feedback on this—which, again is entirely reasonable—then RfC might be the best option? I have tried posting to the talk page of various WikiProjects for feedback like this, but I have not had much luck. As should be clear from this post, I simply don't know what to do, but I am a big believer in consistency. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course If you take it there, I'll be happy to chip in (although I have to confess that I might forget...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello! Please, I need your help to deal with an issue that has appeared in the article about Brazil. See it in here. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Debresser! I hope you don´t mind if I make a few comments about what you wrote in the Brazil discussion page:

1. POV language. Comment: Agree.
2. Rephrase to "was killed in the war or feel to famine and illnesses". Comment: Is it really necessary to put casualties from a minor rebellion that did not have any true consequence in the history of the country? For example, the famine that happened in the dry years of 1877-78 in the Brazilian Northeast killed 500,000 people. That´s not mentioned in the article and is rarely mentioned in history books! Do you really believe it should be here? Shouldn´t be in the according article about such rebellion? And one last thing: I checked some of my books and 20% of the province's population died, not between 30-40%. I do not know why user Opinoso insists on putting information that are not entirely correct. Is like he simply selects a few and take it out of the context to please his own will of proving his point.
3. Should not be here. Comment: Agree.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements. Comment: User Opinoso has put a book as source, but no page. Strange enough, he uses such book as source for almost anything he writes. The authors that I used are the most renowned Brazilian and British historians. It doesn´t make sense to use as sources books written by an unknown writer instead of a renowned professional in the field. And i took great care to use several different authors and not only one as you can see on the text.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept. Comment: Ok...
6. Seems factual correct, because it means "per period", not in absolute terms. So this is a relevant short mention and can be kept. Comment: Why should exist so much text about slavery when other important facts were kept aside, such as politics, sciences, arts, etc? I think it belongs to the article Slavery in Brazil.
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here. Comment: Agree. It belongs to the article slavery in Brazil.
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept. Comment: To much text about slavery in the history section. See no reason for such when so many other info was kept aside.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed.Comment: Agree. Shouldn´t be in here. It is already on the article about Pedro II
10. Incorrect. Comment: Agree. - --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reacting. I'll update my opinions there. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil (how section should be)

Hello, my friend. Sorry to bother you once again. This is how I believe the section should be: simple and straightforward. It is also smaller and easier to read, with no possible controversial passage. I put an "see also: slavery on Brazil" banner so that the more detailed info can be found in the apropriate article. You may erase it after you read it but I would like to known your thoughts on it.

Emperor Pedro II reign

Main article: Pedro II of Brazil

See also: Slavery in Brazil

Emperor Dom Pedro II at age 27, 1853. For "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country."

As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created. Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency. The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem the Sabinada and the Balaiada, all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor). The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival."

Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.” From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War, Uruguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance). The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888. However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles” and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery. Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887.

Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889. There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects. Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.” After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.” The emperor did not care about its fate and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery. The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.

Sorry, I didn´t mean to be rude back there. - --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I think you should work it out with the help of other editors, including those who disagree with you. That makes an article balancedand interesting. This is too... positive. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I really need your help on this one. I had never had trouble before so I don´t know what to do about this Opinoso guy. I sent him a message trying to make peace and telling him that we should exchange ideas between ourselves and reach a point that could please both. He simply ignored my message. He wrote a large text on the discussion page of article Brazil accusing and attacking for no reason. I made changes to the text once again (as you can see above). I erased many passages that I had wrote and improved some of Opinoso´s own. Read the the second paragraph of the section and you will see. If you want to see the changes, see here. I try to use several different sources so that I can make it clear a point (like the economic growth). All he does is use this "Darcy Ribeiro" as source. He says that my sources cannot be proven, while he doens´t say anything about his own! Take a look in there, please. You can clearly see that he has some problem with the monarchy era in Brazil and his motives are personnal, not motivated by historical reasons. I don´t know what to do. I want to work now on the text about the Republic, but I cant´until I resolve this matter. But how to do that with only one user that doens´t want to dialogue and keeps attacking me and clearly accuses me of bad faith? - --Lecen (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Opinoso's sources

1. Hello, Debresser. I have trouble in accepting a pssage written by Opinoso that you said that was important to stay: "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa, and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil"

According to Opinoso, he got the information from [here]. The problem is that the only thing that the website gives are statistics about the Brazilian population on the year 1864, 1874, 1884 and 1887. Nowhere it is said that Pedro II reign was the period when most slaves were imported. Just click on the link, even if don´t understand Portuguese you will be able to read it, because it´s only numbers.

Not only Opinoso "made up" an information that the sources does not tell, he also conveniently chose as an example of how many slaves lived in Brazil the year 1864 where it says 1,715,000 slaves. He didn´t pick the other years 1874 (1,540,829 slaves), 1884 (1,240,806 slaves) or 1887 (723,419 slaves). As you can see, he chose only the information that could "prove" his point.

What I wrote (and that he undone) I put: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." That is data from the independence of Brazil until the end of Slavery. - --Lecen (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed" - According to Opinoso, his source says that the Monarchy was guilty of creating and imposing an uneven social structure. His source is a book written by Darcy Ribeiro, a sociologist (he is not even a historian!) called "O Povo Brasileiro" (The Brazilian People). I have found an [[1]] version of it and searched for his source. If you click on page six you'll see below a chapter called "AS GUERRAS DO BRASIL" where the author briefly discuss three Brazilian rebellions: Palmares (Colony), Cabanagem (Empire) and Canudos (Republic). He says about Cabanagem:

Assim, a luta dos Cabanos, contendo, embora, tensões inter-raciais (brancos versus caboclos), ou classistas (senhores versus serviçais), era, em essência, um conflito interétnico, porque ali uma etnia disputava a hegemonia, querendo dar sua imagem étnica à sociedade.

Translation: "So, the cabano struggle, having, however, inter-racial tensions (white versus caboclos), or classists (masters versus servants(, it was, in essence, an inter-ethnic conflict, because there an ethnicity disputed the hegemony, wanting to give its own ethnicity image to the society."

Nowhere does Darcy Bibeiro mentions issues against monarchy, but conclicts in that particular regional society in Brazil. He tries to make also a paralel between that rebellion and Palmares and Canudos, which is not our focus in here. The book is not even a history one. He barely mention the Empire and some pages are geared toward the colony. Most of it, however, focus in what the author sees as a constant war between afro-brazilians and whites. As you can see, Opinoso is not even faithful to his own source. - --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Confront him with this on the talkpage. Then see what he replies. Perhaps he had something in mind you overlooked. If he didn't, then undoubtebly other editors will agree with you. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I did that. He simply mocked me saying that he had a real life or something like that. Take a look on what I also wrote in here. I am putting some of my sources so that everyone can see by themselves. - --Lecen (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now. Ok, now wait for the guy to come back from his date. Another day is not much. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He already did, as he created another section with a request to other editor to comment. Now he is trying to evade my claims and is accusing me of blanking the older text. I was looking on his discussion page and I saw that this is not the first time he participate on edit wars and serious discussions. I will wait but I am expecting something ugly out of him. - --Lecen (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Keep the discussion open. If his - or your - claims are unsubstantial, that will show. Nobody will do anything "ugly", because that would lead to sanctions. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He keeps insinuating that I have bad faith. I am tired of that. Did you see that he is ignoring the fact that he faked infromation to prove his point and now he is trying to simply revert to the older text so that everyone can forget about it? Read my reply to him, please. - --Lecen (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

About the issue in the article about Brazil

Hello, Debresser. I would like to thank you for your patience on that matter. I know it gets tired after a while. I am going to travel and I'll be back on tuesday. So, please, until then, hold that guy and prevent him from doing further damage.

About the matter, I would like to make a few comments. Opinoso is not there because he is defending the inclusion of historical information into the article. he is there simply to cause trouble and because he will not accept to "lose" (which is childsh, in my opinion, as we are not in here to win, just to contribute). I read almost all the book written by Darcy Ribeiro and none of his claims are in there. About poverty and stagnation in other Brazilian provinces, all I saw was that Ribeiro said that after the U.S. Civil War the province of Pernambuco grew economicaly. Pernambuco is one of the areas that according to Opinoso was stagnated. Or Darcy Ribeiro contradicted himself or once again Opinoso is faking information. Anyway, the information that he faked must be removed, that's a fact. I don´t believe he will back down, unless other editors tell him to stop the disruption that he is causing. I don´t think that will happen and meanwhile, as you must have noticed, Opinoso keeps attacking my integrity trying to evade from the misdeed he commited. So, wait for my until tuesday. Best regards, - --Lecen (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Im back. The reason I did not answer why I changed the old text was becaue I simply refuse to care to what Opinoso cares, as he has already revealed that he cannot be trusted. As I've noticed that at least another editor asked for clarification, I'll explain it everything. And I have seen that he reverted the text without bothering with the discussion still going on. - --Lecen (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He has. I am no linger impartial to this conflict, since I dislike User:Opinoso's behavior in this conflict. Therefore I can not help any more as an uninvolved third party. I am still around as a watchdog, though. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don´t worry. I will explain everything, piece by piece, with great care, and why I have improved the text. However, Opinoso will not stop until other editors tell him to. I have found another of his frauds, though. In the Republic era text (not the text that is is now, but the one he reverted that had my contributions), he wrote down (as usual according to Darcy Ribeiro) that the landowners that "ruled" during the Empire forced the ex-slaves to depart to cities and then live in the "favelas". However, in the book written by Dacy Ribeiro, it says that the demographic explosion (during the 1920s-1940s) in the Brazilian cities compelled Afro-Brazilians (the ones who had low income) to move into the "favelas". He has no respect at all with sources and will do anything to prove his point. I was surprised to see that he accused me of creating fake editors to support me. That is so absurd that it could be proven simply by checking the IP. Well, it will take me some time to write it down everything, as the discussion has gone way to far, but I will not give up. Everything he wrote has lies attached to it. That has to end, and it has to end now. - --Lecen (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I just read what Opinoso wrote in the discussion page. While I put historians' view of Pedro II reign, Opinoso put his grandmother's opinion. I can't believe that I am losing my time with this guy! It is clear not only that he is dishonest but also that he does not know anything about history. Check it out! While I write down historian views, he does not do the same. He simply gives his personal opinion and accuses me of giving my personal opinion. What?! I can´t fight back so much nonsense! - --Lecen (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue with sources used by Opinoso, part 2

Debresser, I am reading carefully the sociology book “the Brazilian People” (onlive version in [here]) written by Darcy Ribeiro and used as source by Opinoso. I must admit that the more I read, the more I get astonished with the author’s opinions. The book, in summary, is a piece of communist/Marxist propaganda with strong messages of racial hatred. In it, the whites/Europeans are cruel and oppressive, while the africans and Indians as innocent victims that lived in some kind of a proto-Communist (where all were equal and everything perfect) society before the conquest of the “evil” capitalist Europeans. And later they are dominated by the rich (bourgeois) elite and equally oppressive. Below are some passages (translated from Portuguese to English by me). When you finish reading, you will certainly notice that many of the ideas of Darcy Ribeiro are in the old text in the section history (that one that Opinoso brought back and also in those passages that he wrote that I was against it), where “the elites” or “white ruling classes” themes are common. It is very probably that is was Opinoso the one who wrote the old text and that is why he opposes any modification to it.

• ...a new protagonist, the European. Although very small, the tiny group that had just arrived from beyond the sea was super-aggressive and capable of acting destructively in multiple ways. (Page 1 on online version)

• It is impossible because we only have the testimony of one of the protagonists, the invader. It is he who says about his exploits. It is he, also, who tells what occurred to the indians and the blacks, rarely giving the word of register from their own words. What the large documentation tells us is the version of the dominator. (Page 1)

• After all, the Crown itself, in the person of the marquis of Pombal, decides to end with that precocious socialist experience, banishing them from Brazil. Then, it occurs the saddest. The priests deliver the missions obediently to the rich colonists. (Page 2)

• Thus it is how it was being composed a speech more and more rational and each time more insane, against what truly happened to the Indians: smashed and enslaved by the colonist, who were blind and deaf to anything with the exception of what was related to money. (Page 2)

• To attribute some formal dignity to the extermination war that was being carried, to the brutality of the conquest, the perversity of the elimination of so many peoples. (Page 2)

• The colonists, working to reproduce a healthy mercantile world in here, moved on by their greed and usuries. (Page 2)

Darcy Ribeiro even finds an opportunity to blame the Jews, whom he accuses of having "dominated" the Portuguese. He is probably blaming Jewish merchants, I don´t know, I have never seen so much craziness in one book. See by yourself:

• Free of the Saracen occupation, relieved of the Jewish exploitation… (Page 2)

• Nothing more natural than to think on that way for an Iberian [Portuguese] who had just finished banishing the heretics Saracens and Jewish, who had dominated them for centuries. (Page 2) --Lecen (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On page 3 (online version) Darcy Ribeiro says that the Portuguese that came to Brazil were men who had been banished, or that were bandits, criminals, or similar. - --Lecen (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I am tired of that discussion. It is all pointless. It doesn´t matter if I prove piece by piece that every allegation of Opinoso is based on lies. No one cares. He can do and undo anything he wants and no one complains. He destroys Wikipedia as a reliable enciclopedia and no one gives a damn about it. I write, write and write and nothing happens. The guy is still there, like he is an honesty contributor who just have different sources to the same matter. All those aditions to the text he did, all based on lies (as I showed countless times), are still there. He should be banished from Wikipedia, but no one has even thought on that. Good luck in there and once again, thanks for everything you did, I trully apreciated it. - --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you won't continue the fight, nobody will. It is having some success, because 1. Another user has also complained about him 2. The issue has been brought to the attention of palces like WP:ANI/3RR and WP:WQA 3. His edits will be undone if shown to have been wrong. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw, but the discussion page is a mess. Someone who is new to the dispute won´t understand anything. Not only you, but other users had already made the "10 points" suggestion to improve the text before Opinoso interrupted. I do not have anything against changing or improving the text, as long as it is not will false information as it was done by Opinoso. I will not engange on any discussion anymore, unless if it is: 1) to answer another editor; 2) or to answer an Administrator. - --Lecen (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: His edits will be undone if shown to have been wrong

But I have already done that. What do you think I still need to point out? (this a question, not an ironic remark) - --Lecen (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso reverted the text again! When it is still under debate! This guy is out of control! - --Lecen (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not out of control. If there's something under debate, the original text must stay in the article, not the new one (the biased one). User Lecen was not able to point not a single "wrong" information about the old text, even though he claimed it was wrong. Since the old text is not wrong, nobody is able to erase it to post a biased one in its place. Opinoso (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lecen has pointed to many things that he considered wrong. It is just that you disagree. Note also that at least two other editors seem to agree with him rather than with you. Your last revert was untactfull, and could be considered edit-warring. I was on the brink of undoing it, but decided to await the outcome of the discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving categories

Hi, I'm rather new to editing categories, so I am very sorry if I did something against protocol. I assumed that moving a category was similar to moving an article, which is being done without going to AfD. Is there a page somewhere where these things are explained? As you may have seen from the (long) discussion on my talk page, the journals categories are somewhat of a mess and need cleaning and I would like to do things correctly. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Started and continued on user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference

Fixed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Steve Smith (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Account creation system

Debresser, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.

At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.

Again, thanks for your interest in the account creation system. Join us on IRC at wikipedia-en-accounts and subscribe to the mailing list by going here. Willking1979 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Account creation request interface Debresser (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Prod2

My bad. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Geobox

Where are they used? Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

User pages? Sometimes I think we dhouldn;t worry about them, sometimes I fix them. And parameter 1 is River or Range. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Japan parental abduction

I'm not that technically literate. Until very recently, I simply used []. I have made an effort to learn how to use {{citation}}: Empty citation (help). However, for some reason, it didn't work right so I'm sticking to what work. Vapour (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So do you mean as long as I have "|url=" and "|title", it will work. Thanks. Vapour (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

X-ray transient

You recent edit to the article, here removed a large chunk of text. Did you mean to do that? 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, and I have no idea how it happened. I undid it, while at the same time keeping the fix that was made later, and fixing what I intended originally. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I must have searched for that broken link in the history, and then saved an older version. That is the best I can come up with by way of explanation. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sockpuppeteerproven

Template:Sockpuppeteerproven has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Avi (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have now voted there. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TfD

Thanks. I think the problem was that I usually use the Twinkle (I think) script to nominate things and it wouldn't post. Perhaps that is because there is no section for November 1 on the TfD page. I think I am going to hold off just a bit until a discussion about the templates in question concludes. Thanks so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to rationalize my inability to use the script tonight, I guess. Cheers! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Improving Coverage of Judaism

Re: the Judaism article, I appreciate your work. I'd like to know if you're interested in joining the effort for other sections of the article besides Kashrut. In particular, I'm concerned I would have trouble expanding the very incomplete section about "niddah and family purity" by myself, because I'm not very knowledgeable in that area. By now, I think that section looks like it needs more attention than Kashrut and it's also an important aspect of Halakha. Do you think you would be able to expand that section, or do you have any other ideas about how to improve the article? Thanks so much. --AFriedman (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am an "expert" on the subject. I have left a few posts on the talkpage of Niddah at one time, that may give you an indication. I am more of a wikgnome than a writer. If somebody were to start, I'd jump in. Preferably the person writing should know beforehand that it would be a joint venture. :) To avoid conflicts.

BTW, I agree that the chicken thing didn't warrant a paragraph of its own. Debresser (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent ‎ (Use transclusion, not substitution.)

Forgive me for sounding naive... While I know what transclusion is, I am not sure I understand your reference, and your edit doesn't shed any light on the subject for me. Clarification would be most appreciated. Neuromancer (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I made a paste&copy error when I added that edit summary. I noticed it too late to stop it. The edit summary should have been "Removed or replaced non-applicable protection template". Debresser (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. That makes much more sense. Neuromancer (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Thanks for this. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bombings

I don't want to argue about this (really, I don't!), but I think I'm just misunderstanding what you have meant in your comments there. I don't have anything invested in saving the category from deletion, but I'm more just curious because not being able to understand is bugging me. Could you enlighten me, either here, or there, or on my talk page? No hurry. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I somehow didn't notice the other articles in the category. Don't know how that happened. See the discussion that I have changed my point of view. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. Thought I myself was missing something. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Neah. that would be impossible! :) Debresser (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue

I tried to, but it blocked me from doing so. I e-mailed him to ask if he has done this before, but I haven't gotten a response yet. I'll e-mail him soon with a suggestion if he doesn't respond in the next day. I'm new too, so we're on the same boat. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I might as well e-mail it then and I plan on applying for "account creator" status soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So apparently he only wanted to rename his account. I told him how to do so, so all is good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because on the documentation page it says to do just that because I think the other way reveals your I.P. I think that we've had quite a thrilling day over at the Account Creation thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. It picks up though late at night, and since everyone else is on, I haven't created an account in 16 hours. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Palestine

Thanks. I haven't been following what the agreed-upon nomenclature is. And frankly, don't have any strong views on the subject, and I appreciate your input.

But I do notice that there is actually a Wikipedia article called State of Palestine. How does that square with your comments?

All I was trying to do was match the language used in the article I was editing (Al-Najah Secondary School), which refers to Palestine. But looking on it now, even that reference is perhaps not the best, since it refers to the geographical area and not the State. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am content with the status-quo. The State of Palestine is not recognised by many, me included. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil - ending the problem

Hello! Well, I have brought back the 10 points discussion. I already put my thoughts in there, and also yours. However, you should re-read them and change whatever you think it must. Remember that some of the passages that you said that should stay were later proved to false information created by Opinoso. Só, read it carefully and post your signature (I don´t want to see Opinoso accusing me of "creating" your opinion). I will warn the other editors about the 10 points. - --Lecen (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I was wondering that it would be a good idea if we erase the following passage that I wrote: "Brazil was a 'prosperous and [internationally] respected' country". I have noticed that, although it is correct (at least, according to historians), the way it is written and where it was put makes the view of Pedro II reign "too positive" as you told me once. Whoever reads it will have the feeling that it was almost sad that the monarchy ended and that was not my intention. So, I thought it could be removed it and wouldn´t hurt the text. What are your thoughts on it? - --Lecen (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you quoted me, I should not sign. Anybody can see that those were my words.

Perhaps indeed replace "Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country[112] when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889." by a simple "The monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889." Although the first part is sourced, it is not very relevant. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'consensus' version

You don't work for the FBI do you? No. I didn't think so. Pardon my delusions.

If you knew *why* I got interested in this article, and had issue with the unsourced opinions (the so-called consensus version referencing sundry hearsay) you'd grasp my point. I grasp what may be yours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.72.154 (talk • contribs)

Oh, I can tell you how I got interested in this article. I saw it on a list of articles with errors, Category:Pages with broken reference names. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. No, that's not how. One of the guy running his case in Kabul... oh, never mind. I have work to do. And I really don't give a hoot to get into it. Let's just say one person involved in... oh never mind.

I do so hate this pillorying of human beings on Wikipedia, I have to say. Over half of this guy's page reads like an FBI file (my what a coincidence). The guy is clearly an excitable type. But no one deserves this kind of trashing. Especially the mentions of his father's obit, the mention of his 'common law wife' and various references to anything and everything derogatory under the planet (including calling his charity a dog kennel, for Christ's sake). It's not even veiled.

All the business information is a bunch of nonsense that no one cares about (a paintball firm? God. He's not Richard Branson. Give up the lifelong timeline. This kind of nonsense is simple and clear smear work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.72.154 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the most blatant unrelated sentences. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Atlantean language

Thnks for yr comment. Don't know what went wrong, but it seemed to me something still was not okay. Fixed it now. Ida Shaw (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Being Admin

I saw your comment on Rich Farmbrough's talk. I hope it goes without saying that everything I say here is meant as constructive criticism.

I do not want, or have never applied, to be an admin. I simply do not want the hassle. I want to edit articles and make them better, wikignoming if you like, but I am a software engineer and do not want to spemd my free time fixing up. Nevertheéess I do.

I think, frankly, you would be better off not being admin and doing what you do best, gnoming, without the hassle. Just my view, of course. And if I need an admin to dispute a move or anything can I come to you first? No special pleading, just you know me well enough I am trying to make WP better.

My sincere best wishes Si Trew (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, RFA has become a hazard rather than "no big deal". My strong belief is that 90% of management is about getting out of people's way - of course bureaucracy does precisely the opposite. Can't fix, won't fix. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Rich totally agree. Management is about letting people do their jobs, and then getting out of the way. I hope you saw that I fixed up a few articles this morning for Parks and Recreation, put them into standard form and made a tempolate with documentation, I hope I was going along the right lines there, but if you could cast your eye over {{Parks and Recreation episode}} I should be very grateful.

Will post to your page to indirect here. Si Trew (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But I am not an admin. That is precisely the problem. Why do I consider it a problem? Because if I were an admin, 1. I could make edits to protected pages. As a gnome, I sometimes want to fix something on protected pages as well. 2. To be able to help in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, where I am active on a daily basis partaking in discussions. But to do the hard work of deleting or renaming categories one needs to be an admin. 3. Things like blocking users or deleting/protecting pages usually do not interest me, but may be handy once in a while. Most of my fighting vandalism I do with my rollback rights. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Both CSD and AfD are very gnomish jobs, CSD is particularly in need of diligent gnoming - pages get CSD'd wrongly then speedily deleted. Also speedy tends to be a couple of minutes which is great for most CSD stuff but some needs to be prodded of AfD'd or plain kept... Anyway. Propose yourself for Admin, or if you prefer I will gnominate you. Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

I didn't say, and should have, that I respect Debresser very much for everything done, and I am sure I only coincidentally meet. My greatest respect, Debresser, for your hard work. I would also support you for admin it if helps you in your gnoming. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are going to have me blush soon. :) Debresser (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to blunder into the discussion, I was actually thinking about you and adminship a little while ago. If you ever felt like going for it then you would certainly have my support. --Xdamr^talk 12:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the good word. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I think the argument that adminship conflicts with editing is too often used incorrectly. Just look at admins like Moni3 (talk · contribs). I have never ever really attempted article writing until ca. 6 months after I became admin. If you think adminship can be useful in what you already do, just run for it (if you haven't got any skeletons in your closet that is ). Noone forces you to act any different if you succeed, you can still do most of the things you do now, just more productively sometimes. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Cut the UTC business. I made a template at {{Time of day in words}}. (talk)Template:Time of day in words

What disrupting editing?

Dude the article links to the wrong allmusic guide review, how in any way was my edit destructive? - 220.239.227.105 (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DUDE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DID! I did not touch anything else on the article, all I did was replace the link and you're calling me a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.227.105 (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ahh righto that ref thing was an accident (why would I fix the link, and then destroy something else on the page?) - 220.239.227.105 (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Deb, I noticed the warning you issued to this anon, although the matter seems to be cleared up now, I think it would be good if in future only a first warning were issued for this kind of thing, or, even better, if no warning were issued at all and instead the matter were discussed. But to my mind a final warning for an edit such as made by this anon is completely disproportionate. But that's just what I think and naturally you are entitled to think otherwise. Anyway, I Hope everything is well with you, kind regards,

Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I posted a 3rd level warning out of 5. That is not a "final" warning. And this was after I fixed his edit in which he made </ref> into </reff>, which was vandalism act number one, and he reverted me, which was vandalism act number 2. And the reason I gave a 3rd level warning was for 2 vandalism edits + 1 for the chutzpah of undoing a fix by an experienced editor. This is what I remeber by heart. In view of this, I find your remark here quite off point. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit that this user is not a vandal, according to his contributions, but this specific edit was. I might have used a 2nd level warning, that would have been better. But that is as far as I'll go. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wizard again

Hi, I've added "source=ArticleWizard" to the Article Wizard's calling of {{userspace draft}} and {{new unreviewed article}}. Could you fix it so that this switch acts appropriately, and the templates can be used for other purposes too? Thanks! Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the switch. What do you have in mind? That these templates should do the same thing as they do now but without the addition that they come from the Article Wizard? Debresser (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Something like User:Debresser/Sandbox? Debresser (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The idea being that users can apply those tags manually without the template or categorisation giving the impression the page came from the Wizard. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 14:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They are ready at User:Debresser/Sandbox/Userspace draft and User:Debresser/Sandbox/New unreviewed article. Please delete those pages after you copied the templates.

{{New unreviewed article}} still could use a function reporting it when it is applied outside article namespace. Before, that function was provided by {{Userspace draft}}, but now that {{New unreviewed article}} can be used independently, that should be build in. For that purpose a special error category would have to be created. Or you could leave it without error detection, just as many other maintenance templates. That would be my suggestion. A person who would use this template independently, without the Article Wizard, probbaly kows what he is doing. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: no categories exist as of yet for the use of these templates outside Article Wizard. they are redlinked. It is ironical that I had those of New unrevied article deleted just yesterday. However, no need to create them before they would actually be needed. Which reminds me. Are you sure this change is a good idea? Debresser (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It won't hurt, surely, but I wonder how likely it is to be used. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there's one way to find out...! :) Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Especially since we already have Template:UserWorkInProgress. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to merge those. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/userfication. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I got your note

I read the note you left in the edit summary at List of Awards of The Bill! I apologise for creating extra work for you and I promise I'll try not to cock it up again! As a matter of interest, what did you do to fix the ref? I tried twice and ended up reverting myself because I made it worse. Thanks for cleaning it up, anyway. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alice B. Toklas

Whoops, went offline for a few hours in the middle of an edit session. Thanks for fixing things up temporarily - my edits are now all in place, and I incorporated the reflist template you suggested.--Larrybob (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re

Thank you for advice, Debresser. I will certainly take better care of providing correct reference names. ellol (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Patience

Well, if I managed to convince the others I own that much to you, my heroine (I presume you are a girl). Opinoso has vanished, like he had been just a bad dream. I have ended writing the history section, but I think I'll need to downsize it somehow.

The only issue now is that an user called "Auréola" has added sections that are full of nonsense. In sum, it is like he is doing publicity towards Brazil and worse, the info there is non-enciclopedic. I am not Opinoso, and I will not erase what he did, of course. I have written my thoughts on the discussion page to see what happens. Anyway, the article has become larger and it has to get smaller.

P.S.: Thank you for everything. I'm on debt with you, anytime you need, you can call me for help. - --Lecen (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a galant knight, rather than a heroine. :) Debresser (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry! My bad! By the way, how do I I put on the archives the old discussion on the article Brazil? All that discussion with Opinoso makes harder to talk about new subjects. - --Lecen (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You should not do that! There is a bot archiving the talkpage, but that will take some time yet. Leave this to somebody else. Especially since this is too early to archive this discussion. I previously collapsed big parts of it, and that should be enough for the time being. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ow, I did not know that. I just thought that since the matter is dead, we could save space. But don't worry, I won't touch anything. By the way, Opinoso is back to the article. Take a look on what he wrote:

Why couldn't Auréola post glamorous informations about Brazil if a section of this article is already devoted to glamourise the Monarchy? Why couldn't Auréola criticize the Military Dictatorship or Capitalism if there is an specific section dedicated to criticize the Republic? Auréola may be only following a tendency here. And he/she has sources, then, it's ok.

By the way, I like the section about "Brazilian women" that Auréola posted. If Emperor Pedro II has an entire section dedicated to enhance his skills and his glorious government, it is clear that the Brazilian women also deserve their own section too. The brave Brazilian women deserve it. Auréola, if you have "sources", go ahead, keep posting.

You know, in a very, very weird way, I am starting to like him. You know that kind of people that you love hating? Something like that. Hah hah hah... I know, I know, that was a cruel joke. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this?

Is there something you wished to say? Why did you post this on my Talk page? Please use the Talk page of the appropriate article, namely the Judaism article, to make whatever constructive comments you feel need to be made. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment of more personal nature on your talkpage, in complete conformance with Wikipedia rules and practises. Debresser (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Meant what? That I am ignorant? Is that your idea of the starting point for a constructive dialogue? Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bus_stop#Kosher. Debresser (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, Please use the Talk page of the relevant article to engage in dialogue concerning writing or improving the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I will do so. But you should not be there, because you do not know the subject at hand. Please be wise enough to remove yourself from that article. Debresser (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove myself from the article? Are you serious? Are you of the opinion that someone has to have innate knowledge of a subject to participate on Wikipedia? How do you see what you are doing as being constructive? By telling me to go away, you are contributing to the project? You make me sound like a vandal. Were my edits vandalism? They were sourced from an established text called The Foundation of Judaism, by Akiva Aaronson, first published in 1997. It happens to be a text that is given out free to attendees of a Gateways Organization series of lectures. When I add material to an article I adhere very closely to text in my source. I happen to take very seriously the prohibition on adding original research to an article. Do you actually think that I am not qualified to participate in editing any part of the Judaism article? Bus stop (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not use the word vandalism, nor did I have it in mind. And it is very good that you take care not to engage in original research. But that only proves my point, that a person not knowledgable enough in the subject matter is apt to make mistakes even when aided by certain sources. Do you think it is for nothing that rabbis study these subjects for 1-2 years? Debresser (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and a rabbi's area of practice are not necessarily congruent. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I disagree with Bus stop's personal behavior but I still think we should be gentler to Bus stop when he edits the Judaism article, given that his last 2 edits came from verifiable sources (even if they happened to repeat incorrect information from those sources). I can mention several instances in which Bus stop made constructive criticisms of the Kashrut section. I've tried to behave gently and not make ad hominem attacks on him, because I think we should respect these Wikipedia policies when someone edits in good faith. Overall, with him in the group of collaborative editors I think the article improves. Do you agree?

I am not a rabbi either. In fact, I regularly contribute to articles and sections of articles at the edge of my own expertise, including Niddah. Why are we criticizing Bus stop's personal level of expertise, rather than focusing on the issues with his specific edits and interpersonal behavior? Many people's edits need to be double-checked, even when they are knowledgeable. You've certainly improved on mine, for example. WP should be open to anyone of any credentials who edits in good faith. Bus stop's access to verifiable sources, in my opinion, should be enough of a qualification to allow him to edit Judaism.

Bus stop's civility is a separate issue and I'm bringing it up with him. --AFriedman (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posted on his takpage in the same vine, see my last edit there. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, please use the article Talk page. That is a central location for addressing issues concerning writing and improving the article. I think it is less constructive to be posting your issues with my edits to the Judaism article on my User Talk page. Others are also involved, and they deserve the courtesy of seeing the issues under discussion in one central place. That place is logically the Talk page of the Judaism article. I only posted here because you have been making a habit of posting on my User Talk page. Let us both try to put a stop to this. The article Talk page is the proper place for most of this. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Again. The talkpage is about the article. I am not discussing the article: I am discussing you. The only right place to do that is on user talkpages. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't see why you are discussing me. The article is what matters. My edits can be addressed in terms of my edits. It is with the following comment that you opened your discussion on my User Talk page:

"It may be that I am not the right person to tell you this, but in view of your clearly proven ignorance about the subject of kashrus, I think you should really stop editing the Judaism article. Debresser (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"

That is found here.

No one wishes to be told about their "…clearly proven ignorance…" and I am no exception. This is not the first time you have posted in such a manner on my User Talk page. You posted this without anything nearly approaching an appropriate level of provocation. If I remember correctly I made 3 edits over 36 hours (to the kashrut section of the Judaism article). That's what apparently provoked you to post that warning on my User Talk page. That does not make sense to me. A person can't edit an article if someone such as yourself is issuing dire-sounding warnings after 3 well-sourced edits over a period of 36 hours.

Bear in mind that the infrequent edits that I have attempted to make to that article were accompanied by reliable sources. I'm sorry if I am repeating myself, but I need to say again that I am very careful to adhere very closely to my sources, which I am posting at the same moment that I post an edit. Wikipedia unfortunately suffers from a popularly held perception that it is "unreliable" because "anyone can edit it." In my conception, that problem is most directly traceable to failure to properly source articles and to cleave closely to those sources. I do not wish to contribute to the perception that Wikipedia is unreliable. I honestly base my input on what sources actually say.

You have made it clear that you want me to go away. But it is not your article. That you are a "rabbi" is somewhat irrelevant. I say that with no malice. I can respect you for being a rabbi. But the currency here at Wikipedia is primarily reliable sources. I am reasonably proficient at reading English. I can read source material and make appropriate edits to accurately reflect that material.

Therefore you should be addressing my edits, and not me as a person, or a robot, or whatever the case may be. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Bus stop's edits "infrequent"--I check the Judaism page daily and often see them--but otherwise, I think Bus stop has made a valid point here. Please stop making ad hominem attacks on his level of knowledge. If Bus stop enters the realms of edit warring and interfering with consensus, these are valid arguments to make. I don't think he's in either realm at this point. But I think you should keep WP:Civil in mind when dealing with Bus stop. I noticed you've toned down your argument that Bus stop should stop editing the Judaism article, and I think that's good. Actually, I think your previous attacks on Bus stop's person were counterproductive and obscured the point you were trying to get across. Why don't we think about what we can do from this point onward. --AFriedman (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, where are these supposed violations of WP:CIVIL that you are apparently finding for me? Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have posted this on your talk page. The post I wrote directly above yours was mostly a criticism of Debresser and how he treated you. --AFriedman (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be so kind not to have that discussion on my talkpage. That was not the point. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

These are not attacks, and I resent you calling them such. These are assessments based on the evidence of his edits. I am not alking about various technical or stylistic improvements, or about the fact that he has raised some valid points. But sometimes he makes factual statements that are just incorrect, because he doesn't know the subject matter well enough. And that would not be a problem, if he were to accept that others know the subject better than he does. But unfortunately he is a moderately aggressive editor as well. So I counted my blessings, and advised him to refrain from editing this article. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, you may think that I have made "factual statements that are just incorrect." At WP:VERIFY I find:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

The above is not to say that the material that I have put in the article is untrue. But you are not your own source, are you?

Though you and AFriedman have reverted my edits numerous times, I have seen a notable dearth of reliable sources brought by either of you to support any of those reversions. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is more you not understanding. But I told you before, that I do not see much of a point in trying to explain this to you. Since you obviously continue to see yourself competent to edit the Judaism article, by all means do so, and give other editors more to do. Debresser (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, why wouldn't I be competent to edit the Judaism article? The problem is me "not understanding?" Not understanding what? Pardon me for saying so, but you make kashrut sound like a mystery. Maybe that is what our disagreement is about: I am trying to make kashrut crystal clear to anyone who glances at the kashrut section of the Judaism article. And you are insisting on the inclusion of obscure and unexplained material. Take for instance your insistence on including that the pig is perhaps the un-kosher animal most familiar to most people. After much argumentation with me you finally revealed that there is a historical precedent for this in the form of something akin to a parable. (I may not be getting all this right. But I think you will recall our discussion related to this.) But most astonishingly, to me at least, is that no mention of that historic parable like allusion is included in the article. As I asked you at the time — what is the point? Are we trying to baffle people? Are we trying to "prime" people for some future inevitable encounter with that parable?

I'm in favor of explication. My "vision" for the kashrut section is simple explication in very brief sentences of all aspects of dietary kashrut. My "vision" is to have that very logically laid out. For further reference the reader clicks the link to the Kashrut article. You and AFriedman are more in favor of writing a prose piece, to your liking. Therein lies the problem: your version is a hodgepodge of your notion of the most popular ideas in kashrut. I want to rationalize that. That is where our differences lie. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That already is part of a content discussion, which had better take place on the talkpage. Just be prepared to accept the fact that if other editors disagree with you, or if your "vision" is at odds with Wikipedia's style requirement, you are going to have to compromise. Debresser (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I take back calling what you did "attacks" because I'm not sure they meet the criteria. However, the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I think this is important to keep in mind. --AFriedman (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You removed a protection template on Manupatra

In this edit your removed a protection on Manupatra.[2] This allowed an anon IP who has been warned for copyright violation by an administrator[3] to re-insert the copyright violation material.[4]. Just an fyi. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The template itself has nothing to do with the article being protected or not. The article protection actually expired in August. See [5] The pp series of templates are removed from pages when the page is no longer protected. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tothwolf for jumping in. You are, of course, completely correct. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. I see now that the protection did indeed expire in August. I spent a few minutes looking through the documentation, but didn't see offhand what the date in {{pp-semi-indef|small=yes|expiry=December 21, 2009}} does actually mean? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck in editing. See you around, Debresser (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures on Hasidic pages

Hello Debresser! I've been anonamously putting up the pictures on Hasidic philosophy over the past few days. I notice you made some slight reversions today. Recently I wrote about the character of Reb Zushya on the page of Elimelech of Lizhensk, and therefore made connections to it from Hasidic philosophy page, as I thought some information about Reb Zushya is better than none! However, if you prefer to leave his name in red in order to stimulate someone to make a new page for him, then OK! (Perhaps you could make such a page?)

However, I really think the picture of the son of the Rhuziner Rebbe should be on the page. I haven't yet quite finished adding/rearranging the pictures, which I hope to do this week. I've selected pictures that cover the full range of Hasidic diversity and aspects of its thought, across the whole movement. For instance, the picture of the ohel of the Berditchever Rebbe, I thought, most brings out the aspect in Hasidut of love of another Jew. In the same vein, a connecting picture to the Rhuziner Rebbe would most bring out the royal aspect of the Hasidic tzaddik, as he most exemplified it. I put this in the section about the connection of Hasidut to Mashiach, as the unique innovation in Judaism of the Hasidic tzaddik offered a minor level of physical and spiritual redemption, one aspect of the foretaste of King Mashiach and the Messianic era in Hasidism. I think I'll reinstate that picture therefore. Keep watching for my final arrangement this week and next week of pictures on Hasidic philosophy, Hasidic Judaism and also hopefully Kabbalah.

P.S. I'm a Lubavitcher too! And a devotee of "Classical" tradition music (plus Harry Potter etc. etc.!). For me it's Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Handel, Beethoven ....etc. Have a look at my new, not yet quite finished User:April8 page-I think you'll like it!! April8 (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a picture of the son of the Rhuziner is by several magnitudes too irrelevant for the article. But my main problem was with the text you added below the picture. It was unencyclopedical. Far too personal and emotional. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As wikipedia commons doesn't have a picture of the Rhuziner, his son is close enough, particularly if the caption mentions the regal tradition he inhereted. My main motivation in editing wikipedia is to inform readers of the true nature and position of Jewish mysticism in wider Jewish thought, and to inspire their attraction to it. This picture of the son is wonderfully inspirational! You'll see my improved caption beneath it. P.S. The image I used for Rabbi Nachman's imaginative creativity is quite good, though I did look a long time for alternatives, notably:
What would really be ideal would be an image of his holy chair, with its animal and bird woodcarvings. April8 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You have no right to revert me.

I have watched the Judaism article for a long time. A month ago[6], two months ago[7], three months ago[8], four [9], five months ago [10], more than six months ago[11]. (Note, Debresser, that many of the examples above come from edits you made - i.e. times when you edited the page but kept the consensus version of the introduction).

Then [user: Navnløs] changed the consensus version: [12]. I reverted back to the consensus version. Then [[user: Navnløs] made the same edit, again, against consensus: [13], and I restord the consensus version. Then another imposition of his edit[14] which this time AFriedman rverted. My point is, that Navnlos is clearly POV warring here, insisting on his edit which is changing the consensus version. Then user:A Sniper made the controversial edit [15] and again, i restored the consensus version. Now you are reverting me? Why? All I have done was to protect the consensus edit by reverting a change made to a text that has been stable for over six months.

Why is it that when YOU keep the consensus version, that is alright ... but when I try to protect the same consensus version, I get reverted? You should look at my edits in good faith. If someone accuses me of breaking consensus nd I explain on the talk page that I am not breaking consensus, I think I hae a right to someone providing edit diffs i.e. evidence to prove I am wrong before reverting me... like the edit diffs I provide above (except - they show that what i have been protecting has been the consensus version). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or you are confused, or I am. The consensus version says "This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." This I copied from the links you gave here. Isn't that what I restored? Debresser (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Debresser, I am sure I am confused about many things! But I am not confused about this - I restored the lead to what it was a week ago, four weeks ago, four months ago ... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now I see it. The last edit you made restored the consensus version only in regard with the lead, but the disambiguation on the top was still wrong. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here you are correct, but the disambiguation ought to be consistent with the article. It should not have said what it said, its language should have been consistent with the lead. this is a simple correction. The real argument (If we must argue) is about the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

But wait a second, didn'twe agree in the section before the last on the talkpage to replace "sets of beliefs and practices" by "religion"? So there is a new consensus about that. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not agree, and I do not see a lot of people agreeing following a thorough discussion so my opinion is that the consensus has not changed yet, I think one needs far more discussion with reliable sources brought in before the consensus version should be changed. You know that you have made many edits that no one has challenged, people see the sense. But I am not the only one to question this change. It is not so simple as following the Shulchan Aruch, kol ha kavod. This edit Blizzard claims is simple an non-controversial but it is not.

Debresser, with all due respect, disambiguations should reflect the articles, not the other way around. We work on the articles (Judaism, and Jews) and then we write disambiguation lines. My revert was to the consensus version - a version that was stable for many months, a version that you seemed not to object to even as you were making many improvements to the article. I think it is a minor and uncontroversial edit to change the disambiguation explanation to be consistent with the article.

Now, as for a new consensus, I do not see any long inclusive discussion leading to a new consensusl I see two users you insist on this change and use what they consider logical arguments but with all due respect what I consider sophistry to argue their case. Dod the Rishonim consider Judaism to be a "religion?" Did the Tannaim? For a long time, "Judaism" was the law of Israel, and that law included religious law and secular law. The goyische word "religion" only has meaning in this modern world where religion, politics, economy are all considered separate institutions. This was not the case in Medieval Europe, but modernity transformed these into separate institutions. Now the question is, are they separate in Judaism? Are beliefs about the economy, ideals about politics, and religion separeate, or intertwined? I think they are intertwined.

But this is the important point: many others - historians and Jewish thinkers - in reliable sources, have also claimed they are intertwined, or that Judaism can mean different things.

And here is the big question: which is a better article: one that says Judaism is one thing, what one point of view believes? Or one that says that Judaism is different things, including what one point of view believes and including other points of view?

This is a simple question and I think this is the real issue. It is not for us to say what Judaism is, when there are different points of view. I have just edited the introduction, largely to restore the introduction we had for a very long time, because that introduction was inclusive of different views. I was not erasing a view, I was making space for different views.

Blizzard's basic reason is that Christianity is a religion so Judaism must also be a religion. I just do not see why, because Christians call themselves a religion, we must therefore also view judaism as a religion. Maybe this is how Christians see things. And if some Jews see things this way I will never criticize them. But not all Jews see it this way. Not all Jews think that since Christianity is a religion, Judaism has to be a religion too. Some Juews think Judaism is more complicated than this. And if some Christians do not understand this, well, I regret that but it does not mean that we have to change our introduction to say "Judaism IS a religion." It can be a religion, and it can also be much more than that too. This is not my personal view. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I myself don't like the new "religion" version. I liked the old "set of beliefs and pratices" better. This I have stated on the talkpage of Judaism as well. But since there were a few other editors who insisted, and they have acceptable arguments, I decided not to make an issue about it. But the hatnote you changed from the consensus version of many months, as you can see for yourself in the links you placed here, so that you shouldn't do. And another minor point: do not tell me what I "have or not have the right". Debresser (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is wrong of you to revert me claiming I am working against consensus. Two editors who hav enot provided reliable sources does not make for a consensus. I will defer to you about the hatnote, but I would like to have a discussion about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. That works for me. On Talk:Judaism#Judaism? Debresser (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad, and glad to continue discussing it on the article talk page. I must say, though, that I still do not believe Blizzard's argument is acceptable. He summed up his reason as saying that Christianity and Islam are identified as religions and Wikipedia should have uniformity. There is no rule that Wikipedia should have uniformity (for example, our MOS allows articles to use BC/AD or BCE/CE), and I do not consider this in and of itself a good reason. Christianity and Islam identify themselves as religions. Perhaps one could have made an argument that the Saducees or Priests running the Temple constituted a Jewish religion, or that the Essenes were another Jewish religion. But I think that even the Bible contains within it parts that are clearly about religion, and parts that are about other things, and that the Talmud is an inclusive record of much of Jewish life that again includes religion but other things as well. I am very uncomfortable with the insistance that Judaism, whatever it is, has to be comparable to Christianity or Islam; that because they are described a certain way so should Judaism. This argument does not come from a reliable source, it is just Blizzard's conviction, and I do not consider it an acceptable reason to change what had been stable language in the introduction. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Could you point me to the discussion you mentioned [16] [17] or summarise the bug? I've been working on other issues in {{Citation/core/sandbox}} and I'm trying to figure out if what you mentioned was something that needed to be fixed there too? If you have a moment, could you also look over the tests that I linked in my last replies here? The current sandbox code looks ok to me but I always prefer to have those sort of changes double checked. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Best I can tell, Amalthea's edit and my edit [18] [19] should have fixed the IncludedWorkURL/OriginalURL/ArchiveURL issue with {{Citation/core}} but please test {{Citation/core/sandbox}} and make sure. I'm otherwise ready to do an editprotected request to get the other corrections I've made merged into the live version of the template. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That was fixed, I know. The issue left was about |contribution-url=. See the link to the sandbox in that section. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, {{Citation/sandbox}} then... I'll have a look at it. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Those edits in {{Citation/sandbox}} look fine to me. The additions to OriginalURL would be somewhat redundant now with the OriginalURL/IncludedWorkURL changes to {{Citation/core/sandbox}} but either way it won't hurt anything. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Broke Ref

The reference is from is the same one from the economy sections in the first sentence, but when i copy and paste it to the opening it messes up? If you can fix it, u da man.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NRHP references

Thanks for finding and fixing the broken references on these NRHP articles; they're often large enough that they take a while to access, so I don't often preview. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They were hard to find. It would have been better if the people who know what to look for and where to find it would have provided all the details from the start. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but are you saying that I did something wrongly? I'll not be unhappy if you say yes; I'm just unsure what you mean, and I'm happy to try to keep errors from happening. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly these were edits I made a little over 2 weeks ago. So I don't remeber who was or were the editors who added the source without details. If it were you, then yes, by all means be carefull to always add full details about all references. Debresser (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubinstein

This is the user who once accused me of being a kid, and now I am part of a tag team. The point is that Blizzard Beast came up with a legitimate edit, there was discussion around the edit, there were no moves to revert, but then slrubinstein comes along outside of the discussion and changes it. The user has to be made to understand that this will not be tolerated, no more than anything anyone of us would be tolerated in the same circumstance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting. I was aware of the subject already, and have stated my opinion about the edit and the editwar on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Judaism:_not_just_a_religion. Debresser (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My oversight

Thank you for adding the link from Wikiproject Judaism to the Judaism Talk pag. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sub Saharan Jews

Just a wee note to say, thanks for fixing that link for me! --MacRusgail (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Redesigning the citation errors

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Redesigning the citation errors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added my opinion as well. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism article

What is your problem with my edits? The talkfest is attempting to reinvent the wheel by looking for a consensus where one already exists. There is more ways than one to get on ANI, and admins go there also--Meieimatai? 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been explained to you at length by two editors on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice it, I was not in the edit war, and promised nothing to nobody.

I did however promise to abide by Wikipedia policies, one of which is to provide readers with a source of information that makes sense. After reading the talk page BEFORE making my edits, I came to the conclusion that common sense was abandoned, or never used at the start of the discussion in the first place. For me it would have been the first step to look at the other articles that connect to Judaism, and are found in the higher level category, i.e. religions. Has anyone done that? There is a certain logical process one is suppose to follow before starting to type isn't there? Consensus is reached on four core and many sub- articles related to Judaism, but not on Judaism?!

Now just for a moment consider yourself writing an essay at university where you declare that Judaism is not a religion, but only 'beliefs and practices'. What mark do you think you will get for that essay?

As for representing everyone's views, thats fine, but in the body of the article, not in the introduction. Minority opinions would not exist if Judaism did not exist as a religion, and it would not have survived 3000 years if it was not a religion either. It is only because of Judaism that atheism exists since both Christianity and Islam forbade it until quite recently in terms of history or religions. Please reconsider my edit, and allow common sense to prevail.--Meieimatai? 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that my main reason for reverting was the absense of prior consensus on the talkpage. Please see Talk:Judaism#Lift_protection that without that, no edits should be made to the lede of this article. You have posted your arguments there (in Talk:Judaism#Proposed_Wording), so now let's see if consensus will agree with you. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 in Australian subscription television

Why did you remove the tags when you did not provide a reference?Reubot (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ana WHO?

I'm wondering who the heck Ana Arendt (or Anne Arendt, as Galisa recently wrote it at her attempt to get an admin to give me a whooping) is myself! Hannah Arendt, on the other hand, I certainly know.  ;) A Sniper (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Halakha

Dear Debresser, the use of the TOF instead of the SOF is not "how we talk here". Both are used, though as a majority Ashkenazi, our custom in fact dictates the use of the Ashkenazi pronunciation. Recent popularization of the "Modern Hebrew" pronunciation does not mean "we" all talk that way. Also, in your responses regarding my correcting spellings, you should be sure not to misspell ENGLISH words. Read more. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.28.18 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are, apart from insolent, also mistaken. What I told you is the Wikipedia rule. it is as simple as that. Taunt it, and you will not only be reverted, but also blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Chuvash poets

Hi. I saw your message in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_12#Category:Chuvashs (seems that you placed it in the wrong thread). I wanted to point out that the word "Chuvash" is an adjective that refers to nationality, while "Chuvashian" is an adjective that refers to Republic of Chuvashia. See Category:Poets by nationality for reference. It lists "Afghan" and "Slovak" poets, not "Afghanistani" or "Slovakian". Chuvashes are the same case. Ali Savatar 11:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding! :) Ali Savatar 12:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir, you seem to esteem yourself too highly. Any ordination you may hold is not relevant to this discussion. No one is questioning your knowledge. Are you always so condescending and accusatory? Wikipedia "rule"? I have seen various sites using T, S, and Th. Where is the rule in that? If I am missing it please do correct me so I may know better. Right now, it just seems to be a common practice, not a rule. I am neither taunting you, nor it, nor is your use of 'insolent' warranted or appropriate. I merely pointed out that one should use correct spellings, especially when commenting on 'correct' or preferential spellings. I mean no disrespect to you, however you've been less than cordial to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.28.18 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Protection templates

I am aware of the fact that Protection templates work only when added by an admin....Since the edit made prior to the removal of template from the Walt Disney article was vandalism, I restore the edit and the template....It was a oversight and I was under the impression that the page was protected...Anyways ...Sorry and Thnx for the reminder...Gprince007 (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. All is well that ends well. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism suggestions

I'd value knowing what you think of these ideas. My main thought is this: the article already emphasizes (correctly, in my view) what Jews do over what they believe. But it strikes me that one thing Jews do a lot - or rather, one deed of central importance to Judaism, is to study. It is even in the words, "schul" or "Beis Midrash." The point of my specific suggestions is that how Jews study, which involves theological assumptions (e.g. God in heaven is also studying, and the idea of lo b'shamayim hu, that perhaps God gives attention to the debates of the sages, so that when we study we are in a way in communion with God) as well as specific procedures and principles of logic and interpretation - e.g. Rabbi Ishmael's 13 rules from Sifra, which can be compared and contrasted to Western principles of logic and interpretation (e.g. Aristotle) and which can be applied to any text, not just strictly Jewish or religious ones - that characterize "Judaism" and thus merit explication in the article. I am not the most qualifies person to write such a section. I think you perhaps are. In any event I'd like to know whether you think this idea has merit. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it definitely has. I'll support such additions. My nature is that I am a wikignome, so I'll wait to see what is happening and make any corrections or comments when I see the need for them. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not believe I know enough to add content on this. I do wish others could develop this part of the article ... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Syntax advice wanted

I would like your advice on the syntax for {{if pagename}}, since we are now deploying that template among others in the {{cat handler}}. I have written up my question and some examples at Template talk:If pagename#Pattern syntax, if/when you feel like it take a look.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with Opinoso

Debresser, I am having trouble with Opinoso again. He has baseless reverted sourced information at the sime time he called it "personal theories". See here. He also said that the renowned [Barsa] is not a reliable source. See here. he also again attacked me about the history section while it was discussed and settled by other editors. See here.

He simply reverts anything without even bothering to open a discussion thread or to wait other Editors opinions about it. I can not revert it back because it will become a revert war. How can I handle someone who has no respect for rules? - --Lecen (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no... oh no... oh no... And look who hads appeared out ofno where immediately after I complained about Opinoso's behavior? That User:Grenzer22 guy! See here. I can't believe that is not a suckpuppet. is there anyway to check both user's IPs? - --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)