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)

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

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

• I now have over 10,000 favicons, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Special characters

{{Help me}} 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)

Shachalayim or Village of Shachalayim

There was no village in Israel by this name? I am trying to locate lands. Twillisjr (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Apart from a village from the Talmudic era, which is not relevant to WP:ISRAEL, not that I know of. I searched for it on the Hebrew Wikipedia and on Google, but nothing turned up. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Good news friend, I located something online that explained that it was located in "Edom" which is now Jordan. The term "Watercress" is also used (for food), but historical information is also included. I will try to shorten the link for you: [1]. Perhaps it can be added to the Edom page, but I will leave that up to you (if you choose). Twillisjr (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Arians

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding in the article about Sephardi Jews.

At that time, Christians were divided between the "Nicene" or "Trinitarian" position (Jesus is of the same nature as God) and the "Arian" position (Jesus is subordinate to God). The Nicene position basically won, and was held by the Romans and Byzantines, and by most Christians today, apart from the Unitarians. That is what the article means by "orthodox Christians" and "Catholics". The Arian position was held by the Visigoths, until a later Visigothic king of Spain was converted to Catholicism. For as long as the Visigoths were Arians, they were reasonably tolerant of Jews. Once they became Catholic (i.e. Nicene) things became a lot tougher.

That is what the article was trying to say. As edited by you, it sounds as if "Arians" and "orthodox Christians" mean the same thing. Please read it again, both before and after your edit, and you will see that I am right. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that you are right. That is indeed what I had in mind. Since I seem to have the fact mixed up, please feel free to fix it (again) as needed. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your edit. Very good. Thanks for clarifying this to me and the article. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

1RR

What about 1RR do you think is optional? nableezy - 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I already explain in the edit summary that I consider my edit to have consensus. I just now had another look at WP:NOT3RR, and see that "my edit has consensus" is not one of them. I actually think it should be, but however that may be, my good faith edit was already reverted. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how Huldra could revert my edit with the lousy excuse that the citations are not understandable? I provided extensive quotes from all three sources, after looking them up in the university library, as well as their English translation. You might want to have a word with her about that... Debresser (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What you consider has consensus and what actually has consensus may be two different things. I dont understand the citations, and have requested additional information at the talk page. Thank you. nableezy - 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That is also true. I am also on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit by Huldra and its edit summary "rm rubbish" are not indicative of her positive attitude. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it promotes a positive attitude when you break 1RR, then precede the threaten me (who has not broken the 1RR) with WP:ARBPIA violation???? Seriously. Get real. Huldra (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I already explained it was a good faith mistake, while your edit was plain disruptive, so yes, I do think there is a good case against you, and I will keep this record for future use, should the need arise. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine, in the future I will just ask you to self-revert, then wait for you not to do so, and then just report you, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

People's

Here is some discussion of the topic [2].

I assume you are trying to say that the use of an IUD is a decision of both people in the relationship and thus it should be plural (more than one person) rather than singular? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but the previous version was "person's" and that is better in this case. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Already voted. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you vote oppose for many, as I did? I think this year was the first time I had so few support votes. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I voted neutral for all except the few I know. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Debresser. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

God

Not being critical just curious, why the emphasis on existence over nature ie

There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.

There is no clear consensus on the existence or even the nature of God.

Shouldn't both have equal weight ? Unibond (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Because there is no relevance to a thing's nature if it doesn't exist. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not curse on my talk page

Please do not use expletives on my talk page. Peace. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be an ass, and I won't call you one. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from using such language. I am not being an "a**" as you say it. Please also refer to WP:NPA. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the term I used was within limits for my talkpage. I refer you to Wikipedia:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism

You're now at the limit of 3RR. You're invited to discuss the photo. I'll help. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I already reminded you on your talkpage of WP:BRD. That means that you made a bold edit and were reverted, and should now discuss and obtain consensus before repeating your edit even once! I promise that I will join the discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Have a free meal for starting the AN/I thread. Their remark was offensive so I've handed them a warning not to refer to you as a misogynist and I've given them links to DRN and RfC. I don't fully get the meat of that discussion, but, if you can get your hands on some good quality images of Haredi women, then that may be more useful to you than edit-warring over it. Oh yes, slmost forgot, please avoid editwarring except to remove attacking, vandalizing, copyrighted, or other illegal materials. This trout is merely for fair representation. It's the equal outcomes approach ;). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Going to the limit of 3RR, I see... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll have to template you too. Please note, that I am careful not to pass the limit. Debresser (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for improving the article about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.I noticed you did a good job in preventing unhelpful edits from being introduced into the article. Eliko007 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That was an old issue, that comes up once in a while. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Schneerson and Crown Height riots

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. If you noticed, I did propose a solution, which you implemented, but was rejected by other editors. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, I notice you have tried to officially threaten me on my web page. Again, please show me how I have used name-calling and the sort. But again, my prime recommendation to you is to address with substance the problems with the Schneerson article with reasonable sources. I have no fear that my sources back up what I have stated, and I have no doubt also that this article is marked by recurrent, ill advised biased editing. I have set up a complaint about the neutrality board, as you know from prior discussions, this is not a new problem for this article.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, I notice you have used the vandalism template on my webpage twice. Well whoopee-doo. Is this like a magic trick, which if you say it three times it becomes true? My recommendation is that you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars before you template me, but better yet, I tend to view this as a sign that you are not having luck with finding reliable sources that prove your point on the Schneerson article. It must take a lot of energy to harass other people, when you could focus on the contents of the article. Oh by the way, I deleted your template again, please tell me when does the 3RR rule kick in for your vandalism templates on my talk page?Rococo1700 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware that warnings regarding the consequences of violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not considered threats. Same is true in law, by the way. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem

is covered by the 1RR. And your edit violates the MOS. nableezy - 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even look which page it is. It is a completely technical edit, and it is bad, so I reverted it. I propose we don't make an issue of this, although, unfortunately, I know you are not below trying to use this as an excuse to report me for this "grave" violation of 1RR.

It was actually the other edit which I reverted, that violated the WP:MOS, as I explained in the edit summary. Not to mention that the editor who edited before me ignored WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose that if you wish to show you have the competence required to edit this encyclopedia that abide by simple rules like you are only allowed 1 revert every 24 hours. nableezy - 20:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to show that, nor is my competence an issue, You are being childish again (tu quoque). Debresser (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I am quite aware that you do not show you have the competence required, I had not however realized that you do not want to. Live and learn. And for the record, I was being petty, not childish. nableezy - 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Debresser,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And same to you. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Gave my opinion on one of the two proposals. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, my dear. Same to you. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please consider chiming in...

Greetings...not sure how much we may have interacted in the past, but regardless, I hope you're having a very happy holiday season!

I would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to review this ANI filing and consider weighing in. There hasn't been much participation thus far, and while the editor I reported hasn't made any edits for the past couple of days, they also have historically declined to discuss their edits, and I see no indication that that pattern will change if nothing is done. Pinging you as I saw that you warned the editor previously.

Thank you for your consideration, and again, I hope you have a very happy holidays! DonIago (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this situation has resolved itself. Thanks for chiming in there, and I hope you're having a great week! DonIago (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Very good. Glad to hear. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 80px

Thank you. However, I am Jewish. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding wording

Hello, I wanted to ask you for your thoughts and also give you some background on the reason for my edit which was reverted here. My concerns are that the word "hack", or to "to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows", is a verb being used in a negative connotation towards the Crusaders, of which have a controversial history within this area to begin with. I thought my change to "opened" did not lose any important factual information to this article but did refrain from any verbiage which may offer a connotation other than the fact that it is believed that the opening was created by the Crusaders. To prevent multiple revisions I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if there is another word you might find suitable that more directly correlates to what is known about the opening. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talkpage. Please comment there. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish descent rfc

Not sure if you saw that someone closed it as a keep.🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just now noticed it. Can't believe it. I will appeal that. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just going to post, I appealed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Need your help: I'm new at Wikipedia but I noticed that the links to Martin Wagner's articles on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page are all broken. I am loathe to begin my Wikipedia career by getting into trouble removing them on such a page. I don't even know if it's the correct thing to do. It certainly seems to be what is necessary according to this, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." What do you think? Can you do something about it? Thanks!238-Gdn (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I just tagged it as a dead link. Without prejudice. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor 238-Gdn: I can only see one link to Wagner's work. Can you see more? Regarding the correct course of action, a dead link is not a reason to delete a source since there is no rule that sources have to be on the internet. A newspaper name and date is perfectly adequate without a url. But in any case the best thing to do with a dead link is to replace it by a working link. I just put the title into google and a direct link to the newspaper article was the first hit. Zero^talk 01:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, of course. However, there are similar references to such articles on another (other) page(s). e.g. Yitzchak Shapira 238-Gdn (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Undid revision of mine

Debresser, you have undid a revision of mine on 'Biblical archaeology' where I removed the Shroud of Turin from "disproved" Biblical artifacts. Your explanation was "Unexplained removal. Also made a plethora of minor technical edits." -- I would undo your edit, however your minor edits are helpful to the page and so I did not simply undo it. I in fact DID explain my removal of the Shroud of Turin in the Talk Page, and I still COMPLETELY disapprove of your re-addition of it. As I have shown in the Talk Page, the Shroud of Turin CERTAINLY isn't disproven. Simply because there is debate in it does NOT allow anyone to put it under the list of disproven Biblical artifacts -- so I am requesting that you remove your addition of the Shroud of Turin under the section if disproved Biblical artifacts otherwise I will have to do it myself as I did indeed bring this to the Talk Page. Thanks.Korvex (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a bit of input. The Smithsonian says... many experts believe the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery,

The Vatican disagrees but the bottom line is that many experts believe the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery,

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/arts-culture/why-the-vatican-believes-in-the-shroud-of-turin/#5PUvmFvGkbXIygBK.99

Peter K Burian (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Never doubted it. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Eliezer Berland.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

I reverted a set of edits, of which yours was just one. No need to post such a long message on my talkpage for that. I think these posts are invasive. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the end. I'll quote it for you again: If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page. Anomie⚔ 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I did. I understand why the explanation, but on the other hand, editors are no fools, and this message is overdone. IMHO. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page

Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I did. I actually asked you a question there. But please, stop pushing your edits, rather obtain consensus first. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop frivolously editing User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer

User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer exists to allow non-administrators to stop AnomieBOT if it is making edits that are damaging the encyclopedia. You have been abusing that ability by posting to that page when the only thing "wrong" the bot has done is post a single message to your talk page informing you that a revert you made was inappropriate (note the linked revert is not this other entirely appropriate and correct revert). Please stop. Anomie⚔ 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You know, I don't like your tone. You call my edit "whining" and "abuse". Well, I think you are abusing your edit privileges by using such words in violation of WP:CIVIL and now also WP:AGF. Per WP:BOTCOMM, that is not the standard of behavior expected from an editor running a bot. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert me?

All I did was add the categories that were already on the main article's page. I don't like the obvious double standard you are trying to apply to Jews vis a vis other groups in the Middle East, and apparent discomfort with calling us a Middle Eastern group at all (even though that is what we are, by any conceivable definition). I find that deeply worrying. There is enough revisionism of Jewish identity out there as it is. We don't need it on Wikipedia too.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Because a Jew from the US is not from Asia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, an African American cannot claim African descent, a Japanese American cannot claim Japanese descent, etc. An African American is still of African descent, even if his or her ancestors moved first from Africa to the Caribbean, before moving to the US. Yet, you seem to be arguing that since a Jew's ancestors lived in diaspora in Europe, or elsewhere, before moving to the US, that he or she can no longer trace their ancestry back to its origin. PA Math Prof (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, my "I don't think you're new" radar is going off. Have you ever edited Wikipedia before? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, neither is a Chinese person from the US. And I have an account, but I no longer use it. I do not like being WP:STALKed.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

you are now edit warring and socking.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not socking if my account (i.e. ChronoFrog) isn't banned and is simply no longer in use out of a desire to avoid being harassed by antisemitic editors. You are the one violating WP:BIAS by pushing antisemitic denial/double standards/revisionism on Wikipedia. So yeah, someone needs to stop you from doing it.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Now you're pushing to CIVIL and NPA territory. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't even care anymore. Considering everything I've seen you and your tag-team partner on here do, you don't deserve civility. And you are certainly in no place to accuse others of WP:NPA. You need to check yourself. Seriously.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lucky enough, I am in contact with a number of journalists and bloggers. People will know what's going on here. Enjoy it while you can.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where did I violate CIVIL? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to like it, but this issue has been extensively discussed, and manifold edits are like an elephant walking in the china shop. In any case, you are edit warring, and you're obviously a sock. You have been reported on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)