User talk:Debresser

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

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)[reply]

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}[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redundant category

Hi Debresser, thanks for your input on Mordechai Eliyahu categories. Although Category:Rabbis in Jerusalem is accurate, there is a subCategory:Chief rabbis of Israel and a further subCategory:Rishon LeZion (rabbi), both of which the rabbi already belongs to. Since all Chief rabbis officiate from Jerusalem, adding Rabbis in Jerusalem here should warrant including every other Chief rabbi in that category. Havradim (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not self-evident. Debresser (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every Time We Say Goodbye

Sorry about stepping on each other's toes. I just discovered this film and wanted to add some details. It is a rarity now and while released on DVD, it never was issued as a VHS so, for years, the only time it popped up was as a late-night feature. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation on Jewish Diaspora

Hi, this edit violates 1RR ("Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."), wherefore I suggest you self-revert it. You have also not provided any reasons, why that would be the stable version and not the text that has been in the article for several years, indicating you perhaps do not understand what the concept of stable version means. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Jewish Diaspora be under ARBPIA sanctions? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"when in doubt, assume it is related" as the sanction itself provides. The way the diaspora came about has been a bone of contention as some people feel it relates to the strength of the Zionist case/ideology, which is probably why the "myth of exile" is bandied about to begin with, IMO. Anyway this isn't a huge procedural issue, since the source interpretation question itself is so bleedingly obvious. --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not under any WP:ARBPIA restriction. No room for doubt here. All I see here is an editor trying to game the system. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were reported to the edit warring noticeboard

Hi, I reported you to the edit-warring noticeboard. --Dailycare (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you didn't forget to report yourself as well. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank

Hi. Don't you think this is WP:undue weight? An entire section based on a single (controversial) source?--186.137.90.121 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into a subsection, as I am sure such was the original intent and in any case, that seems to be the appropriate status of that paragraph. I don't have any more commentary on the paragraph at this stage. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jews - Origin section". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 March 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jews - Origin section, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Nomination for merging of Template:Faith primary

Template:Faith primary has been nominated for merging with Template:Religious text primary. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mr. Guye (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I remember a similar proposal from the past. I'll look it up and comment. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy Land, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qatada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I reverted to a previous version. A bit not useful to warn editors who didn't introduce the link, just reverted to it. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strict reading

Why do you think excising this qualification is more correct than what the source tells us? I'm not very familiar with this subject, but we're later noting that this point of interpretation has been a subject of debate, and by deviating from the source on this point we seem to be taking sides in this debate. Eperoton (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it that way, because there was no indication in the article the debate had anything to do with a strict or non-strict interpretation. Neither did I notice such a correlation in any of the sources, although I admit I didn't read them in their entirety. Please point me to it, if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-strict interpretation of rabbinical law is what was used historically to justify application of capital punishment by later Jewish courts, e.g.: [4]. We don't want to suggest that Jewish courts purposely violated Jewish law. Eperoton (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says "they were going beyond the biblical warrant for the death penalty". That is something different from the text I removed: "According to a strict reading of rabbinical law". Debresser (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the rabbis discussed in this book believed that capital punishment "could be justified by other considerations of Jewish law". So, by removing the qualification, we're taking initiative to state that these rabbis were wrong. There could be other ways to formulate a properly qualified statement, but we would need different sources for that. What's your objection to the phrasing used in the available source?

I'd like to use this occasion to arrive at a summary that can also be used as lead in the main (mainly unsourced) article, which currently has none, and in Capital punishment#Judaism, which overuses primary sources. Eperoton (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Elon's entry in the same Judaica article, it looks like the expression "strict law" may have a technical sense in Halakhic jurisprudence, based on how he glosses a responsum: "You know that the law applicable to criminal cases in these times when the government has granted criminal jurisdiction to Jewish courts is not the strict law [i.e., biblical], for jurisdiction over criminal cases [under the law of the Torah] has been abrogated." I'm guessing it means something like Talmudic law derived from the Torah, though I'm not sure. Actually, I would propose that we simply replace "rabbinical" with "Talmudic" in the sentence under discussion. The entry is called "Talmudic Law", the sentence simply says "strict law", and "rabbinical" was my own word choice. Eperoton (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Strict law" carries the meaning of "according to the letter but not its spirit". Usually applied in cases where a person is pushed to be more giving towards another person than the letter of the law requires, as a good deed, so to say. I don't think that would apply here. Debresser (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, like your edits: formulated well and sourced. Debresser (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Strict law" sounds like din, which is usually contrasted to peshara (equity?), which is usually found in descriptions of civil cases. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically the same idea as what I said. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Possibly empty category

I just noticed that you reverted the page page for Template talk:Empty category. Why did you do this? I find your objection that there had been "insufficient discussion" lacking. There had been sufficient time for discussion and nobody cared. As the page had already been moved and there had been no objection for a week, all you did was create a bit of a tangle by doing a partial move. Since you only reverted the talk page and not also the template, I can now point out it has been three more weeks without objection to the new template name. If you have a real reason why the template should stay at the old name, please detail it on the talk page. If not, please undo the incomplete move by moving the talk page back to its new name. As the move has already been performed and no objections had arose, I think moving it back should have required a new discussion; or at the very least you should have announced your intent to revert so we could have discussed it. Contacting me would have also been appreciated. Now do we really want to go through a bureaucratic RFC with no underlying motivating reason? As one of the very few Wikipedians who does discuss changes and waits for user input related to category changes, often for months, I find it ironic how the act of proposing change is frequently self-defeating and generates more pushback than simply doing the change unannounced. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of moving only the talkpage. I'll move the template back also. For the same reason: not sufficient discussion. Nobody supported your proposal. You don't just rename things, if nobody agrees. The fact that nobody disagreed is not enough reason. E.g. perhaps nobody saw the proposal, or didn't like it but not enough to reply. You need clear support for a rename. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Wikipedia:Be bold is one of our guidelines. This may be in template namespace but I know the consequences of the rename and the guideline applies here. Further, although written with articles in mind, I see no reason why "[if] no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit" wouldn't apply as part of the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Think about it: If our norms were otherwise, progress on fringe or obscure topics would grind to a halt because very often nobody responds to comments on those talk pages. I believe you are reverting because you are confusing our standards for changes to our policies and guidelines (which do lean towards requiring consensus and where no response is not justification for action so as to avoid instruction creep) with our "be bold" standard for the encyclopedia itself.

I have asked you once directly and you have had two opportunities to state a non-procedural reason to oppose this move. I would have been a very open ear to such a move. but it is fair for me to assume you currently have no substantial reason for the revert and are merely reverting for unjustified (as per above) procedural reasons. In other words, it's just being kinda obstructionist.

PS I'm also pretty sure this is not the first time I've proposed this move and I proposed it somewhere else that I thought would be more visible. In fact, I was under the impression I had posted before on the template's talk page but apparently not and it was elsewhere. I spent a couple minutes now looking for my previous comment but so far didn't find it. Vaguely I remember waiting like a year or more for a reply. I mention this to point out that this discussion may not be nearly as new as it presently looks. If I find it I will link to it too. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree or disagree with this? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With what part of the above? That this is a case of being bold? No, I disagree with that. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the part about being bold. You say you disagree but I fail to see how that is justifiable. Please elaborate. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for purposes of keeping page history, you might want to do the move back in a more proper fashion than I as a non-admin can do. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is a good thing. Being reckless is another. This was a case of the latter. Maintenance templates are well-structured, and normally no changes should be made without first establishing consensus. Please also note that WP:TFD exists for rename discussions of template. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually read the pages you are citing, the second sentence at WP:TFD says, "To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves" while the second paragraph at Wikipedia:Requested moves says, "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." So I would have been well within my bounds to make move the template even without starting a discussion. If you weren't persuaded that WP:BOLD was sufficient for the move before, it is now established again using the pages you reference. But I did not just perform the move. I started a discussion. Given that I did not need to start a discussion but I did anyway, your assertion that the move was "reckless" is not supported by the facts. If "reckless" can be applied here, it would apply to the editor who made an incomplete move and failed to notice/address the problem. I also do not appreciate you taking further action during this discussion in a way that tries to lock in your position. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to appreciate it. You made an unilateral step that was then challenged and undone by me. You are hardly in a position to complain here. If you want a template renamed, take it to WP:TFD (and if that refers to WP:RM then take it there), but I don't want any more of your whining on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jewish diaspora. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason for the block, however, I can't say I am much repenting. I have been blocked before for trying to protect this project from inferior edits. I am a bit disappointed that till today's post by User:Warshy other experienced editors, including El C, have not taken a clearer stance on the underlying issue. All of this could have been avoided if even one uninvolved editor would have explained to Dailycare that contested statements are best mentioned with inline attribution. Just saying "let's not edit war", without addressing the reasons for that edit war, is not overly helpful. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why 31? Why not 24? Debresser (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, seriously contested statements should be attributed, but as I've repeatedly explained to you, you have not produced any evidence this would be a seriously contested statement. To the contrary, we have sources explaining this is the consensus view among historians. We do not attribute consensus views of scientists. --Dailycare (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just be honest. I did provide evidence. You disagree with it. Remind you of WP:LIKE? Debresser (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be completely honest, your evidence didn't even mention what reasons historians attach to the Diaspora. So, no, you didn't provide any evidence beyond your repeated say-so. --Dailycare (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need not state their reasons. As long as they are reliable, that is all that is needed. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For after block

[5] ** Definitely. ~~~~ [6] * Oppose per Ansh666: the criteria are very different. In addition, at Afd they relist a lot of articles. That is a way of hiding the backlog. Also keep in mind that categories are the backbone of the project, and oftentimes the arguments are quite abstruse. ~~~~ [7] : Ha, Nomoskedasticity. I like this guys style. But he does have a point with the WP:OWN accusation. ~~~~ [8] Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:238-Gdn&diff=773872130&oldid=768914765 this edit]. Was yesterday your 60th birthday? :) ~~~~

Request for help with filed arbitration request

Shalom, Nomoskedasticity has filed a request for arbitration regarding what he sees as violation of a 1RR rule on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page. If you see fit, I invite you to post your opinion there. Thank you.238-Gdn (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to do so for another few hours, but I see that things are going well for you there. Just follow their advice, make some general edits to various articles, to gain some more experience, and come back to this article later. I understand that this article is your goal, and I agree that the restrictions are unfortunate, but that is your best option at this moment. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that you were blocked by hashgacha pratit. הכל לטובה.238-Gdn (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay now. You have good luck editing too. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help correct the problem with the infobox on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page?

I don't know why the word "created" appears in the infobox. I've tried various solutions to correct the problem but none has worked. Even if we put the Rebbe's name in the "Rabbi" space, it still comes up as "created Rabbi." I thought it might have something to do with a built-in bug that happens when the Rebbe's name appears in the box, but I've tried it with a neutral name and it still happens. Wierd. 238-Gdn (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the code of the template at Template:Infobox Jewish leader. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I left a message there. 238-Gdn (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Apology accepted. I was using the section edit buttons to make the two edits and didn't use the full page edit button at the top of the page which could have made it so I could have made both edits at once. JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on David Ben Gurion

Talk:David Ben-Gurion#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April_2017--Nimbleron88 (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Debresser (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Ben Gurion

Please look at this request. Ben Gurion himself said he believes in God.--181.95.28.35 (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jews, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jews 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. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing content that was agreed upon by 4 editors. You can not do that, however much you believe you are right. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basics

WP:NOTIFICATIONS. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, try {{nopoing}}, like so: Jytdog. El_C 16:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Please read WP:REDACT. You cannot change comments you make after others have responded. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait a second to let people finish. Also, you can not restore what I removed (especially if it wasn't responded to yet), and you can definitely not remove a post of mine. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted that in the "votes" section there should be no threaded discussion. So WP:REDACT doesn't apply. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a table at sefirot

I'm trying to improve the sefirot page for clarity etc. and have adapted a table there to look like this:

Category:	Left Axis	Middle Axis	Right Axis
Conscious intellect	2 Binah - "Understanding"	3 Daat - "Knowledge"	1 Chochmah- "Wisdom"
Conscious emotions (Primary emotions)	5 Gevurah - "Severity"	6 Tiferet - "Beauty"	4 Chesed - "Kindness"
(Secondary emotions)	8 Hod- "Glory"	9 Yesod - "Foundation" 10 Malchut - "Kingship"	7 Netzach - "Eternity"

Netzach and hod should really be above yesod, but I haven't been successful in getting them there. Can you help tidy this up? (Any other suggestions for improvements there would also be appreciated). Thanks. 238-Gdn (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this table, even if that could be fixed. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is your aversion to the content or the format? 238-Gdn (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The format. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you had me worried :-). Can you suggest a better format? 238-Gdn (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixuture edit in Israel

Hello. I wanted to let you know that Fixuture reinstated an extremely cherry-picking POV paragraph that was rejected in February, despite there was no consensus for it, not then, not recently.--190.231.103.243 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why both general and specific category?

One question in connection with Special:Diff/777473023: There's a principle, that … each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. Why should this not apply to Category:Positive Mitzvoth, which is a sub-sub-category of Category:Jewish law and rituals? Greetings, --Shlomo (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shlomo. After giving it some consideration, I expected this reply. Which in essence is correct. I still have a problem with it though, and more than one. As has been pointed out on the category talkpage, the English terms are "commandments" and "prohibitions", while these categories use "Positive/Negative Mitzvot". The usage of non-standard terms, partially in Hebrew, makes it less than evident what the category is about and that it logically is part of the "Jewish laws and rituals" grandparent category. A second argument is that the articles are often about more than the mitzvah aspect of the subject. E.g. the payot article is not only about the mitzvah, but also about various customs surrounding it, which is more fit for "Jewish laws and rituals". In addition, I think that WP:DUPCAT applies. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Yo, I wasn't going for condescending here, and certainly didn't want to cause you distress. I didn't look at when you joined when formulating that reply, my only inputs were the cited guideline and that talk page section. To answer you, though, IMHO a 3:1 majority isn't obviously consensus. In this case, the 3 !votes included yourself, who seemed on the fence and who was the only editor that even attempted to discuss in the context of the relevant guideline. So it was 3 weakish !votes vs one guideline-based reasoning, making a claim of consensus not very strong. Thanks, and kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. For the record, I really believe that the category should be on the page, as relevant neutral and sourced. For the rest, no worries. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heard. I posted another reply with a bit more discussion just now, but Kingsindian's recent advice there about discussion progress is also sound. BTW, I was thoroughly entertained at the fact that I missed my own !vote, too. Peace! VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

I have posted our disagrements on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. deisenbe (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Judaism_and_sexuality. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How tolerant are you of other varieties of Judaism? (Non-religious Judaism, as you apparently call them.)

It would be helpful if you would state clearly your position on this. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be neither helpful, nor polite. Your question implies your answer to it, and it is for this reason that I have accused you of being prejudiced. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not edit warring

Please dont post on my talk page anymore Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can not ask me to not post warning on your talkpage that per standing policies I have to post on your talkpage. FYI. No problem with not posting on your talkpage otherwise. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Bible Versus Religious Texts

I changed "Bible" to "Religious Texts" because Bible presents a more Christian-slant on a page solely about Judaism. Are we specifically talking about the Torah, the religious texts universal among the Jewish faith, or the Talmud, which is basically the Jewish version of the Christian Old Testament that is not uniformly accepted among all branches of Jewish faith (the page in question is Halakha)? --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit. Debresser (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov

First time I've ever had a self-revert reverted, but you are correct. I should have read the text note. Jd2718 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) Debresser (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and sexuality

You claim the existence of a consensus that states that we shouldn't go into too mich detail into Christian sexuality because it is not an article on a Christian topic. The only consensus I see are :a.) The statements of Jewish rabbis can be used, b.) "Christianity" is superior to "Catholicism". Could you point me to the consensus you speak of? 112.211.214.39 (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]