User talk:Debresser: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:46, 13 July 2017

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 much 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]

Sure. Seraphim System wrote that opinion here, and I agreed with him. It also stands to reason, if you ask me. It would probably even violate WP:UNDUE, albeit mildly. Debresser (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Prime Ministers

Howdy Debresser. Israel numbers its Prime Ministers via individual. This means that PMs who've served non-consecutive tenures are 'still' numbered only once. Most parliamentary form governments practice this. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on your talkpage before I saw this post, and then added something. If you are okay with that, we can keep the discussion there. I have your talkpage watched. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict

Seriously, are you still doing this?? All the citations for the fact that Ramat HaNadiv was formerly Um al-’Alaq are in the Ramat HaNadiv article. And when are you ...or anyone else.....going to provide any citations for the depopulated Jewish villages? I think I am going to remove every single unreferenced one there soon....Huldra (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra If they are in the article, then you should have no problem to add one of them to that statement in the list article. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me being able to add a reference or not, this is about your blatant double standard. You place a "citation needed" tag on Ramat HaNadiv...(...even when the info is clearly given in the Ramat HaNadiv article), while you do NOT place similar "citation needed" tags on the depopulated Israeli location....where there is no info what so ever. There is no other (unbanned) editor I have met here on Wikipedia who is equally obviously and unashamedly biased, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, please. There is a simple explanation, and no need to accuse me of anything. Ever heard of WP:AGF? Because you just trampled it under both feet. The simple explanation is that I only restored a tag that you removed without good reason. I noticed this, because the article is on my watchlist. I just want to stress that your previous post here shows a clear WP:AGF violation, and I recommend you to cool down quickly, before you make any more mistakes that will get you reported. Debresser (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, have you forgotten this? Huldra (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, precisely? I see that my opinion here is the same as my opinion there, so I don't understand what it is you are referring to specifically. Debresser (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our current discussion

Dovid, you don't always have to win. Really. If there is really a place to make a case about this, it's Religion and sexuality, not here. Since this page is not the place for fully characterizing Christianity's view, you absolutely do not need to make the whole fall/Original sin/etc. issue point on this page. So let's please move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I completely agree with that. That is why I proposed to stick with version 1, or another short version like the one you proposed. What then is it you disagree with me about? Debresser (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it feels to me like you feel you need to win the argument, even if we go with a version like mine. While you've said in the discussion thread that you'd accept that version, you then go on with the argument, and with the idea that the word "negative" or "unfavorable" or something like that needs to appear. I'm thinking WP:DEADHORSE here. Just back away, say you're willing to accept my version, and end the argument. If you stop arguing, so will SS. שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to push me into something I do not believe in. I prefer version 1. I can also live with your version, but with a small change, nl. that it should say clearly "negative" or at least "less favorable". And I sincerely believe that is supported by sources. You fail WP:AGF or if you want הוה דן את חברך לכף זכות.

As a matter of fact, I sincerely dislike these discussions. The only reason I continue them, is because I feel the sources and the issue are being misinterpreted by SS along his POV. I am no problem with editors having a POV, but I do have a problem with them editing accordingly. In any case, please rest assured that I am sincere here. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never, ever, doubted your sincerity. I've seen you accused of arguing for the sake of argument, but I've personally never seen that. In your case, if I may, it's always מחלוקת לשם שמים.

But sometimes it's still better to compromise. After all, we have a principle that it's generally preferable for a Beit Din to seek p'sharah rather than to pursue strict din. In this case, I think you lose very little to allow "restricted" or "restrained" instead of "less favorable", and we can move past the point. I think if you're not willing to go there it will be difficult to leave anything in on this comparison at all, and the article would be poorer for that. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notification about the Rfc on WT:JUDAISM, in the hope that other editors would comment. I think that outside comments would be helpful to help me and SS get past this impasse. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IR

You modified the text at Jordan valley twice. The second revert is absolutely farcical. There is no policy to justify it. I added new text, without touching the existing wording of the rest, B'tselem is not a POV source (and policy does not allow one to remove a text from a commonly cited RS on those grounds). Thirdly, if you actually read what I added, it is in the beginning because the demolition section begins with the Oslo Accords in 1992-3 whereas the history of demolitions goes back to 1967. So, revert yourself or I will make a formal complaint. If you are going to revert lastly reads the fucking edit source, which speaks of 'Palestinian Bedouin communities' while you in your edit summary accuse me (not the source) of mixing up Bedouins with Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I modified the text at Jordan valley twice. Is there a problem with that? I will look at what you say in the evening, after work, and if I was too hasty in removing that information, I'll undo my edit. In any case, BeTselem is a radically leftist source, accused of having fabricated news on more than one occasion. I will look into their WP:RS status as well. Debresser (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it rather than bickering at A/I. Technically many admins would take your two interventions as reverts. Others are less strict. The next time you mechanically revert some addition I make, try to read the source, check RSN to see if you have any justification for making the (absurd) claimn B'tselem is a POV-pushing 'leftist' (read Human Rights NGO) unreliable source. It is used everywhere on these pages, and is rarely challenged except by POV pushers. You absolutely must not remove a source like B'tselem when no RSN board has every endorsed your idea of its 'radical' unreliability. Lastly as I said, housing demolitions did not begin in 1993, but decades earlier. This is therefore required for the section.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never mechanically revert your edits, and I find the suggestion insulting.

In addition, although technically I could have reported you for violating WP:ARBPIA3, I have posted a detailed and final warning on your talkpage. Please heed it.

Feel free to discuss this issue on the talkpage of Jordan Valley, with the purpose of establishing consensus there, as you should have done, and I shall be happy to join the conversation. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proof that you mechanically reverted me lies in the fact that you charged me with confusing Palestinians with Bedouins, without checking the source I added, which refers to 'Palestinian bedouins'. You didn't check, you reverted blindly, and that constituted 2 changes to restored text in one day ('I modified the text at Jordan valley twice.'). That was one of 3 errors in your edit summary, and you simply ignored replying to my clarifications as to why you es was incorrect. Saying ('I will look at what you say in the evening, after work,'(...silence, no follow up) is not an adequate response to precise comments objecting to what you wrote.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not reading a source is not the same as mechanically reverting. Also, you may remember that I had two other reasons for reverting, as I explained in that same edit summary. You are trying my patience with increasingly illogical arguments. Please refrain from trying to make me look bad on my own talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishidani and Debresser: It's a bit sad to see fighting and bad blood continuing. Unfortunately, there are plenty of accusations from all sides of "POV-pushing" and the like. A bit of heat and irritation is unavoidable in this area, especially as the discussion becomes very long and hard to follow. As long as the dispute is, overall, focused on the content, with sources presented, it should be good. We finally got a consensus on the scope of the article. There is also an interesting discussion on the estimates of Palestinian population in the Jordan Valley, with various sources presented. Let us build on that foundation, instead of carrying about bad blood. This is just a suggestion; rest is up to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But if Debresser wants to be a productive editor in this area, he should restrain the instinct to revert, and should try to bring quality sources to his arguments. Just saying no or yes is voting for a majority: consensus is based on intelligent input from all parties.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained already that I do not have such an instinct. As far as intelligent input goes, I try my best to provide such, based on my personal knowledge, sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I would appreciate Nishidani doing the same, especially regarding politeness and courtesy as per WP:CIVIL. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Careful about that 1RR rule

I believe your two reverts at the BTselem article yesterday violated the 1RR. I encourage you to undue one of them and then take it up in the talk page. Respectfully, [[PPX]] (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REVERT any number of separate edits is still considered one revert. In simple words, I can revert five separate edits made by another editor in one big revert or in five small reverts, but it would still count as only one revert. Only if the same edit would be reverted more than once would that be counted as more than one revert. But thanks for the reminder. Enjoy editing, and I'll be happy to discuss why I reverted your edits, if you would like to discuss that. In general, I nticed you make good quality edits, and I appreciate your message here. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood 1RR differently. But it's fine. I'm not looking to trip you up. Just a friendly concern. I look forward to the substantive discussion. [[PPX]] (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can raise the question on the talkpage of WP:3RR for example, if you want to hear it from somebody else. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi Debresser. I'm in the process of removing ethnicelebs.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree with you that it is not a good source, but for this type of trivial information, especially where there is another source, even though that second source is also not really good, I think it should be enough. Would you disagree? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have started this discussion if I agreed. Please review WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring noticeboard case concerning you

Hi, unfortunately I had to report you once more to the edit-warring noticeboard here. --Dailycare (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the previous time really worked out for you. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utilizing Your Rollback Rights on the English Wikipedia

User:Debresser, Shalom! I have turned to you because of your special "Rollback rights" on the English Wikipedia. In the Wiki article, Modern Hebrew, an editor has been working against the consensus that claims that Hebrew is a Semitic language, and has tried to assert in the main article that Hebrew is a Canaanite language, of Hamitic origin. Meanwhile, I reverted his edit, but can you please keep a watch over his edits, as he has been working against consensus.Davidbena (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried to make a compromise edit there. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Shach Page

Hi Dovid. I agree that Rav Shach was a polarizing figure, however, to have so many parts of the page refer to an opinion piece article is not something you would expect in an Encyclopedia. For example "In Haaretz, Shahar Ilan described him as "an ideologue" and "a zealot who repeatedly led his followers into ideological battles" is opinion. I understand that being Lubavitch you have certain issues with Rav Shach, however this is not a website which should include personal biases. (It would be the equivalent of someone finding an option peace on the Rebbe by someone who had issues with the Rebbe and using that piece as a reference to issues they had with him. As I'm sure you are aware, there are many sites and articles which are anti-Chabad and I would be dismayed to see any of those used as a reference on one of Lubavitcher Rebbe's pages.)

On separate note, Rav Shach did have an issue with some of the Rebbe's opinions, such as learning Rambam every day, and did say that Lubavitch would find itself on the fringes of Judaism. The Rebbe did then revisit some of these options. Good vog, Daniel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.181.229.115 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since your post fails to assume good faith, I decline to comment on it. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're comfortable with this Loshen Horah, then go ahead. Be careful about justifying this to yourself. One day you'll have to answer for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.76.98 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deny that this would be loshon horo. I'll answer for my deeds after he answers for his. Debresser (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have let your personal animosity get in the way of your being objective on the page. I am going to request mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.52.60.68 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat your bad-faith WP:POV accusation. But feel free to ask for mediation. I am all in favor, since I do understand your point, at least in part. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish diaspora: Last chance to self-revert

El_C 05:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just ftr, leading is pointy and we can't say that, especially when "some" historians is just as factual. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 11:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have failed to self-revert, you are banned from Jewish diaspora for 72 hours—this will permit you to still use the talk page or wage your appeal. El_C 00:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you have no right to do so based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will therefore ignore this so-called ban. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore the ban, you will be sanctioned. El_C 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is invalid, and I am ignoring it. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Under what policy or guideline basis are you attempting to ban Debresser? --Izno (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added WP:CRP to the article to prevent chronic edit warring. El_C 18:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: That doesn't appear to be either a policy or guideline (I take "Explanatory supplements" with the grain of salt this one at least appears to deserve). Can you point to the specific lines in either policy or guideline granting you power to ban specific users from editing specific articles? My read of CRP is that either the community (which you are not) or the Arbitration Committee (as a part of GS or DS) must place an article in the scope of 1RR. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Hi, Reb Dovid. There is a WP:RfC on the Talk-Page of Husan, an Arab village right next to where you live, in Betar-Ilit. Feel free to respond.Davidbena (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'll have a look. Thanks for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

I really don't care too much about this. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Four days ago I moved the talkpage of Talk:Tafasta meruba lo tafasta to Talk:Tafasta merube lo tafasta, with an "e", per a talkpage post. Today I saw on my watchlist that some overly hasty admin had deleted that talkpage per CDS8. I then understood that four days earlier I had moved only the talkpage without the article, and right away moved the article as well. Now, since moving an article moves the talkpage as well, that means that he old talkpage is now overwritten by the new one. Can somebody please restore the old talkpage? Debresser (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones Much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstantial evidence

The source states that the understanding that Hadrian ordered the renaming is based on circumstantial evidence. The wording in the article, however, states that "it is commonly held that this was done as an insult to the Jews and as a means of erasing the land's Jewish identity" is "based on circumstantial evidence", which is not supported by the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"circumstantial evidence would seem to point to Hadrian himself, since he is, it would seem, responsible for a number of decrees that sought to crush the national and religious spirit of the Jews" I think that both statements follow from this phrase, just that the first is in it explicitly, while the second only implicitly. . Debresser (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant categories

Hello. Could you please remove this redundant category, which is already included in "Religious Israeli settlements"? And this one, which is included in "Mixed Israeli settlements". Thanks.--190.138.216.189 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who added this category a couple of days ago. I'm confused as to why there's multiple IP addresses whose sole purpose seems to be to revert these changes when it's out of bounds as per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30... anyway, the only decision which I can see on the topic is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 1#Category:Israeli settlements - and if so, I can't actually see a consensus decision that contradicts what I've been there... maybe I'm not reading closely enough, it's very long. TrickyH (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was very old and long, and never reached a clear conclusion. I think we could go by the general rule that categorization should be as specific as possible. @TrickyH, wouldn't you agree?

I don't know why there would be IPs interested in this subject. Even though technically these articles fall under WP:ARBPIA, but I personally would not revert based on that alone, since the issue in question is IMHO not really related to that. @TrickyH, can you agree with that?

So now the question is how we should continue here? Debresser (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Strategy reminder

Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani is back - personal comment

As User:No More Mr. Nice Guy already said: "Nishidani regularly says he's quitting Wikipedia or putting himself under self-imposed topic bans. Those things never materialize."[11] It is a same some people don't stick to their word. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what did you expect? A month and a day later, he's back with some ridiculous self-indulgent story trying to justify what we all knew would happen. Don't forget to link to the diff where he said my prediction that he'll return was false [12]. Amusing, although not surprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:10, 12 July 2017 edit Debresser (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 110,382 edits →‎Nishidani is back - personal comment: Add my personal opinion on this. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:46, 13 July 2017 edit undo No More Mr Nice Guy (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 8,459 edits →‎Nishidani is back - personal comment Next edit →
Line 491:		Line 491:

	As [[User:No More Mr. Nice Guy]] already said: "[[User:Nishidani\|Nishidani]] regularly says he's quitting Wikipedia or putting himself under self-imposed topic bans. Those things never materialize."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=783226434&oldid=783216678] It is a same some people don't stick to their word. [[User:Debresser\|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top\|talk]]) 15:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)		As [[User:No More Mr. Nice Guy]] already said: "[[User:Nishidani\|Nishidani]] regularly says he's quitting Wikipedia or putting himself under self-imposed topic bans. Those things never materialize."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=783226434&oldid=783216678] It is a same some people don't stick to their word. [[User:Debresser\|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top\|talk]]) 15:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
			:Well, what did you expect? A month and a day later, he's back with some ridiculous self-indulgent story trying to justify what we all knew would happen. Don't forget to link to the diff where he said my prediction that he'll return was false [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=783305919]. Amusing, although not surprising. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy\|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy\|talk]]) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)