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 onwebsite, 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)

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."[1] It is a shame some people don't stick to their word. Debresser (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 [2]. Amusing, although not surprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, Nableezy admits to conspiring with Nishidani.[3] Debresser (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani has admitted he communicates with Nableezy by email, so that whole thing is just for show. The public offer to meatpuppet was an amusing touch. "You let me know and I'll take care of them" - what a tough guy lol. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That is an interesting way to put it. It was more of a instead of losing your temper on some hypocritical or otherwise poor editor to tell me where the problems are. So that the hypocritical or otherwise poor editor can be reported and hopefully banned, and not the other way around. nableezy - 19:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is still not okay, in my understanding of how Wikipedia should work. Everybody should make their own mistakes, and editors should not team up. By the way, welcome back to my talkpage, Nableezy. You have always been an esteemed guest here. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sneer. [4]

AE

Note, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Nishidani is back only two days, and already he has managed to escalate things? Or is somebody trying to take revenge for his month-long ban? Debresser (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I filed this report, contrary to what Nishidani advised me to do. And you still insist on blaming him? Huldra (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that he was the polarizing editor in this case. No personal issues with you for reporting me, of course. Debresser (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

1RR

The page Israel is under 1RR restriction, if Im not mistaken this is one revert to one page within 24 hours. I suggest you self-revert since you already have an open case at ARBCOM. The correct thing to do would have been to start a discussion on talk instead of edit warring. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason to use more careful language here is because a lot of people will not realize that this area has been inhabited a long time before the term "Israel" appeared in literary traditions, so it is for emphasis and clarity. Expert sources like the Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society do not use the term "Israel" at all, they call it the Levant. It is a pre-history periodization issue, and we should obviously follow the expert source here, because they are considered "Levantine Neanderthals" or "Levantine homo sapiens" [5] Im not sure the neanderthals are discussed, but a brief mention of them could be added as well. Either way, it would be better to also be specific that this area is called "the Levant" when discussing this period, it would probably be less awkward to not mention Israel at all (obvious we can't say the Levant, now modern Israel, because the Levant describes a much larger geographic area.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right, self-reverted. Although content-wise you are wrong, and if you do not fix it, I will definitely revert you after 24 hours. The article says clearly, and more than once, "Israel", so there is no reason to say "considered Israel". Debresser (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thinking back early this year....

I saw the AE request against you. After seeing statements about you, I am a little worried about what will happen to you, but... I won't comment at AE yet. I think you are a very valuable contributor to the topics that you have been interested in. Thinking back at Talk:Yitzhak Rabin#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2017, you seemed cooperative, even when you and I disagreed. Now I'm uncertain, but I hope things will be okay, and I hope you can get along with others, right? --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. As you can see, even while this WP:AE post was opened, the article and talkpage discussion are developing. I think that I am a positively contributing editor rather than not. Which does not mean that I agree with the way some editors behave and push their personal points of view on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I read the results. Sorry about the t-ban. I think some wikibreak during the time span would benefit you unless you like to seek other unrelated topics. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, I have edits in other areas as well. On my watchlist, the IP-area is only about a quarter-third of my daily entries. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction - old

The following sanction now applies to you:

Debresser is banned from all edits and articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for two months

You have been sanctioned for personalising disputes, personal attacks and battleground behaviour

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeking input from a wider group of editors is good; classifying the input of those already involved based on their perceived politics or ethnicity is not. Don't do it. GoldenRing (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

When an article relates to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and all editors commenting are members of WP:WikiProject Palestine, then it makes imminent sense to ask for input from editors who are members of WP:WikiProject Israel, and forbidding to do so does not sound fair. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

By all means seek input from other WikiProjects. Editors do that all the time. When you do so, don't tell those who have already commented that you think they all belong to an anti-Israeli faction and their opinion needs balancing out; that is personalising a dispute and battleground behavior. If you can see why that's battleground behavior (as you say at AE that you can) then I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to. Appealing is absolutely your right and I won't discourage you; but when your appeal essentially admits the facts and my interpretation of them and only adds that others were bad too and you think I was hasty, what do you think you're going to achieve? AE action is unilateral; would you have preferred I leave it open for another admin to hand out an indefinite ban? It was certainly on the cards (and may still be, thanks to your appeal). GoldenRing (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Basically we both think we are right. That happens.

Any ban of me from this area is a loss for Wikipedia. I make valuable contributions, the net results of which far outweigh any minor perceived violations. But whatever admins will decide. I have never been too impressed with Wikipedia justice.

I personally like contributing to Wikipedia, making all this knowledge available and in the correct way, for almost ten years now. But I do have other things to do in real life, so if my contributions are not appreciated, I will be just as happy to do something else with my life. Debresser (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Notes for after end of topic ban

[6] This tag is not needed: the facts are clear, and the reasons need not be specified, especially not in the lead. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit not simply replaces one source by another, but replaces a clear statement from the official website of the subject of the article, with an opposite statement by some POV academic of ill repute. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

D. I don't think it wise to comment on I/P edits like this, publicly challenging edits you disagree with in a topic area you are supposed to stay clear of.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Nishidani. That is an interesting suggestion. I was acting on the assumption that the restriction does not apply to my talkpage. Much like blocked editors can still (usually) edit their talkpage. Like I did here as well. Do you have any idea if this question has been asked before? Debresser (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dovid. I am not a technical expert, so you should ask an arb. But I did drop the note because I was involved in the issue that led to your sanction, and feel under a moral obligation to alert you. The note was preemptive, in the sense that I wished to nip in the bud forseeable temptations by any other editor to take such talk page I/P comments to AE. Nothing stops you from compiling notes in a file you can upload when the 2 months have expired. I would assume however that 'commenting' on edits made and expression your view as to why they should be reverted, could be read as signaling to editors to act as meatpuppets. That is surely an unintended possible consequence of using your wiki page to kibitz I/P edits, wholly unintended no doubt, but it's in your best interests not to 'feed the beast', as they used to say.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Since no editors have acted on my two posts here, as far as I know, that worry does not seem to be an issue. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It really all depends on the admin viewing your page or the AE complaint against you. But in general, a TBAN covers the whole of Wikipedia, including talk pages and you may also be seen as trying to get proxy editors, which is also bad. But you should get clarification from GoldenRing since his ban comments are not clear as most other admins use. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'll ask him. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Sir Joseph on this, Dovid. (The one possible on-wiki work-around might be that you could create a "notes" subpage, not have any links to it, and not tell anyone else about it, so that it really remains functionally equivalent to the file Nishidani described above. But I'd get advice on that, too.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what was unclear in my wording - "all edits and articles" means all edits and articles. There is no exception for your talk page. You should avoid the topic altogether for the duration of your ban, not watch it from the sidelines. So yes, the edits above are a violation of your ban. You can find the relevant policy here; it specifically mentions user talk pages. I'm not going to do anything about it right now, though any other admin who happens by could well take another view and they shouldn't regard this comment as an AE action that they can't undo. Thank you for asking for clarification, but leave the topic alone, please. GoldenRing (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @GoldenRing for your reply. I will not add to this section. I can watch from the sidelines, but should not mention it here. Will do. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, you can watch from the sidelines. Please don't. Take a break. Read a good book. Binge something on netflix. Go on a walking holiday. Whatever floats your boat. Take this as an opportunity to wind down a bit and come back refreshed and level-headed. I can't make you, but that's my advice. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, but I am in real life a relaxed person, who likes to enjoy the things he does, and the same is true on Wikipedia. ARBPIA-related articles are make up less than a quarter of the entries on my daily watchlist, and I feel comfortable with that. I like following, editing and taking part in discussions. Please also notice that I don't agree with my topic ban, just abide by it of necessity, and do not feel the need to take a break. I could add that a person living in Israel, can not take a break from the real-life conflicts going on in this country, and keeping up to date, including on Wikipedia, is simply part of life. I have enough activities in life, including my dear family, to keep me busy and balanced, and your "Sigh" was a bit judgemental in this regard. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Meir Ettinger article need some technical edits. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Dovid, thank your lucky stars only I notice these things. That is your 4th topic ban infraction, and comes straight after User:GoldenRing's explicit advice above, which you accepted and appear now not to. I think it would be wise to strike out the edits above, just as a token recognition of their inappropriateness. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, honestly, how hard is it to understand? Stay. Away. Here's three days to get you going. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Kosher foods

Please stop removing valid good faith edits on the Kosher foods article. This isn't your personal encyclopedia. Both trichinosis and pigbel (CNE) are diseases which affect Kosher foods. Links to these other pages could *literally* save someone's life. Wikipedia is based on the concept that anyone can add good faith content. Except that isn't true with guys like you around, is it? Stop being an over-protective asshole and let the process work. If someone is initiating and edit war, it is you. WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:POINT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk • contribs)

WP:GOODFAITH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That comment was absurd. If you had added those links to a dozen other food articles at the same time as "Kosher foods", you might have been able to make a case—although I suspect that you'd always violate WP:WEIGHT. But to put it only in that article displays a clear agenda that is simply inappropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Which was my point precisely. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah LaBehema

Can we please talk about your massive reversal of a ton of work I put into expanding this stub page (and without any discussion)? I'm sure we can come to some amicable agreement in which the majority of my edits are not simply obliterated. Thank you! -Aharon (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. That will be in another 26 hours, though, as I keep the Shabbat. To start in the mean time: 1. moving this article from its proper name is unacceptable 2. per WP:UNDUE you should not give so much weight to a modern revival (which, by the way, I had never heard of yet). Debresser (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. A gut shabbes and if you are reading this motsei shabbes, a gut vokh. re: 1) I will concede on this point even though in the Mishna, it's Rosh Hashana L'Maaser Behema, and that those who actively observe this festival today are calling it a number of names including RH LaBehemot, RH L'Baalei Chayyim, and Alef b'Elul. Suggestions to how to best articulate the diversity of alias names is welcome. Rosh Hashana L'Maaser Behema is certainly not the only Jewish holiday/festival to be known by different names. re: 2) respectfully, this modern revival is a matter of public, published record, thus the references to articles from the JTA, Forward, etc., making this revival notable per notability guidelines. I'm not saying my edits can't be improved - shgiyot mi yavin ministarot nakeni. Please help to improve them (rather than delete them outright). Thank you. -Aharon (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE... Debresser (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, would Wikipedia's Tza'ar ba'alei chayim article be of interest to you? Debresser (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks! -Aharon (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Rosh Chodesh Elul redirects to Rosh Hashanah LaBehema. That might not have been obvious when you removed mention of the shofar blowing on Rosh Chodesh Elul from the page, along with other related details relevant to Rosh Chodesh Elul. It seems to me that those details are relevant. (In any case, thank you for your work on this page! Chodesh Av Tov!) -Aharon (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That a good point. Let me think about that. Feel free to post your ideas here to discuss them. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Aharon: I have to admit that I didn't fully understand why you included the items around heshbon hanefesh and shofar blowing in the earlier draft that Debresser substantially reverted. Obviously, that all does happen on Rosh Hodesh Elul. But in order for that to relevant to this article, you'd need to make a tie between those items and the specific issues around Rosh Hashana LaBehema (or whatever we're going to call it). For what it's worth, it's a nice idea to picture a parallel between the process of tithing animals and the idea of everyone passing before HKB"H like sheep on Rosh Hashanah. But to include that in this article, I think you'd need a pretty specific source to suggest that the reason heshbon hanefesh and shofar and selihot in the Sefardi world start on RH Elul is because of Rosh Hashanah LaBehema on that date. I'm inclined to think that it's a congruence of timing, no more. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In my studies of Masekhet Rosh Hashanah and Bekhorot, I think the connection is there and fairly clear, if obscure. But that is not the point. As Debresser has correctly shown, the danger is in presenting these insights without transgressing the Wikipedia's original research policy. It's a very easy line to cross, especially when providing details on obscure topics. I really take that to heart. I think probably the elegant solution would just be to create a new section on Rosh Chodesh Elul to include the Rosh Chodesh Elul content. -Aharon (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we're saying something similar, and that's especially true if you start introducing a statement of (or even a suggestion of) related causality, which is a relatively strong thing to say. If you had a section on "Rosh Hodesh Elul", and then have a source to support a comment like "Rabbi So-and-so notes some parallels between [the RH LaBehema stuff] and [the Hodesh Elul stuff]", then you don't have a problem, because nobody's trying to claim a causal source, only a parallelism. But you're wise to avoid OR like the plague on something like this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds like we're reaching consensus on a new section, "Rosh Chodesh Elul" with the content StevenJ81 and I suggest. A meta-issue: I think we should consider moving this conversation to the article's Talk page. -Aharon (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Template:Z33 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 And this is related to which edit(s) of mine? Quite useless to refer me to some general guideline and not inform me why you do so. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This was related to the edits at Jussie Smollett. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. A simple message would have been enough. Familiar with WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS? In any case, see the section below. Debresser (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice required by Arbcom (in this exact form) for editors in an area covered by DS prior to an editor requesting sanctions against you. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett

I noticed on this article that you've been repeatedly reverting a content change involving the article subject's name. Please take caution and note that the reference used may not be a reliable source; a "family search" cannot be verified nor can we know for sure that the result is of the same person. I also see that other editors have objected to this change. Please do not repeatedly revert this article and change the person's name without discussing the dispute on the article's talk page first. There looks to be a talk page discussion involving this very matter; I highly recommend that you participate. Thanks for understanding :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I am already so confused on that article, that I may have reverted editors for being IPv6 editors rather than because of content. Yes, I remember the talkpage discussion, which says to keep it on the safe side, which is Jussie. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Good call on the Kaaba page. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Very tasty on this fast day (!) of 9 Av. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, at least you can eat one like that today ... צום קל. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But did you or him check if this was 'behasgachah' before eating it? Or is everything kosher anyhow on WP?

Hello Debresser, Warshy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

warshy ^(¥¥) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I knew I should have given you a kitten instead of a pie! :( ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Cats are definitely not kosher, and that is de'oraita rather than derabanan, so the pie would be better. :) Debresser (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ps - Favicons

I did not find an exact match, but this https://www.yvc.ac.il/ seems eerily close. It is apparently the site for Emek Yezreel Academic College. Their logo is http://www.the7eye.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/acaei-672x378.jpg which is even closer than their favicon. I'm sure you've already found this site, but I still wanted to forward it on in case it could be of any help. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I had indeed found it, and it is in my collection (I added a link to the collection in the section at the start of this talkpage). But thanks for taking the trouble. I much appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violation of your topic ban on the page User talk:Debresser, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 11:46 am, Today (UTC+3)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Congratulations to User:GoldenRing, who has single-highhandedly ended a career of 9 years, 3 months, 5 days and 97,966 edits. First deciding to topic-ban me for trying to balance edits from a certain group of POV editors by seeking input from editors with the opposite POV, then not allowing me to use my talkpage as my personal notebook. I am not interested to contribute to a project that has from the beginning almost never granted me justice in its courts, and is now doing me this injustice. It was fun while it lasted. Debresser (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser

Moved to AE. GoldenRing (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Debresser (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 3-day block Administrator imposing the sanction GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator I sent him an email, which is all I can do in my current blocked state. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by Debresser I was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far. If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! And to those who will say that these kinds of "arguments" do not help, or even may be detrimental to my main argument, I say: I will say the truth as I see it. I see no reason why your opinion about Wikipedia is more true than mine, just because you are an admin. I have edited here almost ten years and have almost 100,000 edits on my name, and am entitled to my opinion, and to express it. Now you do whatever you think is right. At most you will disappoint me once more. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by GoldenRing Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser Result of the appeal by Debresser This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Other

• Would you like me to copy your appeal to AN or AE? A single admin can't overturn an AE block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 I am not aware of these specific admin procedures, and whether it is preferable to post this request here or elsewhere. If you think the correct thing to do would be to post this request elsewhere, then I would be grateful if you would be so kind to do so. I have used the correct template now, as you probably noticed already. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I've moved your appeal to AE. As you've already appealed the ban, unsuccessfully, and then asked if such actions are allowed while banned, which was answered in the negative, do you really think it is going to do you any good? GoldenRing (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been gently pointed out to me that that comment comes across as unnecessarily hostile. It wasn't meant like that. GoldenRing (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No offense taken. The question is whether I think it should do me any good, as a matter of justice/mending injustice. Debresser (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. For me, Wikipedia is an on-Wikipedia thing. I am not leading a double life. Debresser (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Copied over. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. A shame you are so helpful, only to recommend on WP:AE to keep the sanction. :) No offense taken, of course. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nableezy I never said you are anti-Semitic, and it is neither fair nor nice, to claim I did. I wrote the words "anti-Jewish", and later clarified by the addition "/Israeli" that I meant this in a political way only to be understood in the light of the IP-conflict. And frankly, even if I wouldn't have made that change, the fact that there are dictionaries that claim that "anti-Jewish" is the same as "anti-Semitic" is not even relevant, because it is obvious that those dictionaries did not have the IP-conflict in mind while my edit had only that in mind. If I had wanted to call you anti-Semitic, I would have done so, and not used the combination "anti-Jewish". You must stop twisting my words immediately. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? I have no earthly idea what this is even in reference to. But for the record, the fact that dictionaries say, not claim, that anti-Jewish and antisemitic are equivalent does actually matter. Words have meanings, like it or not, they are not idiosyncratic devices that change based on the intention of the person uttering them. When you call somebody anti-Jewish you are in fact calling them antisemitic. As in opposed to Jews and/or Judaism. And if you call somebody anti-Israel or anti-Israeli you are violating WP:NPA anyway, so that makes it a bit of a moot point. But again, I have no idea what you are talking about with the claim I have twisted your words. The words Jewish, semitic, or even anti appear nowhere in my statement. nableezy - 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And thanks. Noted. nableezy - 14:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This is in reference to your comment on WP:AE. You continue to misrepresent my words. You also refer in your last commentary to something I removed, so you continue to willfully misrepresent my words and opinions. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are talking about. What comment of mine (diff please) misrepresented what you wrote? And no, referring to material you wrote and later removed is not willfully misrepresenting [your] words. That is unless you are under the impression that you did not write what you wrote. That you later thought it imprudent to have that material publicly displayed while appealing a block is interesting, but it does not magically transform your words in to something other than your words. nableezy - 15:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple merge proposal

Hello,

I have proposed a "multiple merge" for the page Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies, please see the discussion page for more details. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In view of my almost entirely negative experience with WP:ANI over 10 years (!), I will be happy to explain why I think so in this survey. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you're still looking around here. All the Judaism articles and the Judaic area in WP miss you. You used to do a good job on this area, and WP is less good in it without you. Hope with time you come back to contribute again. Cheers! warshy ^(¥¥) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@warshy I check my account every day, and make a minor edit or two a week, but I am so disappointed in the arbitrary sticking to rules on the one hand, combined with abandoning all rules of logic and fairness on the other, that I am not even thinking of a comeback at this stage. Perhaps after some serious revision of the system. Which is why I am willing to participate in this survey. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, yes WP is guided by many rules and as far as I understand it tries to stick to them, so I don't think you can argue that the sticking to rules is arbitrary. You can argue some rules are not good or correct and you can try to change them, but the sticking to rules is one of the basic principles of WP, it seems to me. As for rules of logic and fairness, there are some very controversial areas in WP where the passions are so strong that the rules of battle and war end up having the upper hand over rules of logic and fairness. One of these impossible controversial areas is, of course, the IP conflict area. What goes on in this area on WP is just a continuation of the real conflict and war in the real world. That is why I won't ever even touch anything in this area with a ten foot pole. I think that unfortunately you decided to drift from the overall Judaic area into this impossible zone of conflict. On the other hand, given where you live, it would be very hard for you to keep completely away from it as I do, I guess. Now, certainly the whole system has its flaws and areas where it can be improved. So I wish you much luck in your attempts to improve the system by having the rules of logic and fairness have the upper hand everywhere again, always. chazak ve'ematz. warshy ^(¥¥) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@warshy I have been active in many areas for many years before even entering the IP-conflict area, and what I wrote above was based on my overall experience. Debresser (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hanukkah

Please note this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sir_Joseph_reported_by_User:Mhhossein_(Result:_No_violation) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Any reason why this shouldn't result in a block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, don't forget Mhossein's edit, here: [7] or is edit warring applicable only to one side? I note he even included your warning in his edit summary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I am trying to AGF about Mhossein's edits but it is very hard and approaching the line. Please look at this recent edits and try to explain to me how you justify his recent edits. I think they are now going into cite overkill, and also, as someone who is more knowledgeable of policy, please tell me how I'm supposed to reference a person's name. I think he has an agenda of ruining this holiday's article and he is just going into overdrive putting tags up. As I'm sure you know, not everything needs a tag. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I've posted a comment on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN Because it was a good edit. I gave the editor the option to tag specific statements which he finds problematic, knowing that there can't be that many of them. As you can see for yourself, when he tagged one statement a day before, I sourced it. Now he tagged a few more, and I will do my best to source those as well. It is me who is trying to push this article forwards, while it is you who is being overly aggressive in threatening with blocks for something that is hardly worth the name of "edit war". Debresser (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

My watchlist

I am removing entries from my watchlist, in preparation for a possible comeback. I had more than 1,500 entries on it. So far I removed 46 entries, just from articles beginning with the letter A or B. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed another 185, going over A and B once more and adding C-K. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Another 9, including the 1 file and the 2 drafts I had on my watchlist. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Finished L-R. Too many for the page to count, I guess some 150. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And another 36 in U-Z. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed another 80 or so (again too many to count) from S-t, and finished the article mainspace. I now have less than 1,000 pages on my watchlist. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed another 37 from Wikipedia namespace. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed 332 templates, including a few I created myself. I used to be very active with maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed 33 categories. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed all user pages, except my own, 133 in total. Am now below 500 pages on my watchlist, and finished for the time being. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA violation

Your edit of 13:35, Jan 5 was reverted at 21:45, Jan 5 but redone by you at 15:42, Jan 6. According to the new ARBPIA rules your edit was a violation of the sentence "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Accordingly, I invite you to self-revert.

As an aside, it gets really tiresome when you keep using the phrase "consensus version" as a code for "Debresser's preferred version". Nobody, absolutely nobody, takes your euphemism seriously. Zero^talk 01:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that that was the version before recent edits. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to the new WP:ARBPIA rules. I will study them. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That edit of Jan 5 was not the "first revert" to my edit, so if I understand the new rule correctly, I made no violation. As usual, I guess it will take some time till it becomes clear what the rule precisely is meant to prevent and accomplish. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		In recognition of your valuable contributions to articles across a wide variety of subjects Opineonyx (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well put and well deserved, in my opinion. Kudos, and glad to see you're back editing WP! warshy ^(¥¥) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE

Hi, I saw you were edit warring with the rationale along the lines of "restoring consensus version" with the consensus you refer to being the "stable version" or the "standing version". Restoring a stable version simply because it was not previously contested is quite simply not a valid justification by itself, and should certainly never be used as a justification to edit war. The "consensus" that you're referring to is silent consensus, which is quite simply the doctrine that if no one disagrees, consensus can be presumed to exist. This is the weakest possible interpretation of consensus, and is inherently no longer applicable once a disagreement is voiced. Rather than edit warring because a silent consensus previously existed, you should strictly pursue dispute resolution and attempt to reach a consensus. Edit warring to enforce a silent consensus is literally oxymoronic. This project encourages editors to be bold, so discouraging changes due to a silent consensus is also oxymoronic. Mind you, this casts no judgment as to the merits of the wording dispute itself, but the rationale you're giving regarding the existing consensus is a misrepresentation of the policy. Regards, Swarm ♠ 08:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia guidelines and practice say you're wrong: a standing version implies consensus.

Please also notice that at least one neutral editor has said precisely that on the talkpage of one of the two articles where certain editors are trying to forcefully push their opinion through. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said? The concept of "implied consensus" that you're referring to is WP:SILENCE. You might want to actually read it, because it's purpose is the opposite of what you're trying to argue. The doctrine is that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, but most changes can be made without formal consensus-building discussions—a lack of objection constitutes consensus. In other words, as long as no one objects, any changes can be presumed to be supported by consensus. It has nothing to do with your incorrect notion that stable versions should not be changed without a formal consensus. Stable versions are supported by silent consensus, but once the silence is broken, even by a single editor, that is no longer the case. It is a level playing field. There is never any default bias to preserve stable versions. There is no policy or guideline to preserve stable versions. You will not find even one. There is none. Sometimes admins restore a stable version in particularly severe disputes prior to full protection, but even this practice is not mandated or encouraged by any policy. You don't get to claim you're right in a dispute simply because you're supporting a stable version. That's not how it works. How it works is discussion, and dispute resolution. And you can argue with me, if that helps your ego. Whatever. But I'm literally warning you, as an administrator, that if you're edit warring to restore a stable version, you will be blocked. No admin looks at that situation and says, "oh, the silent consensus is on his side". Because if there's a content dispute, there is no silent consensus. Swarm ♠ 19:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand that guideline, and not to be familiar with discussions on Wikipedia. Sorry mister, but I have been here 10 years, and I know how it works. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

How many editors have to tell you that you're mistaken before you reconsider? If you really want to engage in a pissing match, I've been here for eleven years, so I must understand this better than you do. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't present at the original disagreement, of course. But to some extent, Debresser, part of the problem is your "tone of voice", and to some extent your implied assumption that consensus by silence has staying power. Personally, I (fairly) frequently revert based on stability. But unless my "opponent" is a known long-term vandal, I always immediately invite the editor to discuss on the talk page. I don't assume the stability is forever, but do assume the stable version can stay during a discussion. Then either we have a discussion or the editor doesn't bother. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, Steven, there is' a discussion. My problem is with those who insist on their version which has no consensus, not on the talkpage and not from before. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, even if your interpretation of SILENCE is correct, which is an opinion that nobody except you holds, you are trying to use it in order to violate one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, namely NPOV. It doesn't matter if an NPOV violation has been there since the 7th day of creation; as soon as it is drawn to our attention we are obliged to correct it. Zero^talk 01:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is a NPOV violation to correctly reflect that fact that some organizations are less popular than others. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing B'Tselem for two weeks. You may use the talk page.

You have been sanctioned for continued disruptive use of WP:SILENCE to edit war, despite previous warnings.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I had actually planned to open an Rfc today, so I am glad I can use the talkpage. Not that I think you made the right call, by the way. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I see now that this edit, if it stays, is perfectly acceptable to me, and makes my idea for an Rfc unnecessary. I shall wait and see. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that comment. I'd encourage you to engage at the talk page, and I would support shortening the block to allow you to return to editing the page. We will disagree on many aspects of this article, but I do think we can find common ground to improve it. Jd2718 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the change that caused the translation errors you were trying to fix, BTW. Template_talk:Transl#rewriting_this_template? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Hebrew Transliterations

Hey, for what it's worth, I found a policy on how to Romanize Hebrew: MOS:HE. I'm not suggesting you read it necessarily -- it seems pretty much in line with how you edit, as far as I can tell. I'm just saying that, should you come across oddities of transliteration in the future, and people are insisting on those oddities, there is a policy page you can reference. Alephb (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I know that page, and reference it often. You can even see I have edited it. But thanks. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Silly me. It's like I just recommended a book I enjoy to its author. Alephb (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Could be worse. You could have panned a book you hate to its author. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Birthright Israel

If you have better information about the location perhaps you could alter the article? Rathfelder (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If you could please point me to the statement in the article that should be altered, I shall be happy to have a go at it. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Its in the infobox Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

revert

Hi, Debresser, I noticed your revert and comment. It was not, as you name it Undo exremely unhelpful edit, well on the contrary,... you came by and were able to fix the problem the bot had created. Thank you for that. :)Lotje (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lotje Sorry if I misunderstood something. Those were not your edits? Those were bot edits? Debresser (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons

Hi, Debresser, only me again, since you are hanging around, would you be willing to take a look at these files, you might be able to help!. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lotje I had a look. What is the issue? One of the titles is wrong, as far as I understand, but I doubt that is the issue you had in mind. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to get the titles correct, because incorrect information on commons images means confusion. Thank you for your help. :) Lotje (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lotje The titles are correct. Pictures 2 is a close-up of the plaque, while picture 3 is apparently from the other side. The description of the pictures is strange, because it mentions another person than the titles do. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew acronyms

Hi. I have no intention to start a big argument, it's just that for the common WP user the Hebrew acronyms are not familiar. They are mainly used in Jewish religious contexts. Maimonides is for almost all non-Jews or Judaism scholars just that, not (the) Rambam, same with Nachmanides, same with Isaac Luria, etc., etc. It's a statistical (and quite logical) fact, nothing more. Those who constantly deal with their work appreciate an abbreviation, and understand the Hebrew meaning of an acronym like Ari - ariyeh; others don't. So please, let's stick to what serves the WP user best. Thanks and all the best, Arminden (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I will look into your assertion. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I would err on side of caution

Even if you right and you apparently not because you removed text that was recently added in the first diff. Just say that you will self revert because you could be blocked pretty quickly--Shrike (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

I'll think about that. In general, I am working at the moment, just checking information for my work, so I am not really available at the moment. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Debresser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Two reasons: 1. I would have reverted myself if not that the page was protected. 2. It would be more logical to simply topic ban me for two weeks, then I could continue editing in other areas. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, there was a consensus at the AE discussion to decline this request. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Where do you want the appeal to be placed, WP:AN or WP:AE? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've copied it to AE - please let me know shortly if you'd prefer AN or if there's anything you'd like changed about it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had no idea I was violating 1RR, and I would have reverted myself if the page was not protected. Just another case of injustice at Wikipedia. You guys are good at this, GoldenRing especially. Debresser (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Two halves of the equation

Please do not restore unsourced content to articles without adding a source, the reason for removing an unsourced statement should not be hard for an experienced editor to figure out, but it was clearly indicated in my edit summary "cleanup unsourced" so maybe you should actually read the edit summary before saying I removed something without giving a reason. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My reply to the first half of your post is that the statement you removed seems like a reasonable statement, so perhaps an experienced editor like yourself had better try and find a source, or at least tag it for a while, rather than remove it right away. Such is also customary on Wikipedia.

My reply to the second half: don't whine. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Note for self. This is about "The case serves as important precedent for judgements in international courts of law regarding the Cyprus dispute" in Loizidou v. Turkey. Find a source next week. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, I wouldn't have removed it if I believed it could easily be sourced. First of all, you are not going to find a source that says "international courts" - at best it will be only the ECHR. ECHR decisions are not a precedent for any other court are they? The chances of finding a reliable secondary source describing it as an important precedent for the ECHR regarding the Cyprus dispute is slim to none. If it is an important precedent, it is not a precedent for the "Cyprus dispute" but for Article I of the Protocol. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That said, I removed it with the intention of continuing to work on the article, since this sentence needs to be completely rewritten anyway, there is no need to go out of your way to try to source this. You can still try if you want, but most likely I will have edited over it by next week using whatever secondary sources are available.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am all for improvement, including changing that statement, should sources warrant such. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Improving vs. reverting changes

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to look at some of the revisions I made. In the future, it would be helpful if you could further improve the work of others rather than completely reverting it when it does not exactly match your expectations, to prevent useful aspects of edits from being lost. Please also be careful about using the word 'vandalism' to describe something that is not an act of deliberate defacement, as that is unnecessarily incendiary, and makes your thoughtful actions appear to be in error. AndrewNJ (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't revert anything that isn't precisely what I want it to be. And I remain of the opinion that your edit came close to vandalism. In any case, your last edit was a lot better, and I wish you lots of pleasure in improving this encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Primo Levi

In article about Primo Levi I have changed "Communism" into "gulags" in the title of a section, because that section doesn't mention views on communism (which is also not to be capitalized like in the title of that section) but only on gulags (which are only a feature of Stalinism and nowhere near of being a defining, key or generic feature of communism, in fact they are not even mentioned in the article about communism) and tried to provide this explanation in my edit summary.

I see that you have reverted my edit, without providing any explanations.

Would you kindly explain the reasoning behind your revert and perhaps consider the possibility that your revert might have been unjustified? Thank you in advance. :) 193.198.162.14 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The section in question mentions "the system depicted in The Gulag Archipelago", not just the Gulachs. That means communist Soviet Union. It explicitly compares that regime with the Nazi regime. It is therefore clear that the section is about Levi's attitude towards Soviet Union rather than about communism, and I would be fine with that change, but not with the change to the very limited term Gulachs.

I am always willing to consider that I am wrong. Are you? Debresser (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and kind answer! I am willing to consider I am wrong and, in light of new information, I think that the title of the section should be changed to "Views on Nazism, Soviet Union and antisemitism", as you proposed. Would you like to make that change? 193.198.162.14 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm a tad busy. Please make the change, and I recommend to mention this discussion in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy Passover!

Happy Passover!

Hello Debresser, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this passover. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a happy passover or easter, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy editing, ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Happy Passover}} to other user talk pages.

"Don't be a fool"

There's no need for bullying. Please retract this statement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That was in reply to the previous editors' "Don't be silly". That editor continues his bullying unreprimanded for years now. He has been reported for it, but still goes on. So no, as long as he continues, I see no reason why I shouldn't answer in the same vein once every few years. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI concerning you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Largoplazo (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Which was summarily closed. That is what you get when you insist your opinion is the only possibly correct one. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

On the "European ancestry" stuff

I've seen that you keep re-editing my own edits on the matter, but as you have probably perceived, I try to give some rational reasons while doing so : in few words, to put the way it's actually put ("suggest a significant proportion of Middle Eastern and European ancestry") would showcase that Ashkenazim are "50% Middle Eastern 50% European", but that would go again the genetic studies, who showcase the supposed "European" mainly on the maternal line, but even there, it's perhaps not "European" (which itself is mainly Italian, too) as per studies and "counter-studies". All of this "complexity" is not translated by the generic "significant proportion of Middle Eastern and European ancestry". I also think that this would be more respectful of the on going discussions in the later sections, below. Cheers.

April 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jews, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This is for (1) repeatedly adding content not supported by reliable sources; (2) repeatedly adding unreliable sources; (3) being hellbent on editing against consensus; and (4) putting a warning on my talk page telling me I'm supposed to discuss on the article's talk page after I did discuss it and you flatly replied there isn't anything to discuss. Largoplazo (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

» Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes.Largoplazo (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I know that essay. When "experienced" editors start pushing their POV's, that is when there is no choice, but to use a warning template. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard (Category:Jews)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Debresser disruptive editing in Category:Jews. The discussion is about the topic Category:Jews. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 You made an edit, which I contest, as is clear from 1. the fact that I revert it 2. my edit summary. Why do you think it is me being disruptive instead of you? Debresser (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And just that you know, I found you mention of some blocks I have had over 10 years of editing in the WP:ARBPIA area and making it sound as though I am a problematic editor insulting. You have definitely not earned my goodwill by that. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Debresser disruptive editing in Category:Jews (continued). The discussion is about the topic Category:Jews. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 You used to be a normal editor, albeit a bit trigger-happy. These last few days you have been impolite and irrational. If I were to guess, I'd say you are going through some tough time in real life. Not a reason to take it out on me, but at least that would be an explanation. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple attempts to crack my password

Since the beginning of May multiple attempts have been made to crack my password. I have checked my committed identity, and still remember it. If you notice me making suspicion edits, please block my account asap and I will get it back through the designated channels. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

But all your edits are suspicious ;-). I have failed login attempts on my account too. Zero^talk 08:05, 24 May

@Zero0000 Lol. That is interesting information. I was expecting some political motive, but if you have also been under attack, that would imply a political motive is less likely. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Zero0000, there have been thousands of brute force attacks at Wikipedia accounts recently. The WMF is aware of it. No accounts have been compromised but be sure you have a strong password. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I too updated my password, which was very simple and about 10 years old. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

1RR

You violated the 1RR at Jabel Mukaber. This reverted your edit, and less than 24 hrs later you reverted once more. I dont plan on reporting this but please mind the 1RR. Thank you. nableezy - 18:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I am indeed not yet used to the rule saying "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". At least, I guess that is what you meant with 1RR. But since we are discussing it, does that rule apply to an edit which was a revert itself? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd assume so. nableezy - 22:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't get to the bottom of this, but this seems to lead to some kind of paradox. After all, a revert means getting back to the original text. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jabel Mukaber

I didn't even check if you put a notice on the Palestine board as well as the Israeli board. I just assumed you would. But you didn't, despite this being an RfC about a Palestinian organization on a page about a Palestinian locality. Can you provide an explanation for this clear violation of CANVASS? You should be aware that AGF is not an absolute right but one that can be lost through repeated misbehavior. Zero^talk 08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I will copy my post there. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Bet Ell

Hi, i am not going to argue about this but I do belive I am right, and that is wrong. Jacob's Dream was elsewere (see here) it is believed that this is the stone he slept on Deror (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I promise that I will show it to you, but today I won't have time. Thanks for writing me on my talkpage about this. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV/N

If you want to hide something you can start with your off-base comments. Kindly do not re-factor others comments. nableezy - 19:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. Or that, or nothing. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

1RR - East Talpiot

You have violated the 1RR at East Talpiot. Please self-revert or you may be reported. nableezy - 17:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, at Beitar Illit you misrepresented the source you cited. It says nothing close to what you put in an encyclopedia article. I'll be adding the source distortion to the report if that is likewise not self-reverted. nableezy - 18:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you think I violated 1RR at East Talpiot. I made very sure to check that I was not violating anything before I made the edit, so please tell me if you think I missed something. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Really? You have two labelled reverts in 24 hours, and the other edit was a partial revert. nableezy - 22:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As you have not self-reverted either the 1RR violation or the material that completely distorts the source you cited I am filing a report. nableezy - 22:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser nableezy - 22:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)