User talk:Debresser

What I do on Wikipedia.

My rewards.

What's up?

I mainly follow up on pages from my watchlist, occasionally adding new pages to it that spiked my interest.

Can you help identify these favicons?

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

I collect favicons. At the moment I have over 5400 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.

My 'orphan' favicons

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Special characters

{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

TUSC token 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

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

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

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

Account creation system

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

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

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

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

Question about old posting

As the continuation of our discussion about the extended "See also" list on Mitnagdim page was moved to its talk page, I adjusted the tone of my correspondence to make it more fitting for public posting. As a still relatively new Wikipedia editor, I'm now going through the discovery of how to correspond better, and feeling sorry and embarrassed by my sometime previous intemperance in earlier postings! Every (relatively) new editor is entitled to 1) occasional bad edits, and 2) misplaced intemperate tone in correspondence! I'm now realising how to constructively relate through understanding with alternative styles of editor, without my passion accidentally causing offence! This leads me to one question. There's one previous post I made to you that I agree with, but regret and am embarrassed by its poor tone. The touble is it is on an archived correspondence page of yours, warning "not to edit" this page. Am I allowed, with your direct permission, to tone down its style of writing, without at all changing its meaning, which I correctly intended? The old post is User talk:Debresser/Archive 6#Hasidic philosophy image of Breslov. I'm really sorry for its patronising style, or any offence caused, though I did mean its message! My mistake came from misplaced real sincerity. From now on I'll make sure not to repeat the mistake of intemperance in future correspondence! As I wouldn't really want others to read it, could I therefore (anonymously logged in perhaps) now adjust its style, without losing its meaning? Awaiting your reply here if you like April8 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like, please feel free to edit it. But there realy is no need. First of all, because it is only an archive. Secondly, because the previous version will always be available in the page history. And foremost, because there is nothing to be ashamed of. We all learn through experience. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Template hatnote

I've learned from you in the past, Debresser, and hopefully you can help me understand why, in {{Template reference list}}, hatnoting that "This reference list does not appear in the article." is clear, while "This reference list template is not transcluded to the article." is less clear. The reference list does, after all, appear in the article when {{reflist}} or <references/> is used, correct?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of the word "template". After all, the template is transcluded, but the list isn't (as list), just the individual references. Agree? Debresser (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well now, that's a bit tricky and confusing, isn't it? The refs appear in the article, but the ref list doesn't. I believe you must mean that the main template is transcluded to the article, but the {{Template reference list}} is not transcluded to the article? I only ask because another editor, Gadget850 (ED), in this conversation told me that {{Template reference list}} does not transclude to the article because the article normally has its own markup. So just saying This reference list does not appear in the article. still sounds unclear to me, though I'm not sure how to make it clearer. Maybe say This reference list appears only on the main template page. or These references will appear in the article, but this list appears only on the main template page. or, I don't know, maybe not use a hatnote at all?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tricky, yes, but you understand it well now, I see. Your second proposal (These references will appear in the article, but this list appears only on the main template page.) would receive my support, if you would like to implement it. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help. It is done.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let others know you are prodding articles

Hi Debresser: Lately you have prodded a number of articles that may be of great interest to other Judaic editors who do not share your sentiments or perspectives and therefore out of all fairness and to avoid misgivings the right thing for you to do is to list them on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism which is also for instances of prods, and you could use the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Proposed deletion --> "Proposed deletion = Prod". Thanks in advance for your cooperation. IZAK (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I announced it on WikiProject:Judaism [1]. That was more than enough, I think. But thanks anyway. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Debresser: You recently prodded more than one article and it was in the middle of other longer discussions and it gets lost in the shuffle. As a matter of fact it is incomprehensible why you are running about prodding articles all over the place when the correct, fair, least controversial and most justified procedure is to list articles you deem worthy of deletion on WP:AFD or on WP:CFD etc, especially if it is in the middle of being disputed and discussed at WP:TALKJUDAISM where opposing views are being expressed and there is absolutely no WP:CONSENSUS to justify a stream of prods. Therefore WP:AFD or WP:CFD is always the safest route to follow and with that, to make it fully fair and transparent so that Judaic editors especially can be informed of the fate of Judaic topics important to them, list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism noting as such at any AFD or CFD vote that you have done so with placing the {{subst:delsort|Judaism}}<small>~~~~</small> template there and making note of it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. As an active Judaic editor you should be above reproach and not rely on excuses and I say this because I know it can be tedious but there is no choice when one is active and often there are opposing views, and I try to follow this procedure each time myself. IZAK (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I prodded, if memory serves me, three articles from a list. This is not "running about prodding articles all over the place". You should really watch your tongue. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Debresser: What list? Prodding three articles close to together in a row is a lot. I am advising you to strive for fairness and transparency and to make a little extra effort and not to take short cuts. If you have trouble with any article and want to see it deleted go the official WP:AFD route and list it as I have advised. I don't see why I or anyone has to "watch their tongues" which is a so dismissive and inappropriately put and it borders on WP:NPA. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Either we are just not meant to like each other (which is strange), or you just have an attitude problem. Let's leave it at that. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, avoid getting tangled up in hopeless infractions of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA regarding me that serve no purpose. Let's be positive, and my request to you is simple and has two parts: (A) If you insist on prodding articles with Judaic content then at least PLEASE post a notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism which is also for instances of prods, and you could use the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Proposed deletion --> "Proposed deletion = Prod" and certainly let creators of the articles know about your intentions. (B) Prodding articles is tricky and can be based on subjective opinions. It is far better, if you really judge an article to be unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia to follow the procedures of WP:AFD and of course also list that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. IZAK (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am just not interested in doing so, nor do I see the need for it, regarding that I posted on WP:Judaism. Please stop trying to convince me. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Savant1984_and_User:Zargulon_.28Result:_Protected.29, where I asked you to reconsider. Debresser (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A post by Savant1984, who is willing to come to an understanding, and another post by Zargulon which is provocative and factually brands him as a disruptive editor, are the basis for a renewed request to reconsider this case on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Savant1984_and_User:Zargulon_.28Result:_Protected.29. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The page is now unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I thank you. Please be assured that although I think the page should not have been protected in the first place, I value your integrity in handling this case. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

I made a change to your edit and feel you deserve to know why. I am willing to accept religion as opart of a compromise, but I think other terms need to be included too. Fortunately, the Encyclopedia Judaica has a nice line that includes "religion" plus other terms that satisfy me, and this is a reliable source. Since your edit seemed basically just to add the word religion, and since my edit keeps the word religion, I hope you will not object. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not object, and appreciate your post here to tell me. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your ANI post

It seems like WP:CIVIL doesn't matter. I've noticed it many times before. It really hurt me when admins defended someone that kept on calling me a troll. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Same feelings here. Thanks for your moral support. Debresser (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A Mighty Fortress

Do you have an online copy of David Weber's "A Mighty Fortress" that you could send me? Debresser (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have never received or responded to a message in Wpedia, so I hope I am doing this right. I have a link to my fileshare, and a PDF of "A Mighty Fortress". Baen Books, Weber's publisher, operates a library site, where their authors can voluntarily post some or all of their books for free. These are the books David Weber has chosen to share, ten in all. I believe all of them are complete. I hope this helps.

Q: The treatment of Jews in "Mighty Fortress" is very complex - is that what inspires you to read it now?

http://www.box.net/shared/lgr4bj864c

http://www.baen.com/library/dweber.htm

Yours, ABEL

Salvagebar (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know it mentioned Jews. I read all of his books, in the Safehold series as well. That is why I want to read it. Even if I really don't have time to read books nowadays. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The first link doesn't have "A Mighty Fortress", and the second one is not David Weber's book. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. This is the link: http://www.box.net/shared/edxe2hnien The EPUB file has the images, maps, etc - you'll need an epub file reader, like Adobe Digital Editions to read it. The html file has the text. Salvagebar (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite ynprcn

I checked all pages that transclude {{Cite ynprcn}} and non use the deprecated date fields (accessyear). I removed the tracking category. I guess you might be watching this template. –droll [chat] 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am, but if you are sure, I am only happy you did so. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Niddah: passing objects without touching

Hey Debresser: I started a discussion about the material in question on the talk page. Savant1984 (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, see you there. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson

this edit was over the line on personal attacks on the article talk page. Please discuss issues in a less confrontational and less abusive manner with other participants going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you ashamed of yourself? After the verbal abuse and disciminatory comments by User:Bali ultimate there, I am not allowed to say that a certain commentary is stupid? I mean, the guy is a dullhead... He just rants on about his perceived COI (which he confuses with POV, even if that were to be true), and writes these long diatribes that are not related to anything. The guy is just nuts, ranting on like a nutcase. It is not without reason that ArbCom decided to close the case he opened without taking any special measures. BTW, note that I use my talk page to write a little more freely. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if you "use your talk page to write a little more freely"; if you refer to him as "a dullhead" again you will be blocked for making personal attacks.

Just don't do it. If you can't treat other Wikipedians with a reasonable amount of respect please refrain from editing until your anger passes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it all the slack is awarded other people? Anyway, I have nothing more to say, but that what I said above is the sad truth. I am not angry, but I do think IZAK is a POV editor with a problem, and not an asset to Wikipedia (at least on Chabad-related articles). Debresser (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw you request to IZAK on Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Pro-Chabad_POV_warring_returns_in_full_force, and that the thread has been closed. Both, I think, were the correct thing to do. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR

I have to warn you. You've reverted me three times in a row on Niddah. If you do it again, you'll be in violation of 3RR. This past time, you actually reverted my edit even though I gave a source. I really don't recommend that you revert it again. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are doing the same. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments welcome

It seems like Talk:Moses is a ghost town with dry winds and lots of empty space. Maybe you can stop by here and plant a few green thoughts to brighten the place up, when you have some time. If you know anyone else, it's now an open invite with the RfC posted. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

I do not understand your comment here. I thought you did not want to change the hatnote. And here I am, saying the hatnote should not be changed. Yet now you seem to be disagreeing with me - does this mean that you now think the hatnote should be removed? If you agree with me that the hatnote should not be removed, why are you arguing? Or do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing?

If you actually do agree with me, which is what I expected, would you mind removing your comment? I ask because if we are in agreement it is only disruptive, the section is meant to discuss what to do with the history section, not the hatnote, and your adding this comment just derails the discussion. If you agree with my comment, you should have just inserted your comment right after mine, and something like "Agreed about the hatnote." That is all you need to say, I really do not understand your desire to argue.

Of course, if you actually have a comment on what this section is about, I would welcome that whether you do or do not agree with my proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not want the hatnote chanaged. Let me see how come that message didn't come over clearly. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it is clear to you that this is not what i am advocating. But the hatnote says that people should look to the other article for historical information. You seem to agree with that - yet THIS article has a whole section (7) on historical information! It seems only consistent and logical that it be moved to where we say it is, or the history article. I hope you will express your view on the actual issue 9if you have one), Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty

On your User Page you write that the death penalty should be used for certain crimes. I wonder what is your opinion of Schopenhauer's statement: "Those who would like to abolish it should be given the answer: 'First remove murder from the world, and then capital punishment ought to follow.' "? It appears in his The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. 47 and is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Schopenhauer, in the "Punishment" sub–section.Lestrade (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

If you are asking my personal opinion, I think that the death penalty could (and perhaps should) be used not only to punish murder, but also other very serious crimes. I guess that means I would not agree with Schopenhauer. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In the same chapter, he wrote: "It should be inflicted even for the definite attempt at murder, just as for murder itself; for the law's desire is to punish the deed, not to avenge the result."Lestrade (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I don't think I would necessarily agree with that. That depends on the definition of "definite". Debresser (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To wander into moral philosophy, I have always had doubts about a system that punishes people on their efficiency in carrying out their criminal intent rather than the intent itself. This would imply that the punishment is pragmatic rather than a matter of justice. Rich Farmbrough, 10:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Cite errors

I have started Phase III and am in the process of breaking the help into separate pages, starting with the most prevalent errors. Please review and comment:

• Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
• Help:Cite errors/Cite error refs without references
• Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Monthly cats

Yes I was going to drop you a note. I am quite pleased with the progress, most parameters can now be dropped altogether. Rich Farmbrough, 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

I felt sure you were going to do something like that sooner or later. If you need any help, please tell me so. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I have done a bunch - of course a few little problems were thown up. Basically if you delete any of the "ususal" parameter values you should be safe, all that has to be done is to create the message page if the template has no message (I have been creating them using {{Null}}). Better of course to copy the message there - and I have just created a new message at Template:Monthly_clean_up_category/Messages/Articles_with_peacock_terms using a template that can be cut-and-pasted usefully (supports up to 6 un-named parameters). Rather nicely it has propagated though all the historic cats such as Category:Articles with peacock terms from September 2007.

Remaining "gotcha"s: if the cat name starts with a proper noun (Wikipedia) or an acronym (NPOV) it may be best to leave the "type" parameter - although there is a mechanism to create an over-ride here too.

See: Template:Monthly clean up category/Messages for examples.

If the parent cat is not named according to the main scheme need to leave the cat parameter

I have left one toc=none and one toc=focus - but the none could have gone I suppose.

If you could try a few and let me know if there's any problems, that would be great. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Yes, either an ifexists or better by putting a message in there like one at Template:Monthly_clean_up_category/Messages/Articles_with_peacock_terms! For some reason I was thinking about either the cost of "ifexists" or how convenient it would be to have a red-link to make creating the message faster. I think I thought they would almost all have messages. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

OK thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Yes I had already puzzled at the change in weight. Is good. Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

It is historic. Maybe the refresh button belongs somewhere else, or isn't needed. (I built the original to cope with all the varieties out there, so that I wouldn't get complaints about "features" vanishing. There's no reason it can't be simplified to some extent now.) Rich Farmbrough, 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Of course the key point is that the date-dependencies should be all gone from here-on in. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

What do you mean by that? Debresser (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Certain monthly cats you had to tweak a message or a supercategory when you created them. This should not happen now - July's cats should be the same as June's. Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

I noticed that! But although I could add a solution, I decided not to - I don't copy the interwiki's forward, since there is no guarantee the corresponding, item exists - let the interwiki bots re-add it. But the other part of the equation is that I set up the creation page using the latest monthly version so it was the latest version - least to change, year usually the same etc. If it doesn't change it can be pulled from a model page. Rich Farmbrough, 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

It's supposed to sit alongside the blue bars, and balance the progress table a little. It could go to the left of the TOC. Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

In my opinion it is unaesthetic. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

עם ישראל

Why did you change "Jewish People" at the Judaism article? I think you were wrong to change what I wrote, and I changed it back. If you still do not understand why this is correct please let me know and we can discuss it, but please do not revert me. thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I quite dislike that you so often make changes after only minimal discussion. I'll revert you, and you discuss it! Debresser (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you reverted my edit without discussion, Please stop projecting. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you made an edit without discussion (as to the particularof that second capital) and were reverted. Please study WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I gave my explanation, and you still have not responded to it - other than to revert me without discussion. Discussion takes two. I have provided my explanation. So who is edit warring? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, you have a tendency of making edits without discussion or minimal discussion, and then start screaming at everybody who reverts you that he is edit warring. Please decist from that unfriendly editing attitude. It is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion from Talk Page

I am not going to make a big deal of it, but I really don't think you had a right to delete a talk page comment (I checked the guidelines), even if you considered it constructive.

I had made the comment mainly to learn two things:

If he was working with you, so I could adjust for that.

And to gain some insight into why I tend to get few responses.Mzk1 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I had no right to do that. I relied on you to agree with my removal. Since you don't, please feel free to restore it. I was just hoping to avoid a potential conflic there. Please don't take offense. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't, and I will leave it. Were you working together?Mzk1 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We weren't. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This will enable me know how to discuss the issue.Mzk1 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Simpson

It's in my edit summary for the reversion and in the protection log. Punkox is a long-term block evader from Peru, generally editing with anonymous Peruvian IP addresses. Since he's defacto banned, I revert all of his edits. With the extremely long term evaders, I semi-protect any articles they touch.—Kww(talk) 05:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case he made a normal edit. Isn't it possible to keep such edits? Debresser (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Possible", yes, but an extremely bad idea. I revert all edits by all banned users that I detect, regardless of merit. WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that policy page, and it doesn't say it is such a bad idea. On the other hand, although this was a "normal" edit, it wasn't such an obvious improvement either, so I guess I can live with your revert. Debresser (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you ever see me doing that (and if you look at my edit history, you will see that I sometimes do several hundred in a day), there's no problem with you undoing a revert if you think the banned editor made a clear improvement. When you do that, though, you are taking responsibility for the edit yourself, so you should verify its accuracy, compliance with guidelines, etc. I'm used to seeing people undo a few of my reversions, and it doesn't bother me.—Kww(talk) 06:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Happy you are so liberal about it. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

Sometimes vandals register as a way of getting around a protection, and I really wanted just to drive them away. But if you think a lower level would work, I will lower the protection, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So far they used only IP's, so I think that yes, you could lower the protection level. As I see you did. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion was sensible, I appreciate it, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashin article and AfD

Hi Debresser: Because of your interest in this topic, you will hopefully be able to upgrade the Sholom Rubashkin article and add a balanced WP:NPOV to this important biography. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Rubashkin. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the time for that. I am happy to check my watchlist regularly. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Recursive templates

Regarding your note at my Talk, do whatever you please. I'm "retired", only log in very rarely to fix truly blatant vandalism. I don't know why you object to "loopback", and with all due respect I just don't care anymore. I served my time debating with editors who presume others understand their motivations, and am content I did my share. Pete St.John (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did that a long time ago, but appreciate you giving me permission post factum. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

Your name was on the 2nd dramaout signup and the organizer of the 2nd one suggested notifying those who signed up the last time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Luckily I don't have time for WP:Wikidrama any more. Debresser (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your user page...

...is very nicely organized and informative, one of the best I've seen. Well done!
שבת שלום, -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your high praise. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Alias character

See here. I don't think there will be a problem having it deleted. I had planned to make a pass through the other templates in that category and either (a) refactor them to call {{infobox character}} and/or (b) nominate them for deletion after replacement. There are just so many of them that it make take some time. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I cast my vote as well. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Erusin - BRD

OK.

First, the current text is from a critical-historiacal source, and says that the bride was purchased FROM THE FATHER. ALWAYS. This is in direct opposition to the traditional view. I meant to revise and quote the Gemara "Et Biti Natati".

Second the paragraph you removed is mostly sourced and and was in my original. You did not remove it then, please note. Of course it is POV, it is meant to balance.

Please explain.Mzk1 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored that paragraph. A mistake. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources the article brings there are bibleverses. That can hardly be described as a "critical-historical source". If you meant another one, then just add it as a reference. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you will agree that you cannot use a primary source, unless it clearly states the matter, without reasonable fear of contradiction. For this reason, I would just remove it. But I presume that the author, probably NewmanLuke, was actually referring to the later statement, that the article quotes from the Biblical Encyclopedia. Therefore, I did not remove it, but jsut qualified it.

I have to admit that your "extreme POV" statement shook me, because I got the same statement from a Charedi-hater over at the Haredi Judaism page. I do not, BTW, deny my POV/COI, but I believe that I know how to edit accordingly. Unfortunately the other gentleman claims to be unbiased, a very dangerous attitude.Mzk1 (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am biased, but I try not to let it influence my editing. But calling a berse from the Bible "biblical criticism" (which is very much despised by religious people), is not ok. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? NewmanLuke had a tendency to "wikify" his quotes, and the actual source was often something else. In this case, it was the Biblical Encyclopedia. When editing his stuff, I would look for his sources in the JE, often even looking at articles he did not cite. (So much for a POV/COI keeping you from doing proper editing.) If we ignore that and stick to the verse, then we should just remove the paragraph, because then it is improper use of primary sources and OR. Now, please tell me, what is wrong with my reasoning?Mzk1 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm sure one of us has misunderstood the other. I value your opinion as an editor, and I certainly don't want to get into an edit war. What if I correct the quote to refer to the ACTUAL source (a critical-historical one), and THEN modify it. I would prefer not to delete material because the editor's references are misleading. Of course, if I could get consensus, I would happily delete the whole section.Mzk1 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal might not be a bad idea. It is a shame that there are few (if any) other editors interested in this article, and that I don't have time for making serious edits. But still, I do not see why you would want to call the source biblical criticism. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source: This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "MARRIAGE", a publication now in the public domain.

This is not an historical-critical source?

P.S. Sorry about the block. Happens to the best of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Biblica is indeed a critical-historical source. But one that is not up to the standards of present day biblical science. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So how would you describe a quote from it?Mzk1 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't. I'd give the reference without adding any qualifiers to it. Qualifying references, other than with tags, is not our job on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, but I don't know if I want to fight over it.Mzk1 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am finding this somewhat frustrating. As a long-time Wikipedia editor, how do you show that these are two differing points of view? Unlike before, the claim here is that adult children were sold by their fathers. That is clearly against ANY traditional POV's. So I think it needs SOME qualification, because right here it appears to be an NPOV statement of fact. How about, "according to some views"?

outdentIMHO the best thing would be to find an additional source, which should be more specific, and then attribute it as you indicated with specific mention of source. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And replace the original? BTW, what is the rule regarding content previously added by NL? Is it supposed to be removed unless you certify it yourself? Or is it like any other content?Mzk1 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no hard rule, but editors have felt free to remove anything that didn't seem "right" to them. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:Judaism

I moved the discussion "Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism", which you recently participated in, to the talk page of WP Judaism's MOS. This is an important subject and needs to be incorporated into the MOS once we reach a consensus. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the notification. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Please read WP:3RR. More than three reverts in a single day and you may be blocked for a short while from editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, and since I have reverted you only twice, and you are making a provocative non-consensus edit, not to mention that you are a tendentious editor, I'll revert you again, and post you on WP:ANI as well. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs for the 6RR edit warring

I'm sorry, but WP:3RR and WP:EW clearly forbid the conduct you engaged in here.

Having a strong opinion in a content dispute and assuming bad faith about other contributors do not excuse edit warring, especially and particularly past the point of 3RR.

Please do not repeat this behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Where did I make so many reverts? Debresser (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not involved here at all, but I saw your question here so I reviewed the page history myself. Regrettably, I did find five reverts in a 24 hour period [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The count of 6 does not seem right; probably two edits in a row were counted as 2 rather than 1 revert. I'm sorry to bring bad news. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I appear to have miscounted. For the record, 3RR violations are blockable, and the apparent actual 5RR is 2 past that point, so the difference of 5 vs 6 doesn't change the underlying issue.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only say I was convinced I made only 3 reverts. If I indeed made more, and I'll check that right away, I admit to have been at fault, and severly regret my oversight. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I just checked it, and I saw two reverts of one edit, and 3 reverts of another. Do they add up according to 3RR? Debresser (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

From the text of the guideline "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." and "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." it would seem so. Sorry, never knew. I was sure it applies to reverts of one and the same edit only. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

I'm a bit confused - my edit was to reverse the watering-down and apologetic edit by the IP. A Sniper (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I found it a reasonable edit. The present text makes very serious statements, I'd say allegations even, without bringing any sources. The new text seems more reasonable to me. Reasonable or watered down may be a matter of point of view, of course. Nevertheless, perhaps you could find some sources for the present text, that would be the best. Debresser (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at Template talk:Citation needed#Revival of Merge Discussion.
Message added 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

To which your recent edits to the sandbox might, or might not, have interfered with this ongoing process on the talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I was addressing a different subject from a few sections higher. Please excuse me if I interfered in anything. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll revert your edits and then you can create another sandbox (e.g. Template:Citation needed/sandbox2) through copying and pasting. You're welcome to comment in the section mentioned above as well. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Or just incorporate the change. It is pretty minor, and tested. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday (2010)

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This year the dates of my birthday in the Gregorian and Hebrew calendar fell on the same day. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion at ANI

Hi Debresser: A discussion and related vote you participated in is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves. You may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't so happy about that move in the first place. I had the feeling you were trying to push things at too high a pace. Evidently, other users feel the same. Perhaps that be a lession for you. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Judaism#Template's width

Re. Template talk:Judaism#Template's width

Can you please follow up on this one re. the IP users request? I'm sure you'll understand my reasoning re. the {{editsemiprotected}}, and perhaps you can make the edit if/when appropriate? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replied there. Thank for the note. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hebrew Name

• Ok, no problem. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Would you please inform me if that edit made a problem. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Page for Spherical Harmonic

On the page for Spherical Harmonic, where I had the mathematics link that you changed, I was trying to set it up so the link would go to the section titled mathematical Fiction on the Asaro Wiki page. Do you know how to do that? All I could do was get it to go to the top of the Asaro page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.127.25 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. You can have a look how I did it. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciate it. 130.85.56.86 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of "Musar literature"

Please see my note on the "Musar Literature" talk page. I'd make a case for adopting the former spelling on the Wikipedia page -- not just because there's no dagesh in the samech, but also because this is the way that academics spell the phrase. Thanks! Moreh405 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically I agree with you, see Talk:Mussar_literature#Spelling. The main thing is to be consistent. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what do you say of my changes to Musar? Debresser (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This looks great. Moreh405 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what did I wrong

I found you reverted my edits of SDPI article. Could you please tell me the reason for reverting the changes -- Indiashines (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They make the article sound like a political manifesto, instead of an encyclopedical article. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Templates for merging: What is it really?

Hi, Dovid. I just came across Category:Templates for merging, which you created in October 2009. Its banner claims that, "this category contains templates which have been listed for deletion." However the category is in reality filled with more than 35,000 article pages. It doesn't really contain any templates (okay, it appears to contain exactly one, Template:Tfm-inline, plus two template/doc pages), or template messages (per the redirected link).

I'm inclined to take it over to CfD, but figured there must be something to this cat that I don't know about, so I thought I'd ask you and maybe Koavf (who just recently hid the category) about it first. What is this thing really? What's it do for us? I'm watching your page if you want to answer hereRegards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a simple matter. Just need to make a small edit. Then wait a few days, and the category will empty. Cfd is not the issue. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand: I need to make the edit? If so, what do I do? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I did it right away. The category is slowly emptying now on its own, as you can check by making a nulledit to any article in it. Debresser (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have no better understanding but you seem to have it in hand. Thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I also didn't know about these things two years ago. The idea is that there is a working load distribution that causes changes to categories to take effect only after some time (the larger the category and the higher the work load at a given time, the longer it takes. What you can you is pick an article from the category, open it and save it without any changes (a "null-edit"). That will force the categories to update. Then reopen the category page, and you'll notice the article isn't there any more. That is sure prove that in due time, all articles will disappear from there. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I just don't understand what they're doing in there. The category is for templates, and it's filled with non-template pages. How did they get in there? Don't worry about answering; if you're not worried about it I needn't worry either. I don't usually fiddle with categories much anyway. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The template which is deprecated receives the category from the {{Tdeprecated}} template. Because of an omission in the coding of {{Tdeprecated}} this category was imparted further upon all articles using a deprecated template. I fixed that. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's wonderful to be noticed. Thanks for the compliment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Template:Tfdnotice2! :-) --Bsherr (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kabbalah template

Hello Rabbi Debresser! I worked on Template:Kabbalah, to its previous full format, but notice it has recently been collapsed and redesigned. What is your opinion of these last changes? I'm not necessarily fully against the collapsed format, especially if that is wikipedia policy, but have the following concerns:

1. I designed the Template:Jewish philosophy to be the same dimensions as the Kabbalah template, in order to hilight the alternative parallel between the two tradition systems of Mysticism and Rationalism in Judaism. If Kabbalah template is to be collapsed, then it would be preferable for Jewish philosophy template to also be collapsed - without compromising its present design.
2. I think the additional redesign of the Kabbalah template does greatly compromise its ease of use and appeal: The text in the collapsed sections has been reformatted to extend down over a greater length, with only one or two items per line. Compare this with the previous continual text sections, and I think it is clearly harder to scan and absorb the information, and less appealing. Also, I think the small images could be reinstated within each collapsed section. Therefore, it's less informatively-visually helpfull, potentially longer, and less attractive.

Alternatively, if you think the non-collapsed format was better in principle, then tell me. I am automatically open to that view - a similar format, for example, to the Chabad template. If one can get away with it, I would actually far prefer it - I mainly go along with collapsing it, as I guess it's unlikely others would leave it like that, in view of likely wikipedia policy. However, I do wonder why the wikipedia community (rightly) leaves the Chabad template uncollapsed!

Whether or not all the entries merit inclusion within the template is a separate issue, but I notice that the Jewish philosophy template has a similar number of direct and contextualising entries. I sent a copy of this also to User talk:IZAK#Kabbalah template, in resonse to his compliment of the Jewish philosophy template, to see his opinion! What do you think? With best wishes April8 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I do understand your concerns, but personally I find either way satisfactory. Thanks for asking my opinion. :) Debresser (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Significance of numbers in Judaism

No problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

Please explain I don't know why you reverted my edit to {{Filmr}}; isn't it useful to have these in a tracking category? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC

WARNING

If you have a problem with the English that is fine however don't determine relevancy based on the number of Messianic Jews. Messianic Jews outnumber Karaites by a huge margine yet I bet you wouldn't maginalize the tzaddikim. I am reverting my addition to Posekem.(I didn't revert)

Please tone down your way of talking. No need to throw around warnings. Neither is it advisable to revert material that is being questioned. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Nor did I revert.

Ok. So we'll stay good friends. :) Debresser (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you might want to "sign" you comments, that is to leave four tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end of a comment on a talk page, so that the reader might know, who left the comment. Try it, it works nicely. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

hehe I usually don't do big edits and oy, I've been doing that manually for like ever now it seems haha. --Teacherbrock (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate arguing, just isn't my cup of tea. I do small tweaks and edits. Every once in awhile I will throw in a paragraph or something. If it sticks it sticks, if it doesn't then, oh well. I've had my fair share of edit wars and I don't like them at all. :p --Teacherbrock (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AFD notification for Significance of numbers in Judaism

Hi Debresser: This is a kind reminder and request, that when you nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Significance of numbers in Judaism, that as an experienced WPian by now, it would have been the correct protocol and courtesy to let the original creator User Xyz7890 (talk · contribs) [7] know about it (wouldn't you want this done for you if it was the other way around?), per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people:

• For creators who are totally new users: {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~
• For creators: {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~
• For contributors or established users: {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~
• For an article you did not nominate: {{subst:AFDNote|Article title}} ~~~~

You could and should have also listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Thank you very much! IZAK (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Go fuck your righteous self. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors

FYI Help:Cite errors#A page shows in the reference error category, but no cite errors show. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)