User talk:Debresser/Archive 11

Barbara Jordan
Looked back at an edit you made five years ago on the Barbara Jordan page. Good job back then!! Mvblair (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would that be this edit? Debresser (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes! Mvblair (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Short term memory? Or....
You were the one who restored this part of the lede (which Nishidani, and now you, deleted) based on consensus. Allow me to refresh your memory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923

Evildoer187 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
I thought for a moment I'd broken 1R until I realized you have restored my edit before the second one. Very decent of you. I should explain that the Holocaust is of course absolutely central, but that section was written in a way that linked to the obvious, and my impression was that an enormous amount of detail was developed on it, to the exclusion of many other things that are required per WP:Lede. I.e., the extraordinary achievements of the Ashkenazi, their pivotal role in the making of modernity in Europe. I have always born in mind a remark by Salo Witmayer Baron who advised his students not to focus on the undoubtedly numerous tragedies of the past, and thereby falling victim to the 'lachrymose' version of one's tradition, to the detriment of what is a very deep and impressive history also of positive achievements. I hope that in rewriting the Holocaust bit, I have given the essential gist of the unspeakable, as opposed to the earlier version. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of reverting, just a note to you, Debresser, you're at 2R at Category:American people of Jewish descent. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan Kenobi noticed all of the category reverts and asked me if there was a WP:DR case on this subject (which had been proposed in March). That's been put on hold for the moment but we might need to revisit that idea. Iryna was going to put together a case but she's busying working on Ukrainian articles right now. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I might have some time on Thursday. Real life is a bitch. :) Debresser (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories/Noticeboard
I'd love to hear your enquiries here. We may have our disagreements but I'd like to see how it goes. Khazar (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectful disagreement is not a bad thing, and I'll be happy to comment. I happen to have heard the chief rabbi on this subject myself. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora
Hello, Debresser, There have been a number of edits made to this article today and I was wondering if you could spare a moment to look them over. I think the ones by Brewcrewer are okay but Ubikwit's edit deletes a source. I reverted it and then he reverted it back. I don't edit-war but I also am not that familiar with the subject and available sources. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I restored the source when I reverted your revert, as per the edit summary I left. But then I decided to double check and found that the refcite was somehow not coded properly. I just implemented a fix, but please do have a look and see if everything is in order.
 * The crux of my edit was to restore the long standing consensus text restored by.
 * I'm not sure why Liz brought this up here, on another user's page, instead of on the article talk page.-- Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 01:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ubikwit. Liz came here to ask for my outside opinion, which is good practice. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Moses Sofer
I really had enough of this place, where every Litvak or Lubavitcher messes with my edits with references from such objective sources as Aish or the OU. So here's something for you, and that too. I'm out. מהמברטה (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove yourself from editing, if you can't stand the heat. But I do resent your approach to resistance: my personal believes have nothing to do with the many problems your edit posed. I find it more likely that your personal believes have something to do with your frustration. In any case, I would have been willing to discuss your edit with you in more detail, had you been interested in that. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Example needed

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AExample_needed&diff=610416743&oldid=610406329
 * (Undid revision 610406329 by Sardanaphalus (talk) He's doing it again, despite my talkpage post that there is things he doesn't know about templates.)

Please explain to him what things he doesn't know about templates that apply here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You remove the remarks, which are there with a function, namely to show the beginning and end of the template in case the template is by mistake substituted.
 * On a sidenote, is really see no use for the other additions you are trying to make. And may I notice that you should really consider discussing changes to templates that are in active use before you make them. In any case, I personally don't find them useful, let alone necessary. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see the purpose of these comments now. (How about something like  or  ...?)
 * I added "[example?]" and "[examples?]" as shorter, more succinct versions less likely to linewrap. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism
Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was happy to contribute to that discussion. Thanks for the invitation. My point of view is precisely the same now as it was in that first discussion a few years ago. Debresser (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

1RR
The content you trying to impose at Levant, apart from being misleading and based on the unusual view that people who have decided to live across the green line outside of "Israel proper" in the occupied territories constitute "excessive detail", is clearly within scope of the ARBPIA 1RR restrictions. Both of your edits were reverts. You broke 1RR. You were edit warring. I'm not going to report it because you didn't have an opportunity to self-revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In some places it is excessive detail. Not everywhere where it says "Israel" in Wikipedia do we need to explain if it means with or without the occupied territories. That is just some politically motivated sense of preciseness which is subject to change every few years as the political climate changes.
 * Feel free to report me. I do not respect every bureaucratic rule on Wikipedia to the letter when I feel I have a good point. I am sure you understand which Wikipedia guideline I am referring to. You will noticed I didn't revert an additional time, recognizing the cause as lost. By which I mean to say I am not an edit warrior per se, but I do not like a valid point I make being reverted summarily by bureaucrats and politics.
 * Which leads me to mention that I have noticed you are one of the editors on the forefront of this struggle for political correctness. Even your name seems to connect you to the subject. You might want to consider getting a larger perspective at things in the view of the futility of your endeavors in the face of historical forces. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument that Not everywhere where it says "Israel" in Wikipedia do we need to explain if it means with or without the occupied territories is not worthy of a response. You can be sure that someone will revert you if they see you make an edit based on that distortion, because it's a clear policy violation. The fact that you apparently can't see why isn't Wikipedia's problem.
 * Just like in real life, people here are free to do anything they want and face the consequences. If you make a habit of breaking 1RR for ARBPIA related content, someone will report you and it would likely result in a block. Admins would probably assume that you should know better given your block log.
 * I'm not part of a struggle for anything. I'm here to help build an encyclopedia based on a set of rules. That involves dealing with the attempts to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia, something that is commonplace in ARBPIA because many people are dumb enough to edit topics where their personal views compromise their editing and degrade content.
 * Your comment "You might want to consider getting a larger perspective at things in the view of the futility of your endeavors in the face of historical forces" is the kind of comment that keeps me editing in the ARBPIA topic area. If you can imagine what it is like to not have any of the beliefs you currently have or any of the beliefs you believe others in the ARBPIA topic area hold, that will get you close to understanding my perspective, which is that there is information published by reliable sources and the content rules. If someone does something that is inconsistent with information published by reliable sources and the content rules, and I see it, I may take action to correct it.
 * My user name is my real name. I don't think editors should be allowed to edit anonymously, so I don't. The origin and meaning of my surname is unknown. It doesn't connect me to anything, so be careful about what you think you can see. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is really your name, then I apologize for that one remark. I am sorry it seems that our mindsets are incompatible. But I am sure we'll manage to live with it, and even collaborate successfully. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unknown? I thought your real name referred historically to a 'John', certainly Irish, set on highground? (2)'in the view of the futility of your endeavors in the face of historical forces.' Debresser. You really should think before making statements like that.' Anyone with a long-term memory can see how dangerous that kind of mindset has been, esp. to Jews. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you two didn't misunderstand my meaning with that sentence about "historical forces". I was referring to their everchanging nature. In some places history has been re-written actively over the last decade alone. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever you intended, it sounds, thus put unnerving. I personally was reminded of Ignacy Schipper's argument against mounting a Jewish resistance against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto. I can't recall exactly where, but his language was similar to the phrasing you used.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the misunderstanding. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion that ALSO involves you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Edit warring. Per numerous violations across two articles. Thank you. --Inayity (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is I who created that section and reported you. Are you with us? Debresser (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you with us is this how you talk to other editors? If you are engaged in an edit war it is hypocritical to accuse someone else of doing it. Reports like this usually come from non-involved editors. --Inayity (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another rule you are making up. In any case, you started it, so I warned you. I am only trying to keep you from censoring Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Themainman69 Is pushing POV and removing sourced information
This user is Pushing POV and removing sourced information on the page "Jews", he ignores the sources and has an agenda. Guy355 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the issue has been solved. Guy355 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I keep the Shabbat, and only now saw this post. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite alright, fortunately, he has been banned. Guy355 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamization article
What's up with you? You're a highly experienced editor, so you know perfectly well that you don't have a leg to stand on. Zerotalk 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The source is reliable. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You made no case for reliability. See you at WP:RSN soon. Zerotalk 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I made my case on the talkpage, and in my opinion very convincingly so. I asked editors at WP:RSN to comment on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Section-sort
Template:Section-sort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I'll have a look at the discussion. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Avicenna
Hello, Debresser:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avicenna&diff=620649760&oldid=620631422
 *  (Revert removal of sourced information and a lot of unnecessary formatting "improvements".)

Does the first part of your summary refer to "Galen (and Hippocrates)"..?

This nonetheless looks like a wholesale reversion of the edits made to the start of the article. If so, does that mean you feel there was nothing worthwhile in what I was trying to contribute..?

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The sourced information was "He is regarded as the most famous and influential polymath of the Islamic Golden Age. ".


 * Please edit without using all kinds of templates and comments, like in, or "--Reference set begins--". All these things are not really necessary and just make editing harder. In this regard, please see WP:KISS, last sentence. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The information and reference you mention hadn't been removed, but the description "is regarded as the most famous and influential polymath of" had become "polymath who is generally considered to be one of the most significant thinkers and writers of". I've restored an amended version of the previous version's opening where this description is now "polymath who is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers and writers of" – is this acceptable to you?
 * The other amendments made are the replacement or removal of the various inline templates – apart from those resizing the otherwise near-illegible Arabic script – and the removal of the comment tags structuring the <ref ></ref> code. (I find it's the inline referencing that usually makes editing noticeably harder.) Again, hopefully this is acceptable to you..?
 * Thanks for pointing out WP:KISS. The second to fourth sentences here might be of interest.
 * Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are acceptable to me. Thank you.
 * I don't remember if I ever saw Revert only when necessary (probably did), but I certainly try to abide by this rule. If I reverted you here, it is because I found it necessary. I had 3 reasons to revert, which I would prefer not to go into, but just that you should know this is a rule I actively abide by. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As regards the infobox, I felt the way it presented some of its information was too serial, so would you mind if I restored the structure added there – but with thinsp, nowrap, etc templates omitted – ? (I think there were also a couple of typos.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose representing information in a serial way makes sense in an infobox. I don't know. But that would probably come under "don't interfere if not really necessary", so try me. :) Debresser (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Avoiding linewraps (i.e. information break-up) and offering a little more structure was what I had in mind. What do you make of it now? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In the very first line I saw some 3 templates related to formatting. Sorry, but no. Please keep things simple (WP:KISS). If it ain't broken, don't fix it. (WP:BROKEN, another useful link.) Debresser (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How about the following? Other than the bigand – otherwise the Arabic script is easily illegible – I think I've removed/replaced the extra templates; ublist, hlist and Aligned table are now replaced by  s . (It's these and the footnotes that provide the structure which I feel present the infobox's information more lucidly. (Translation: "I feel it is a bit broke, so here's some fixing."))

Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am fine with your latest edit to the article. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion looks good. I have 1 question and 1 remark. Question: since Avicenna will be part of the title of the infobox, albeit in brackets, does it still need to be repeated under "other names"? Remark: I am not comfortable with "Father of Modern Medicine" as a name. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I reckon it's worth retaining the repeated "Avicenna", not only as its first mention is in brackets but to be clear that it's an "other name" (of which I imagine "Avicenna" himself was never aware). I agree that labels such as "father of [modern] medicine" (reference notwithstanding) are probably too tenuous to merit inclusion in an infobox, so have struck it out above and will omit if you're now happy to see the infobox updated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and updated the infobox as above (and without "Father of [modern] medicine"). "Avicenna" is one of ibn Sina's "Other names", so I reckon it should remain in that section – but also as the parenthesis in the title, as it's well-established in the English-speaking world (and the article's name). Hope that's okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Very well. A pleasure working with you. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBPIA
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am familiar with WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments - WP:RS - WP:3RR
Hi,

According to you, here, I made a "bullshit claim" [sic] when I stated that the "Ministry of Foreign Affair" was not a "reliable source" to provide the cause of the Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands. In more of not being WP:CIVIL, your comments are quite questionnable. It is obvious that a political organisation (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a contry) is not at all reliable and even not pertinent on a topic related to History (exodus from 1948 to end of the 80ies, around 40 years ago...) in an article dealing with Human Sciences ("Jews").

I add that on the article about the Bar Kokhba revolt, you have made 3 reverts in 24 hours versus 3 different contributors, which is an edit war. Given the reasons of your reverts are related to the I-P conflict, I have added this to the ARBPIA article lists for which WP:1RR applies. You have been warned about this and you should stop any edit war and find a comprises on the talk page.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I reverted 2 editors on Bar Kokhba revolt, not 3. Secondly, that article is not related to WP:ARBPIA, and I have accordingly removed the WP:ARBPIA warning from that talkpage, where you had added it incorrectly. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the reliability of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you want to make the point a government ministry is not a reliable source, please do so on the talkpage or on WP:RS/N, but until you get consensus for that claim, I think it is bull shit. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * On :
 * "Jews", you have finally been reverted by Oncenawhile
 * "Islamisation of the Temple Mount", you was finallly accepted you was in a minority position
 * "Bar Kochba Revolt", an article indirectly linked to the I-P conflit given what shlomo sand published about this, you have been reverted 3 times and 3 times you re-inserted your edit.
 * You behaviour is not appropriate as well as going on with comments such as "bull shit".
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Jews. I have no idea what you are talking about. Oncenawhile edited a paragraph I never edited before.
 * Regarding Islamisation of the Temple Mount. Yes, I accepted that after the long discussions on the talkpage. That is a good thing, no?
 * Regarding Bar Kochba Revolt. That article is not even indirectly related to WP:ARBPIA, imho. I don't know Shlomo Sand, and I don't really care about every person who likes to see connections (conspiracy theories come to mind).
 * Regarding Bull shit. If you say bull shit, it will be called "bull shit". I have seen admins say a lot worse on WP:ANI, so don't even think to lecture me for my language. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Debresser, I disagree on the Bar Kochba revolt, because it is a fundamental part of Israel's national myth. See e.g., which contains some good material for additions to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Debresser, I don't have time to lose with pilpuls. What is clear is that your edits are problematic. The reference to MFA was removed by Onceanwhile and your theory on the islamisation was removed by Zero0000. The fact that you agreed is good, indeed. It is sad that you don't realize this by yourself.
 * About your behaviour on Bar Kochba Revolt, this article falls under ARBIPA but don't be afraid : you will not be reported. I do act as an adult. You shoud understand alone that reverting 3 editors is not acceptable.
 * About the content. It is accepted among scholars that the numbers of 585,000 and the destruction of 800 villages are exagerated. Of course, nobody has the real numbers. So based on that uncertaincy, you want to make a genocide from this, just with 1 source to assess this. If you want to believe this, I don't see how to convince you. But given it is sourced that this is part of the Israeli national narrative to believe so, it will be hard to convince other contributors and to get a compromise on a belief. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Pluto2012 I do agree that figures might be exaggerated. That still doesn't mean the results of the uprising don't qualify as a genocide.
 * @Oncenawhile I have also heard of the Bar Kokhba Revolt being overly stressed in Zionist ideology. The source you bring is still a bit removed from that, but comes close. But even with that, I think it is still a long way to a connection with ARBPIA, even broadly constructed. I'd like to see that discussed somewhere first. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Newman
Not sure if he is the same guy but this nor is up for a topic ban at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look there Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Jews collage
Hi :-)

I saw you took part in a past discussion regarding the people appearing in the infobox. I have some issues with it (mostly regarding the style and the people represented in it, with some notable figures being passed out).

I started a discussion about it and proposed a new collage. I would really like it if you took part in the new discussion and suggested ideas/opinions that will help make the collage better. After all, it's all about consensus.

I do have an account and if you want to leave me a personal message leave it here: User:Mr. Sort It Out. Thank you! 90.198.246.7 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did some asking about the people you mentioned, ever Israeli knew Agassi and Yonah, but all of them mentioned Becky Griffin is irrelevant. I suggested someone else instead of her on the collage. Could you please also leave your comments about things like style and other issues? 90.198.246.7 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Menachem M. Schneerson
I saw you undid my changes on Menachem M. Schneerson. You stated that you object to some of them and that I should make smaller edits. The reason I made big edits was because I moved sections and did not want the history to give a wrong impression that I blanked sections. I imagine you don't disagree with the new sources I added or the text I tightened. Can you please specify what changes I made you disagree with? Thanks. TM (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You removed some sourced statements from the lede like that he was called simply "the Rebbe" and that he was one of the most influential leaders of religious Judaism in the 20th century. These phrases may remind you of hagiography, but they are true and important. Likewise you removed a source for the statement that he is noted for his contributions to religious thought, without any indication why that source didn't satisfy you. Moving sections is a regular thing and can be done in one edit, no reason not to separate that from other edits. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you support this on the "Rosh Hashanah" article?
Hi, Dovid. I'm asking your advice here. Here, as you can see, I deleted references to Yemenite Jewish customs. Can we put it back on in the article, under a new sub-title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbena (talk • contribs)


 * I'll reply to your post on the talkpage. Thanks for coming here. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We already had that
Hi Debresser, just following up on your revert. I don't know what you mean by "We" or "that" and am confused as to why you are removing well sourced content. Thanks for any clarification. Lexlex (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant that the conclusions of Ostrer's research were mentioned in the same section of the "Jews" article, just a little higher up. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for your information, these genetic studies were the subject of heavy argument a few months ago, I think it was on the Ashkenazi Jews talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

HaShem
Thanks for fixing the vandalism. As it is in life, good deeds often get rewarded with requests for more. :-) So, I looked at your user page, saw a link to HaShem, and ended up reading that section. Less than half of it actually discusses HaShem; in particular the first paragraph starts out with another name, and ends with a discussion of sound changes that for me don't seem to apply to the topic. Is this something you might want to look into, or should I post it at the WP? &mdash; Sebastian 19:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rebbe and HaShem are on my agenda. If it will wait a little, then I'll be happy to look at it. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's no rush. I'm aware that we're all volunteers here, and I never take peoples work here for granted, particularly now that I'm much less active here than I used to be. &mdash; Sebastian 06:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I edited Hashem, see this diff.
 * Likewise I edited Names of God in Judaism, see this diff.
 * Are these the articles you feel needed improving? Debresser (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edits, and thank you also for all the links here. I had only meant the "HaShem" section of Names of God in Judaism. I'm happy with the way it looks now. So, now I'm wondering: Was the text about the "k" replacement just vandalism or original research? &mdash; Sebastian 21:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, then I did solve the issue. It was original research, yes, and off point. It was related, but not directly to the HaShem section.Debresser (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Intervention
Dovid, shalom. There is a question about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page in terms of photos because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor, User, PacificWarrior101, and lately supported by User, Amire80, have posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer and transgender, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page, Yemenite Jews, that treats on ethnicity, and to a large extent, the history of Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. While I have no personal problems about discussing issues of transgender, here the matter is different. Dana International's photograph on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of a serial killer on an ethnicity page. Or, let's say, Israeli troops shooting at an Arab child, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not, particularly when the photo is controversial and evokes shame. See the Talk page on Yemenite Jews, and the sub-section: "Flouting an Ethnic Group." Any advice will be much appreciated by you.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't remove my comment again, especially as you were canvassed to the talk page. Limiting photos of transgendered people to transgender-specific articles is ghettoization. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Such unproductive and antagonizing comments will be removed by me and any other editor at will, as they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eliezer_Melamed
Since we seemed to reach an impass on Talk:Eliezer_Melamed, I have followed the WP:3O process to get a third person's input on the matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Marceau
I have to say that you feel that in the actress's personal section that the only realistically bit of tat and trivia is that her ex partner is older than her pretty weak and the fact that you take this so seriously by repeatedly adding this fact back in shows that this website needs some a bit of fresh air.....

There must be 100s more interesting facts about her personal life to add rather than a 26 year age gap.

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * True as that may be, I didn't add it. I just oppose removing it. A bit of an age difference is not noteworthy. This much of an age difference is. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Another source removed Talk Sukkot
Please go to this page to enter your comments on this dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sukkot.23Another_.22source.22_removed_discussion

regardsTheredheifer (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should say "Thank you" for posting this notification. In any case. That discussion was closed with edit summary "Closing as premature, insufficient discussion". I told you on the talkpage that taking this to dispute resolution was premature. When will you start listening to me? Debresser (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you is not required, that was part of the process. When will you stop removing non religious material?Theredheifer (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When it is relevant, reliable and worded correctly. Debresser (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The material that I add meets all these criteria.Theredheifer (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is often worded unlucky, and not necessarily relevant at the precise location where you want to add it. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well please reword it, and put it in the relevant place instead of edit warring. PS If you are going to continue to criticise my writing you should not use phrases such as worded unlucky.Theredheifer (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah dispute
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&action=edit&section=3&editintro=Wikipedia%3AThird+opinion%2FInstructions

See this page for third opinion request for resolution of the three disputed words.Theredheifer (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your post therewas removed. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I will try RSN first before going to dispute 3ORTheredheifer (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RSN
I have asked for advice on the disputed RS here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sukkot_section_removed

I should probably add the rest as well.Theredheifer (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You should have linked the rest of the discussion on Talk:Sukkot as well. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shabbos App for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.


 * Thanks for dropping a note. I'll give my 2 cents as well. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your POV
Dear Debresser, I need your help: after reading your user page and looking at your edit history, it would seem you almost exclusively work on articles relating to Jewish subjects. It raises a red flag because you are a) such an active user with these articles, regularly/daily answering talk messages, often in the first person with what could be considered a sense of ownership; and b) you state in your user page that you are a member of Jewish clergy. Because of your long edit history it almost ridiculous to say this, but I want to make sure you've read WP:COMPORG —which explicitly discourages members of an organisation editing pages about their organisation, simply because it's too easy to fail one of the three cores of Wikipedia: Neutrality. Please let me know if this has come up before and how you responded, or how you feel you maintain a sense of neutrality when working on articles which are likely very near and dear to you? Thank you very much for your help in advance. Lexlex (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Lexlex. Thank you for visiting my userpage. I am active in science-fiction articles as well, articles about films, and used to be active in maintenance templates, both their standardization as well as error fixing. Please see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia for details.
 * There was once another religious Jewish editor who was worried about a cabal of editors from a specific Orthodox Jewish movement, and took his concerns to WP:ARBCOM. However, ARBCOM did no see things his way, and I can tell you that his suspicions were indeed unfounded. That was in 2010.
 * I am by character rather sure of myself, and that may show in my posts. I am a rabbi, in the sense that I finished a talmudic college (a yeshiva). I am however not actively involved with any community, so the title "rabbi" is in my case more like an academic degree than a job-description, and I don't consider myself to be clergy.
 * By virtue of my secular education (elite Dutch high school and unfinished studies as a theoretical physician), I think I am actually well-equipped to view even subjects in which I have extensive knowledge from a religious point of view, from other sides as well.
 * I hope my reply was able to set aside your concerns. I am open for constructive criticism, so please feel free to post here in the future, if you see the need. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your comment below regarding well poisoning, this is not an attempt at an ad hominem attack, I believe good editors are hard to find and better to keep. Frankly I'm bringing this up because I am uneasy. I am feeling uncomfortable with what I see over time in your editing style in articles specifically related to Judaism and related subjects, and feel your close connection to the organization may be running afoul of the spirit if not the letter of WP:COMPORG. I understand you're not practicing clergy, but you've stated you still consider yourself a member of the organisation, strictly subscribe to its rules and consider yourself an authority on the subject. While well and fine, I want to ensure other editors (myself included) attempting to modify articles, perhaps by adding things which may make you uncomfortable due to your connection, are free to do so without needless interference. Lexlex (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note also that here I am addressing WP:COMPORG whereas below it is WP:Ownership. Lexlex (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My reply above was more regarding WP:OWN. What organization did you have in mind that encompasses all of Judaism articles? Debresser (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See organized religion. Lexlex (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems rather far-fetched. In any case, that is not the case here. Please notice that I am as opinionated about other issues as about issues related to Judaism, see e.g. here. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley
On my talk page, there was a request by User:PBS to unprotect a template that you were involved in a content dispute with last December. I've unprotected it and made some changes to the template. If you have any objections to my edits or the unprotection then let me know and I'll protect it again and revert all my changes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is some kind of compromise version. On the one hand it does show the output, on the other hand it avoids the error message. I suppose that should be okay. I do think that most citation templates don't show on the template page itself, but as long as there is no error, having the template output on its own page is not in itself a bad thing. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish seminary
Your actions on this page are bizarre. You can not "warn" someone for bringing a page in conformance with strict guidelines for the contents of disambiguation pages. If you are incompetent to edit in this area due to a lack of understanding of how disruptive nonconforming pages are to disambiguation efforts, then you should either learn the rules or avoid the area. In this case, you'd be just as right throwing a "Featured article" tag on the page, and "warning" anyone who dared take it off. bd2412 T 01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Debresser you're a very experienced editor—hardly incompetent, but it seems you may be attempting to claim WP:Ownership on all articles relating to Judaism with what could be seen as an almost autocratic editing style-summarily reverting edits that don't meet with your approval on a regular basis. Do you think this is a possibility? Lexlex (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor can be highly competent in general and yet incompetent in a specific area, such as disambiguation, where the balance is delicate and the potential for disruption is extraordinary. bd2412  T 16:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lexlex, you asked this above, and I already replied. I think your repeated suggestion, however well-meant it may be, results in discrediting me and my edits with well-poisoning. Not to mention that the assumption itself is quite preposterous.
 * BD2412 I simply disagree with your unfounded assumption that entries on a disambiguation page must be one-word links. Nowhere in WP:MOSDAB does it say so, and practice on Wikipedia is precisely the opposite, to add a few words of explanation to each entry on a disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not said that entries on disambiguation pages must be one word links; however, per WP:MOSDAB, the introductory sentence is to say only "Term may refer to:"; there should be no links on the page other than links to terms to which the title is ambiguous, because other links confound the software that offers solutions for fixing links to the disambiguation page. Unless you can provide sources for the proposition that "Rabbi" and "Judaism" mean the same thing as "Jewish seminary", then they must not be linked on the page. Also, please do not remove valid cleanup tags from the page so long as these issue persist. You must be aware that I have had no previous involvement with this page, and I have come to it solely in my capacity as an administrator to prevent breaches of the guidelines that are harmful to the encyclopedia. My actions in this capacity are administrative actions, not merely "content editing" actions. Accordingly, I need to know that you are willing to conform your conduct to the requirements of this project. bd2412  T 22:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BD2412 As you probably noticed, my reverts have been based on those same guidelines, as stated in my edit summaries and on the talk page discussion. We understand those guidelines differently. Therefore your question if I am willing to abide by the guidelines is strange to say the least, and comes close to attempted intimidation. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that having any links on the page other that those that are directly ambiguous to the term at issue is harmful to the disambiguation tools, and is therefore clearly prohibited on disambiguation pages? bd2412  T 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:DABENTRY that refers only to entries, not to the introductory line. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that having any links anywhere on the page other that those that are directly ambiguous to the term at issue is harmful to the disambiguation tools, which do not distinguish where on the page these links are? Can you show me anywhere in WP:MOSDAB where an introductory line looks like that? bd2412  T 20:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not mentioned anywhere on the guideline, so 1. you can not enforce it 2. if that is the case, and you will have to prove that, then the tools should be fixed, rather than lower the informative quality of the pages. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a playfield for tool wielders. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, wouldn't you agree that my last edit s a lot more to your liking than before? So now your only problem is the link in the introductory sentence? Or do you have more problems with the current version? Debresser (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on your conduct with respect to this matter, I have proposed to impose a short block on you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Your comment about the "informative quality of pages" suggests that you do not understand the function of disambiguation pages, which basically serve as redirects with multiple options. bd2412  T 20:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I have replied there. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Goel Ratzon - Needs a factual basis or citation
The Goel Ratzon needs a factual basis or citation to support the contention that he "claims to be a Jewish Messiah." A single attribution is all that is required. To include without support is to do so based on an assumption, which is therefore not factual.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You posted the same on the talk page. I saw it there. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Debresser
What do you think about this edit? I think it is problematic. - Ascetic Rosé   04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I had noticed the edit, and also frowned at it at first, but then calmed down. What do you think is wrong with it? Debresser (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've taken the issue to the article's talk-page. Let's discuss there. - Ascetic Rosé   05:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agreed with you there. Thanks for catching this. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your offensive revert
I find it quite offensive that you labeled my adding a reference "spamming". The book is completely relevant to the subject of the article.

Here is the description of the book (presumably the publisher's description) from Amazon:


 * This wide-ranging anthology takes a close look at the breadth of human sexuality from a Jewish perspective. The essays begin with a look at biblical and rabbinic views on sexuality, and then proceed to explorations of sexuality at different moments in the life cycle, sexuality and the marital model, diverse expressions of sexuality, examples of sexuality education, the nexus of sexuality and theology, and the challenges of contemporary sexual ethics. The Sacred Encounter is a thought-provoking and important Jewish resource. Perfect for personal study, or for high school or adult classes.

deisenbe (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I see you didn't wait for me to agree and already restored the book to the article. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Marceau
Hi, I'd rather not get in to an edit war so best I come here instead,

As far as I know 3-4 images on a blp article is fine but a gallery's seen as pointless as we have already commons so anyone wanting to see the images should visit Commons,

WP:GALLERY also states "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons"

Thanks :), – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Strange how you first revert and then say you don't want to get in to an edit war. Please study WP:BRD.
 * You do have an argument, but it can easily be countered by asking, what then are galleries for? I think this article struck a fine balance before, and I had hoped you'd address the issue rather than quote me the guideline. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I realized after I reverted that you were then gonna revert me and it would be one big war ....
 * I've self reverted - I 100% disagree with it but we both have our reasons and since I've had 4hrs sleep I think it's best all round if we just revert and move on ,


 * Cheers, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was not going to revert you. :) The question remains though, if we have this guideline saying to use images better, then why do we have galleries sometimes? If the photo sheds some new light on a subject, I'd expect it to be treated in the article. Or is this like trivia sections, which are removed on sight? Debresser (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca De Mornay
FYI: User talk:JohnCD. JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I posted there. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A matter of stupidity
In regard to your revert at Dabprimary, did you even bother to read the talk page? A fine contributor (like yourself) found this form to be less than intuitive. If I were more adept at Module (Lua) code, I would have altered the parameter from "all=" to "all category=", which is the same as in the Redirect template used in many rcats, for example in R from short name. You get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? –  Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 07:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did bother to look at the talkpage. I don't think there is anything there that justifies the addition I reverted, as per my arguments (plural) in the edit summary. Would you like me to discuss it on the talkpage there, or do you want to argue with me about it here, or do we actually agree? Debresser (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I hope you understood that I was not referring to your stupidity. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was clear; however, your message also clearly disparaged people like the editor on the talk page whom I greatly admire and definitely consider one of our most intelligent co-editors. I was familiar with the template and its parameters, so I knew how the all= param is used.  Other editors obviously do not find that param to adequately portray its usage from just looking at the edit screen of a page where it is used, such as at Dabprimary.  I do agree that there is a much better way to solve the problem, which would be to include a more intuitive param in the Ambox template.  Perhaps there are other even better alternatives that you've come across?  Also, I have no problem with taking this to the talk page of the template; I was just concerned that others might cloud the discussion with issues that really have nothing to do with improvement of Dabprimary, such as the negativity of your edit summary.  I would very much appreciate it if you would return to your more objective positive reinforcement in your edit summaries; whatever you do, please trust that I will continue to value your opinion in all future discussions.  Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Deal. Thank you for posting on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pleasure! –  Paine    19:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tumah and taharah
Hi. Nice to run into you here. Just want to commend you for editing out both euphemisms and dysphemisms! Is this an article that you will continue to work on? That would be terrific. I'm in the midst of putting together a course proposal, via the WP Education program, and I might ask my students to work on this article or its subcomponents. If nothing else, they'd benefit from your critical apparatus. HG | Talk 20:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made minor contributions to this article in the past, and it is on my watchlist. As such, your students' edits will be noticed, and if necessary, I'll react. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy
I declined your nom as the suggested criteria didn't make sense to me. Ping me if you have any questions. Ben  Mac  Dui  19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * G8. But you're right, that was the wrong one. I always mix them up. :) It was a nonsense creation, something between G3, G5 and G6. I has been deleted since. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Debresser!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Debresser, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, and same to you! Debresser (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning
If you continue to revert on Chabad messianism instead of discussing and seeking consensus, you are in violation of the Wikipedia pillar of consensus and harm this project. Also please refrain from making untrue claims. Feel free to raise any issues you have on the talkpage, but if you revert again, I will ask for admin intervention.172.56.19.60 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You just copied the warning I wrote on your talkpage. Which is childish. The main point, however, is that [{WP:BRD]] means the burden of proof is on your side. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you plan to edit on Wikipedia, perhaps make an account. You use many (similar) IP addresses, which makes it hard to contact you. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When parallel projects exist
I am concerned this reminds me of the problems of the projects espionage and intelligence were in mutual stalemate and inaction about 2 years ago - this is now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lede_Improvement_Team and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lead_section_cleanup...  sigh.... it seems these days there is nothing like 'waiting times' or discussion before the creation of a new project, or even a sense of discussion about the most appropriate title of the project or anything... satusuro 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, been here for 8 years and never seen them before....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's telling.... there are some articles with such crappy leads, or ones that contravene ever WP:MOS - or dont even exist - the need is there, but hey, 2 projects... one dead and one scratching, that's telling as well satusuro 00:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the various problem regarding leads, and have done some serious work on the related templates and categories, but never heard of these 2 WikiProjects before. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * there is that problem where projects get created and hide in the woodwork, this is a classic example. satusuro 10:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Alphabetize
FYI, while the parameter "works" as in it displays a date on the page, it doesn't work as in the dated categories such as Category:Lists that need to be alphabetized from January 2015 don't get automatically created and so on unless someone actually sets things up correctly. Are you volunteering? Do we even want that category dated? Anomie⚔ 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anomie. Yes, you are right. I know that too. I alluded to that when I mentioned that Creating a dated maintenance category contains a lot of instruction crap. By which I meant precisely this, that the date parameter fulfills a modest function even without creating a dated maintenance category structure. I see nothing wrong in using the date parameter just for that. In fact, there are other templates that have the date parameter and do not have a category structure. Some templates were created that way on purpose. The idea being that it would allow for adding the category structure in the future, if the need would arise, without having to add dates to all previously tagged instances of the template. For example if the template would prove useful and the number of transclusions would rise. As a matter of fact, some templates have already received their category structures, so the idea has proven its worth. I therefore strongly suggest to keep date parameters, even when there is no category structure (yet). Moreover, I'd recommend to add a date parameter to all maintenance templates, both new and existing, for the two reasons explained above. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, your plan will be putting red-link categories on every page that actually uses the date parameters on these templates. Anomie⚔ 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. That is also a problem. By the way, creating a category structure isn't that hard, just a few minutes. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True, it's not hard. But it is a few minutes worth of work, and I'm not sure whether "we" actually want that category dated considering it only has 13 entries in it, which is why I didn't. Anomie⚔ 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is indeed the main reason not all maintenance categories have their category structures. Although in time, any category is likely to receive more and more articles. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, maybe the redlinked category will push some editor into creating the category structure. The question is if it's worth it. My ideal who be that all maintenance categories be dated. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OTOH, it's more likely some editor would create it wrong. Unfortunately, doing it right is tricky enough that I had to write a page explaining how to do it. Anomie⚔ 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I used to do it without the page. But again you do have a point, that for many editors it may be a little too complicated. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're undoing all my comments?
I'm asking for request of citation and they are being removed without reason at all? Is there a reason for this? Will you continue to undo everything I write? Am I allowed to participate on wikipedia like everyone else, or does that choice belong to you? Any help is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be a very new editor. I am happy to see you on Wikipedia, as any editor can make this project better. Let's start with a few things: 1. Comments on talkpages should be signed by adding  at the end of the comment. 2. Comments on talkpages should be added to the bottom of the page. Use the "new section" button at the top of the page, and your comment will automatically be created at the bottom of the talkpage. 3. Preferably use  as format for tagging, not just . Even though that will also get the job done, but it is always best to use the correct and complete format. 4. You sometimes tag an article with 3-4 different tags, like in this edit where that is hardly reasonable. 5. Your insistence on certain types of references, like in this edit is not based on Wikipedia policy. 6. It would be more productive if you started looking for sources yourself, instead of going on a tagging spray. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I apologize for not explaining earlier why I undid your edits. I was at work, and didn't have time to leave you a message on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply,

The point is no evidence can be found to support the stated facts on the articles. I see uncited claims as factual, or claims that are based of 'third-party info' which is basically 'story': "I heard that he heard that she heard..." If you want to keep the claims that's fine, but it then becomes a 'belief' statement rather than a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right, and that is not necessarily a problem. Many articles about religion describe the religion as seen from the religion's own point of view. Even then, many statements may need sourcing, but sourcing from within the religion's writings could be accepted. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But this isn't about a religion as the majority of Jews don't follow things like the Mishnah, eat Kosher, etc. This is about the Mishnah writings (not Talmud or commentaries). If there's no evidence aside from third-party info, then sentence should be 'The Mishnah is believed to be redacted by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi before his death around 217 CE' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with WP:RS? Debresser (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I just read it and sure enough i was right. The source you quote is third hand info - basically opinion with no citation of evidence on that page. Here you can see that you have to preface it with 'believe' because you are presenting something as fact, which is really a belief. The date of a book is not a 'faith' or 'religion', it's a quantifiable number. See for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you will pardon my lurking here, I'm not sure how we can take Mikedavid00's interpretations of the rules as "correct" if he cannot even manage to sign his posts on talk pages, as the rules certainly require—and as you explicitly reminded him to do above. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Lexlex that he still posts at the top of the talkpage and doesn't sign his comments. As to the point, third-hand info is per WP:RS the best info around. If he didn't get that, then he will have to reread WP:RS till he does. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for a citation that requires one by guidelines for a blatantly, impartial claim that doesn't belong in the lead. Wikipedia is supposed to show both sides and be neutral, not to pass of third hand info as factual or make broad claims that you heard someone who heard who heard. Etc. But instead of just finding the cite, you warn me and are now making me go through you as a proxy so you can decide what goes on the page and what doesn't? I also saw a post above that you unfortunately have a special interest in 'policing' certain types of articles. That again is a violation of rules and you aren't acting in the spirit of why Wikipedia is here. I have a lot more to contribute to the Mishnah Wiki because until this point, no one is serious about this wiki page and I'm amazed at the sheer amount of uncited conjecture, hearsay, un-neutrality, and third hand information. I'd like to contribute to the page, but you obviously have another agenda judging by what someone else said above and you cant be a proxy to decide when I'm allowed to cite credible, factual information. It is *believed* it was redacted around 200 AD. You cant go by the persons death because he wasn't even in charge of the project. The guy who funded it was a wealthy Greek speaker who was very friendly with Rome. So much so he was a spiritual advisor to the king. Does this sound like persecution of an ethic group? So much that this kind of uncited claim is in the very lead of a wiki article for such a major religious work? Come on lets be impartial, fair, and neutral. I prefer not to be policed so I'm being forced to put in a complaint because I haven't been treated fairly. I've given you all the cites you need and have spent a lot of time wasted on these kinds of roadblocks your seemingly pitting in the way over the simplest things. I'd like to participate and continue to work on the page long term until it's a serious neutral, factual page.


 * I am going to ignore your bad faith assumption and your post on User talk:Lexlex‎ (but please see what he replied to you), for the moment. As well as your 10+ mistakes in the English in this one post above (I removed most of them).
 * If you are not willing to understand that I don't have to agree with you, and that there are ways on Wikipedia (which not I conceived) how to behave in case of disagreement and how to solve them, then you are in for a lot of frustration. Not to mention that your stay on Wikipedia will be short and unproductive. If, however, you care to read a few basic Wikipedia guidelines (and fucking edit as outlined there, instead of ignoring completely what people tell you), then I am sure you can be a worthy contributer to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I posted my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw this went to archive. But was any action taken?  StevenJ81 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion was not closed, and so no action was decided upon or implemented. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

SWP map
Please to not delete one version of the SWP-maps. I link to two versions for a reason: the commons-link is useful, as we can copy and expand from it if we need. But please do not delete the IAA-link: if you compare the commons-link and the IAA-link, you will see that there is a much better detail on IAA. I often find places on the IAA-map, which I cannot manage to spot on the commons-version of the map. Please don´t delete it in the future, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I really think one should be enough. The gain of having both is technical at best, nothing essential, which per WP:EL would mean we shouldn't have it. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don´t spend much time on the SWP-maps trying to locate places, finding out exactly how their names were spelled in the 1880s, and thereby finding the Conder and Kitchener-references, and the Palmer-references, do you? I do, and can assure you that the IAA-maps (the best) are essential. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, I do not work much with maps. So, now that you convinced me we need the IAA map, why do we need the other as well? Because I am unconvinced we need both. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like "Map V" on one and "Map 5" on the other, as if they are different maps. Suppose it is done in one line, like this: (thereby also explaining to newbies what "SWP" is). Zerotalk 01:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Survey of Western Palestine Map 5. IAA Wikipedia commons
 * I like that idea by way of compromise. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so do I; I´ll do that in the future. : There was a reason for making  "Map V" on one and "Map 5" on the other: some people do not know Roman numerals, and that was a way to get both. But this was really a small point. Debresser: I started adding the IAA maps, then the uploader of the commons maps made me aware of them. A part  can be useful in an article (see e.g. Al-Ghabisiyya), illustrating the area. Huldra (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Messianic Claimants
I take issue with undoing three of my edits on this topic. Please contribute to the discussion if you chose to re-undo my work. Yserbius (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the 3 edits were in 2 fields, and I did provide 2 reasons, so nothing to take issue with. In any case, I will be happy to reply on the talkpage. May I also remind you of WP:BRD? Debresser (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn or Zulqarnayn
Hello, Thanks for your input. How would you pronounce Dhul though? The "dh" here is an Arabic letter that is pronounced something between a "d" and a "z". It is closer to and easier to pronounce it as "z", as is the case in many languages like Persian or Turkish. -Yozer1 (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally would pronounce it like the "g" in the name "George". I have noticed the preference for "z" on other articles before, like Ramadan -> Ramazan. Nevertheless, there is a main spelling of every article and name on Wikipedia, usually based on the way a word is most commonly spelled in English language sources. That spelling should be the main spelling in any article, and alternative spellings are mentioned in the lead of the article, just for information. If you want to change the main spelling and move the article, you can open a discussion about that on the talkpage. From my experience, the Turkish and Persian spelling is usually the less accepted one, so such a proposal would probably not be accepted. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But I speak Arabic and still think "z" is a better preference. You are right about the rest. No need to take it further. Thanks for the explanation, -Yozer1 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you of the obvious, that Arabic is a language with many widely varying dialects. Debresser (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Religion in Israel
Hello there, Dovid! Thank you for copyediting my contribution- you actually seem to excel at that, so I appreciate it. I do apologise again, if I came on a little strong. I actually got a third opinion on my comments to you from an admin, because I felt a bit unsettled that you were unsettled; they said it was completely warranted, even if it was strongly worded. We all have at least slightly differing worldviews, and sometimes it takes someone else to give us pause and consider it might not be NPOV and/or global. As far as removing "coreligionists", I'm technically fine with it, though I do think it obscures the meaning a bit. Obviously, they're a minority in every respect (globally, and in Israel), but it sort of removes it from the intended context. We can try it out. While not an expert, I do have some familiarity with both their community and the Samaritans, so I think I can expand those sections despite the paucity of sources on both communities (the non-Jewish world just really became truly aware of them this past century). We actually have a fair amount of overlapping interests, and many views in common, so I really just wanted to clear the air, since obviously we'll be collaborating in the future.

On a slightly related note... Just out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with other Jewish ethnicities and minhagim? Such as the Yevanim, the Italkim, the Gruzim, etc? I'm going to try expanding the content on their articles, and I could really use some help. Being such tiny communities today, just like with the Shomrim and Karaim, they're not very widely known. Let me know. Thank you again for the polishing. I really do look forward to working with you in the future. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping a personal note on my talkpage. I too look forward to working together with you, as with any editor in general, and especially in fields which interest me. I'm afraid I am not strong in communities, so I won't be able to help you much. Let me just say, that I very much appreciate your edits and the talkpage discussion. Obviously, we do not have to agree on everything to be able to respect each other. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on every point. I wanted to try to maintain good form here, because as might be obvious from my frequent statements saying as such, I do actually respect you and your contributions. Glad we sorted this out. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest Chabad attack
You might look at what I just wrote at Talk:Chabad. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian prefix Mishnah-related articles
Hi Debresser - just saw your reverts and i consider them WP:GF. I do however want to consult you regarding what to do with several articles (mostly created by Chesdovi a couple of years ago): Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian Gaonate, Palestinian minhag, Palestinian Patriarchate and maybe a couple more. All those articles seem to take various topics, mostly from the Talmudic priod, and prefix them with "Palestinian" for no obvious reason - neither historic and neither in sources. I've never heard of "Palestinian rabbis" in reference to the Mishnah period - they are simply named "Galilean rabbis" or "Mishna rabbis" as far as i can remember - there is even a category category:Mishnah rabbis (or specifically Amoraim, Tanaim, Rishonim); neither in Ottoman Syria or Mandatory Palestine (Eretz Yisrael) was the Jewish community referring to Rabbis as "Palestinian", but rather as "Rishon LeZion". It looks to me all those misleading title articles were created for a dubious reason, and i suspect it was intentionally switching to use "Palestine" for political reasons. The question is how do we fix it? Renaming? Merging into existing topics? In current form it is clearly misleading as Palestine is increasingly used to refer to the modern Palestinian administrative entity.GreyShark (dibra) 17:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I butt in here? There are two ways of looking at this. 'Pro-Pal' editors want 'Palestine' everywhere. 'Pro-Israeli' editors want to restrict the term to post-1948, and that both see this as wearing modern political associations.
 * Though commonly identified as 'Pro-Pal', I came to Wikipedia with a fairly good knowledge of Middle Eastern history, and, even in my mother-tongue, 'Palestine' was the neutral word for what other communities commonly called 'The Holy Land'. Anyone can confirm that 'Palestinian' is the default adjective for that area in scholarship, and has been for centuries, and that terms like 'Palestinian rabbis', etc., don't disconcert scholars because the use it toponymically. I once documented 120 academic books on some page here using it for the biblical and Christian periods. I won't repeat the exercise, but I think we should get used to the fact that Palestine doesn't mean PLO/Arafat/Hamas etc. When Jews like Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, to name but a few, wrote in Greek, the lingua franca of the time, they wrote of Palestine. 'Palestine', finally, is just as much an integral element of Jewish history and identity as the more religiously restrictive 'eretz israel', and shouldn't create problems. It certainly bears no such negative or political shading among Talmudic scholars writing in English.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, i'm familiar with your affection to Palestine, but that is not the issue - there has never been such a thing Palestinian Gaonate, and if you ask an average person in Jerusalem who are Palestinian rabbis, he would direct you to Neturei Karta.GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GreyShark, for the good faith assumption. I do understand why you made the edits you made, and I remember we discussed this issue before. Nishidani, you are most definitely welcome to this discussion. We have managed to reach consensus on many hard issues in the past, and in this case I for the most part agree with you as well.

The Jerusalem Talmud is in many sources called the Palestinian Talmud. That is a fact Chesdovi and I agreed upon. On the other hand, I vehemently disagreed with him creating all those so-called Palestinian articles, because apart from the term "Palestinian Talmud", those are terms that are mainly artificial, made up by him, and are not used in reliable sources. I stress the word "mainly", because they have some minor usage. Perhaps they could be merged into other existing articles.

As to the specific reverts I made, I explained the reasons for the reverts in the edit summaries, and would be happy to explain again in more detail here. By the way, I moved Luttif Afif from Category:Palestinian Jews to Category:Palestinian people of Jewish descent, which I created. Weren't there more article sin that category, some 4 or 5?

In any case, I'll be happy to think together with you about any specific problematic category. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a curious question - how do you determine that Latiff was a Palestinian? Participation in Palestinian militant organizations shouldn't automatically brand you as "Palestinian", but rather there should be some criteria for such definition.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree on Palestinian Talmud being sometimes the reference to the Jerusalem Talmud, but you nail the point - it is perhaps the only time "Palestinian" is used as prefix to Talmudic topics. We first have to determine what is the exact topic of those articles and how it is referred in sources per WP:COMMONNAME. In case of Palestinian Gaonate, Palestinian minhag, Palestinian Patriarchate those are specifically Talmudic topics regarding Jewish community in Galilee during late Roman period. It seems that Palestinian Gaonate is WP:FORK of Sanhedrin; Palestinian minhag is obviously meaning "Jerusalem minhag" or simply Ashkenazi rite (since Ashkenazim use the Jerusalem minhag); Palestianian Patriarchate seems like the second WP:FORK of Sanhedrin (or Beth HaMidrash). Regarding Palestinian rabbis, it should certainly redirect to something like Neturei Karta, but the content might be useful and can perhaps exist as Rabbinic eras?GreyShark (dibra) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Greyshark. I never ask 'average people' their views on anything. 'Average' means uninformed. Anything that averages out bores me. If I have a perplexity, I look at what specialists say. They at least have the good sense to disagree among themselves while generally taking their peers disagreements seriously. As for Palestinian Gaonate, Shlomo Dov Goitein's old book New Sources on the Palestinian Gaonate, (1976) is widely quoted in the academic literature, which has adopted the term. Average people in Jerusalem might not know this. Informed scholars in Jerusalem would have no problem with it.
 * Google books yields 1.510 results for "Palestinian rabbi", 2.960 for "Palestinian rabbis". It is, I would add, extremely common in academic books.
 * My 'affection for Palestine'?. It's not particular. I was raised rigorously, but unideologically, to be very careful about historical minorities, the dispossessed, groups subject to prejudice, extreme or 'urbane/sophisticated'. I come from a people with a huge history of dispossession. I dropped a good many school friends when, on vising their East European homes, I caught anti-Semitic undertones in stray bits of conversation. I have no particular affection for Palestine. I do have a marked interest in the history of cultural prejudice, which is thick on the ground in this area, and fascinates me. One of the things that affects my POV is this: I dislike attempts to make an homogeneous soup of Judaism and Jews: its (their) history is almost unique for the extraordinary rich variety of contrast of its major subdivisions and its infinite subcultures. It is politics that presses for a uniform front and shared identity. Historically, this was never so - except for the profounbd and warranted commonsense that one owed a duty to extend a hand, make common cause with, and extend charity to one's far-flung brothers and sisters in the creed. That's why restlessness about 'Palestinian' Judaism, or the 'adjective' is, in my view, 'political' because it contaminates complex histories with a broadbrush worry hanging over from the contemporary conflict. Jews were 'Palestinian', and, if one must think politically, it's time 'average' Arab Palestinians and Jewish Israelis learnt this, if they haven't already. It's called catching up with the real world of scholarship just beyond the endwarfed horizons of politics. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In sum. Look at sources neutrally, without prejudging. Take Debress's agreement with you on 'Palestinian' as in 'Palestinian Talmud'. It's counter-factual, as many sources state:
 * "'Although it is popularly known as the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi), a more accurate name for this text is either 'Palestinian Talmud' or 'Talmud of the Land of Israel.' Indeed, for most of the amoraic age, under both Rome and Byzantium, Jews were prohibited from living in the holy city, and the centers of Jewish population had shifted northwards, . .The Palestinian Talmud emerged primarily from the activity of the sages of Tiberias and Sepphoris, with some input, perhaps entire tractates, from the sages of the 'south' (Lydda . and the coastal plain, most notably Caesarea.'(Lawrence H. Schiffman,[From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism,] KTAV Publishers 1991 p.227)"
 * The 'Jerusalem Talmud' is an hisatorical misnomer.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies for gate-crashing this party. I noticed Greyshark's comment "prefix them with 'Palestinian' for no obvious reason - neither historic and neither in sources" so I thought I'd check out that assertion using one of the mentioned articles: Palestinian Gaonate.  In that article there are at present 9 sources. With the possible exception of ref 6, for which I cannot see sufficient snippets, every single one of these sources uses either "Palestinian academy" or "Palestinian gaonate" with the meaning of the article.  For ref 7, I also checked the same article (Machpelah, Cave of) in the newer edition of EJ, and it is the same in this respect.  In conclusion, Greyshark's assertion failed verification. None of this surprised me, because such use of the word "Palestinian" has been the standard in scholarly English for most of the past two centuries. In recent decades some scholars became brave enough to use the Hebrew phrase Eretz Yisrael in English, but Palestine is still very common as the English equivalent. Zerotalk 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Was asked to comment by User . Agree with User and those who are obviously aware of the fact that for a very long time the preferred academic and scholarly term for rabbis and Jews living in the general area in that part of the world that Jews historically referred to as the Land of Israel but was renamed after the Roman conquest 2,000 years as "Palestine" that was in use until 1948 and generally, when talking about Jews, meant those who were living in the land/s that was/were known as Palestine. One could consider the term to be archaic in the sense that since the 1960s with the rise of the PLO that the label "Palestinian" has only now in recent decades come to refer as Arabs co-habiting and rivaling in the same geographic and political space/s as the Israeli Jews, but being quite different to them. A lot of very good arguments are being made in this thread to explain various angles to this term's use so that User  needs to back off his attacks on correct encyclopedic usage of the term and find another way to indicate topics that refer to the very modern Arab Palestinian/s notion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to clarify a little: almost nobody would use "Palestinian rabbinate" or similar to refer to rabbis living in that geographical region since 1948. However, neither 1948 nor 1967 saw a cessation of that phrase in reference to earlier times.  It's easy to find examples even after 2000. Zerotalk 05:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, you are correct. Not sure about what has a bee in his bonnet here. IZAK (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy with the broad input here, and welcome Zero0000. I think we can agree that the term "Palestinian" has been used historically in certain cases. I have my doubts regarding the term "Palestinian minhag", and would like to hear your opinions about this specific term. We are still left with the two main questions:
 * 1) Are the articles correct in using the term "Palestinian" for both the period of the mishnah-talmud-geonim and the British mandate, or is that gathering of eras the fruit of User:Chesdovi's edits and approach? Mind you, I am sure at least one source can be found that uses the term "Palestinian" for any era, but in this question I am referring, of course, to WP:COMMONNAME.
 * 2) Are the articles basically WP:FORKs of other articles, that have been spun out with many details and information that is only tangentially related to give them some meat, and therefore should be merged with other existing articles (per era), or should these be independent articles on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to lurk in good faith for a while. But I would point out, consistent with the discussion above:
 * At minimum, the use of the English-language term Palestinian Talmud, intended in a neutral way to refer to that Talmud (as opposed to the Babylonian Talmud), is of long standing.
 * The term Jerusalem Talmud may or may not be a misnomer, academically. But it is the English rendering of the equally long-standing (or maybe even longer-standing) Hebrew-language term for that Talmud, Talmud Yerushalmi (תלמוד ירושלמי).
 * So whatever else we decide here, I think either of those terms has to be accepted as a fair and neutral descriptor for the Talmud that is not the Babylonian one. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One goes by sources for everything. The stronger the quality of sources, the stronger the argument. I see no problem with using either Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud, as long as the introductory lead line clarifies the difference in usage. Neither should trump the other. As to Palestinian minhag or minhagim of Palestine, there is good RS for that (dating back earlier than Israel's foundation), and the same goes for Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate. As far as I can see Common name would privilege 'Palestinian' if we take what our major contemporary scholarly sources use. To circumvent this by periodizing rabbis, for example, as amoraim, etc., is to (a) introduce terminology that lacks the geographical specificity in 'Palestinian', for amoraim were equally spread in Babylonia and Palestine (b) common name in this English (global) encyclopedia should be based on scholarly usage accepted by the academy rather than in-house or infra-creedal usage favoured by the specific culture itself. I can't see the argument for forking, but that may reflect my relative unfamiliarity with the history of these articles. On the other hand, Greyshark, and he is an excellent editor, is from the record consistently uncomfortable with the word 'Palestinian' and I think it important for us to thrash this out here, at least to suggest to him that opinions within his own community do not necessarily share that discomfort, which is almost non-existent in historical scholarship.
 * Chesdovi and I often clashed (well Dovid (if I may) and I did too, but more often than not, we've found a mutually agreeable compromise solution), but I thought his boldness in accepting the scholarly usage index to assert Jewish rights to 'Palestine/Palestinian' compatible with what very strong sources say, so, whatever the POV might have been, is a matter of indifference to me. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

i wasn't intending to open a Pandora's box, but it turned out entirely a defensive discussion on "Palestinian" instead of the article's content. The main issue is that Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate are WP:FORKs of Sanhedrin. Whatever the issues with Palestinian or not, Sanhedrin is an older article and it is the certain WP:COMMONNAME. Just forking articles for no exact reason and naming them "Palestinian" (or "Israeli") is completely redundant.GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But the Sanhedrin was dissolved mid-fourth century, several centuries before the Palestinian Gaonate, wasn't it? Two separate things.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While the Palestinian Patriarchate article is a clear WP:FORK of Sanhedrin, the Palestinian Gaonate article is perhaps too poor to exist on its own right - it should belong to "revival attempts" section in Sanhedrin article (it is not even clear when and if the Gaonate was functional).GreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One part has some reduplication, but it is well sourced (2) had 10,000kb which is fair for an article and outsized for reinclusion in Sanhedrin (3) where is your source for the idea that the Palestinian Gaonate was a revival of the Sanhedrin (4) Excellent sources, I cited one, refer to it with this name. There is nothing exceptional in Wikipedia retaining short but detailed articles on specific institutions. All I can see is unease with the use of 'Palestinian' connected to a Jewish institution, against the fact that great scholars are comfortable with it.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried before to get the discussion back to track. Nishidani, I see no unease here with these terms, and even GreyShark, who initiated the thread and the edits that lay at the basis of it, denies that. So let's stick to the real questions:


 * 1) Are the articles correct in using the term "Palestinian" for both the period of the mishnah-talmud-geonim and the British mandate, or is that gathering of eras the fruit of User:Chesdovi's edits and approach? Mind you, I am sure at least one source can be found that uses the term "Palestinian" for any era, but in this question I am referring, of course, to WP:COMMONNAME.
 * 2) Are the articles basically WP:FORKs of other articles, that have been spun out with many details and information that is only tangentially related to give them some meat, and therefore should be merged with other existing articles (per era), or should these be independent articles on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. You get, to repeat, 444 hits at google books just for "Palestinian Gaonate". Usage is informed by source example, which, as I have indicated several times in these endless discussions, justify these usages, for minhag, gaonate etc. No one need trust me. Just google. I don't know why the authority, for example, of Shlomo Dov Goitein is being contested here. Greyshark worries about a term that one of the great scholars of his generation used unproblematically. I'm not here to resolve his perplexities. Everyone expects me to answer the points that interest them, yet of the numerous points I raised, I see no documentary or logical response. I think wiki editors are obliged to be secretaries of scholarship, not kibitzers.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nishindani. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for being a repetitive nuisance. I fully understand that a failure to be laconic tests the patience of the best editors round here. regards.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly on Nishidani's side here. The problem here is that modern political issues really do overlay the current discussion, and it's awfully hard to get away from that. (Let's face it. There are efforts in at least part of the modern Palestinian Arab political community looking to erase the history of the Jews on the Temple Mount, no less!) But use of "Palestine" during the period of the Mandate, at minimum, should remind us that there are times that the Jewish community embraced the term Palestinian, at least for use in English. (Anyone remember the original name of the newspaper that has since spawned JPost.co.il?) And once we get past that, then we can remember, as @Nishidani has said, that "Palestinian" has been the preferred English-language term in academia for quite a while—even if Jews prefer something like Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew.
 * Now, to answer 's questions as to the specific articles at hand:
 * I am very comfortable with Palestinian Gaonate, unless someone has a better English-language term to use for that.
 * I'd need to see better justification of Palestinian minhag. After all, the word minhag is a Hebrew one, and I'm not altogether sure that it has been fully incorporated into the English language like, say, Torah or Talmud. So I'm not sure that Palestinian minhag is really a justifiable term, unless someone can show me sources for it. Minhag Yerushalayim is probably the term of art in Hebrew, notwithstanding whether it is really accurate—just as the Talmud is known in Hebrew as Yerushalmi. But I'm not sure one is justified in using the word "Palestinian" to describe minhag.
 * I'm pretty convinced that Palestinian Patriarchate is a FORK. If the article Sanhedrin is accurate, then it may be appropriate to mention the phrase Palestinian Patriarchate in the context of its legal recognition by Rome. (And that's probably also enough to justify a redirect.) But even if the Sanhedrin ceased using the term Sanhedrin at some point due to political pressure, I think everyone still thinks of it in those terms for as long as it continued to function in substantially the same manner.
 * ...which brings us to Palestinian rabbis. That's a tough one. After all, Palestinian Jews refers to the period of the Mandate, or at most the period of the Yishuv in the fifty years before the Mandate. Yet this article's lead says it refers "most significantly" to the Tannaim and the Palestinian Amoraim. I don't know. I can easily see an article of this or similar name that focuses on the period of the Yishuv and later. And frankly, I could see going as far back as the reference to Jacob Berab, as the line of continuity from there forward is pretty clean. But how much connection there is (beside geographic) between the Palestinian Gaonate and the sixteenth century is pretty murky.
 * If it were up to me, I'd move most of the section "Early Palestinian Rabbis" to a new section in the article Amoraim, then limit each of the first two sections of this article to a 1-2 sentence paragraph with appropriate hatnotes, and start this article in earnest at Jacob Berab. But I don't know if that's WP:OR any more than what Chesdovi did, to tell you the truth.
 * StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a commendable set of suggestions. Palestinian rabbis to my mind is something one frequently encounters in the first four or five centuries of our era. I don't really associate it with modern times,(though there is an argument for it). Palestinian Gaonate seems secure. The Palestinian minhag is interchangeable with Ashkenazi minhag, since the Ashkenazi were influenced by Palestinian customs (oversimplified, but they are used as interchangeable, and the point is to maintain the notable divide between the Yerushalmi(Jerusalem)/Bavli traditions (it is extremely important because the former looks much like it carried on the influence of Greek logic in Hellenic Judaism, perhaps even Plato (so Moses Hadas argued that Plato was a major influence on Palestinian rabbinical traditions). In any case, well done, both of you. I've had my say, and will accept what the consensus emerges to be. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the discrepancy in content between Palestinian rabbis and Palestinian Jews is that the latter is written with a much more limited scope than that which the phrase is used. Most of the sources mentioned in the other articles used here, including scholars like Goitein, use "Palestinian Jews" for a much longer period of time than the mandate. The phrase is even common in writings about Talmudic times, usually in distinction to "Babylonian Jews".  We should attempt to adopt the usage of the best sources, which Wikipedia articles are not. Zerotalk 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
Hi. I have filed a request at WP:DRN about an issue in an article that you have been involved in. Welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I see you keep your word. I have commented there. Debresser (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Careful
Dovid. No one in his right mind would report you, I hope, but it is good practice to note when ARBPIA sanctions (1R) are applicable, as on the stone-throwing page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * revert 1 22:14, 21 March 2015‎
 * revert 2 00:35, 22 March 2015‎


 * Thanks. I had indeed not paid attention to the WP:ARBPIA restrictions on this article.
 * Now that you mention it, these were distinct edits by different editors. Even though the warning on the talkpage says "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period", and WP:3RR also says "whether involving the same or different material", I do not think this rule should automatically apply in such a case. Note, I know it does, but I think that is too strict a rule to be applied automatically in all cases. Well, whatever. :) Debresser (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And you did it again: 1st and 2nd revert. wp:IAR doesn't apply to a 1RR restriction.--TMCk (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really need to be more careful. Thanks for your patience with me. On the other hand, I really think that reverting edit warriors in the middle of an ongoing discussion is a good thing to do. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Were I an edit-warrior, I would have (a) behaved like yourself and (b) reported you at AE. I don't have recourse to AE because I have seen that page abused by editors in order to get at 'the other side' in a tactical game which is repulsive. You are availing yourself of liberties the people you criticize refrain from exercising, and do so in a context where sock puppets or on-sight reverters like Plot Spoiler abuse article construction. Of their behavior, not a word. I saw Huldra making an edit I disagree with. I reverted it, and challenged her. I.e. I don't think in partisan terms, esp. if there is an odour of tag-teaming.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the talkpage, where I explain I mistook Huldra's edit for yours and added an apology. Let's not go the direction of teaming, that is absurd and, frankly, insults me a little. I am smart and principled enough to make my own edits. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to insinuate anything personally. I have seen over the years that you have an independent mind, and that, for me, exempts editors like yourself from being niggled at or harassed by techniques of reporting or sanction-threats that often mar this place. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your stance on this issue is much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Top icon templates
Top icon templates is ment to list template that generate a top icon. The templates I removed do not generate a top icon; what you see is the protection icon because the template itself is protected, not because the template generates a top icon, ie. if you use the template on another page, it will not show the protection icon. I can't be any clearer than this, so please do not restore them. Thank you. 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I understand now. Thank you for coming here and explaining. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note here in response. That place gets too conflictual
Dovid. yes, indeed, it has, at least in the literature, deep roots, and I have notes on this. I'll share one with you regarding Gaza (let's leave out your namesake's slingshot!). Stone-throwing reflects the weakness of the Palestinians’ arsenal but, according to some, it may also reflect a long local tradition in areas like Gaza, where Alexander the Great was almost killed by a stone, as a British official in Palestine was in 1937. Stephen Vertigans,Terrorism and Societies, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013 p.28. Feel free to use it. If not I'll get round to putting it in. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is always a pleasure to hear from you. By the way, I couldn't open the link to the book. I hope it makes the connection clearly, otherwise this would be original research. Debresser (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Morning. I'll transcribe it when I get the time later, so you can check.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The tactic of throwing stones could be seen to reflect the weakness of the Palestinian military arsenal but also connected into local history. Oliver and Steinberg (2002) explain that Gaza has long been associated with stone throwing. A number of examples are included that range from a stone that almost killed Alexander the Great to the death of a British official in 1937'"
 * Sometimes if you can't access a google book, change the url from where you are googling to that of another country, and the page often opens.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, a shame the text doesn't specify its sources, but that sounds very relevant to me. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bad scholarly habit to cite the year, the scholars' names but not the page. But it is clear the reference is to Anne Marie Oliver and Paul F. Steinberg, The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). p.12
 * Just a point on that. The reference to Alexander the Great is probably flawed. At least, if the allusion is to Plutarch's Life of Alexander,(25:3) he doesn't say that. In the original account:
 * μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πολιορκοῦντι Γάζαν αὐτῷ, τῆς Συρίας μεγίστην πόλιν, ἐμπίπτει βῶλος εἰς τὸν ὦμον ἀφεθεὶς ἄνωθεν ὑπὸ ὄρνιθος, ..
 * Alexander laid siege to Gaza, in short, and during the siege a bird dropped a βῶλος (bōlus) that hit Alexander on the shoulder. That primarily means a 'clod of earth', though bōlus could just possibly refer to a nuggetty piece of earth (which the context requires in any case). The point is, it was a bird of omen, not a local lad, that hit him. Sources, even good ones, often fuck up, when you independently check the primary sources, and it is a real problem sometimes for wikipedians who cannot correct them. The other examples cited for the deep tradition of stone-throwing in Gaza however are very good, and can be used on our page. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With "in short" you meant to say that you didn't translate that part, I guess. I haven't read classical Greek for a long time. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard the dinner gong . . which has an imperative urgency in my house. It's the only form of human communication and authority I obey without delay or objections.
 * 'μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα (after this) πολιορκοῦντι Γάζαν αὐτῷ,(as he was laying siege to Gaza) τῆς Συρίας μεγίστην πόλιν (Syria's major city), ἐμπίπτει βῶλος εἰς τὸν ὦμον (a clump of rock/earth) falls onto=struck his shoulder) ἀφεθεὶς ἄνωθεν ὑπὸ ὄρνιθος (released from above by a bird). Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. :) I noticed you left out "Syria's major city", which is an interesting remark in itself. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. :) I noticed you left out "Syria's major city", which is an interesting remark in itself. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Meyer and Messner
Yes, we discussed Rabbi Meyer and his brother-in-law before. It was at Talk:Islamization_of_the_Temple_Mount. I spent a lot of effort including a whole day in the library looking for scholarly sources. You did nothing except sit in your chair and stonewall. Other people joined in but nobody supported you. Nobody. Now you revert with "we discussed this before". Shame on you. Zerotalk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really. Just to remind us, we are talking about Hakirah (journal) as a source for reliable information.
 * First of all, that discussion was almost entirely between the two of us. User:ZScarpia did say it is a "rather obscure source", but in the end the only reason he and User:Pluto2012 agreed with you was because there were other sources that contradicted the information in that source. I conceded the point because of that reason, and because you suggested alternative interpretations of the source. I repeat, nobody was actually questioning the reliability of Hakirah. I'd also like to point you to my arguments from that discussion, why that magazine is a good source for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not preview before saving?
Hi Debresser. "Preview page with this template" is quite nifty; you could try previewing one of the many lang-X templates before saving. It'll save you time and you probably won't end up breaking something, either - be it momentarily. Alakzi (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Where on this page do you see that option? Or is it located elsewhere? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right at the bottom, below the "Save page" button. Alakzi (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. That is great. It will save all those "well-intended-but-in-the-end-not-working-as-they-should" edits. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Panic Room
FYI, I would prefer to include a picture of Jodie Foster at Panic Room, but none of the free options seem particularly great. Do you have an alternative suggestion to make? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I think File:Jodie Foster.4783.jpg is nice enough. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mashpia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breslov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Apropos Palestinian stoning etc.
Dovid, would you mind re-examining 2 Kings 2:23-25 in your spare time? It's a fascinating if obscure tale, and gave rise, I hear, to hermeneutic worries in the rabbinical tradition. Light was thrown on it by the fact that in some Greek manuscript versions of the Septuagint, a tradition is conserved that Elisha was actually stoned by the boys (qatan/yeled) at Bethel, and it was that which drew his ire, and the vengeance of the two she-bears.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It gave rise to an interesting Hebrew expression "lo dubim velo ya'ar", meaning "no bears and no forest", referring to a factual claim without the least factual support. Would you like to know what traditional rabbinic sources say about this, or are you more interested in the academic sources? I would likely have a problem with finding the latter. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about lo dubbim velo ya'ar, wonderfully useful expression. Thanks. The baraita at Talmud b.Sanh.107 is interesting, and Sota 46b-47a also comments on it. I have a dozen academic sources on it, so don't worry about that angle or waste time on this. I just thought it might be of interest. The standard Septuagint collation of Greek manuscripts does not have the stone throwing tradition, so I'm still checking around to see which manuscript in the transmission contains it, only to have it excluded from the  standard recension. This is just a matter of personal curiosity of course, at the moment.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I must say that I'm curious (and wonder, Nishidani, where you're intending to put this).
 * I have not, myself, looked at either Sanhedrin or Sota. But the word used for "mock" there uses the root ק-ל-ס, a perfectly reasonable choice, but also not the only one available. And the root for "stoning" is an anagram of that:  ס-ק-ל.  So the source of this Septuagint tradition is probably related to that. But whether "that" is a Midrashic tradition based on related roots (not an uncommon phenomenon) or whether the translators of the Septuagint were using a text that varies from MT is a different question entirely. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed, Steven. I came across this here:
 * "‘To add support to the idea that Elisha’s life was in danger from this gang of over forty teenagers, a series of manuscripts of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) records that the boys also threw stones at Elisha, which could easily have killed an old man. David T. Lamb God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?, InterVarsity Press, 2011 p.98."
 * That source was not quite satisfactory to me. I've consulted about 20 works on this (the Elisha cycle has a very large number of commentaries, of course), and still can't pin down which set of manuscripts. It's not the translators of the Septuagint, because the standard Septuagint text runs:-
 * "καὶ ἀνέβη ἐκεῖθεν εἰς Βαιθήλ• καὶ ἀναβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καὶ παιδάρια μικρὰ ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως καὶ κατέπαιζον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ• ἀνάβαινε, φαλακρέ, ἀνάβαινε. καὶ ἐξένευσεν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν καὶ εἶδεν αὐτά, καὶ κατηράσατο αὐτοῖς ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου• καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξῆλθον δύο ἄρκοι ἐκ τοῦ δρυμοῦ καὶ ἀνέρρηξαν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δύο παῖδας"
 * "And from there he went up to Bethel: and while he was going up the path little kids came out from the town/city and jeered at him, and said to him, 'Go on up, baldy, go on up. And he turned back at them, and saw them, and cursed them in the Lord's name. And, behold, two bears emerged from the wood, and  tore apart 42 of them. And from there he went on to Mount Carmel, and returned thence to Samaria."
 * Like 80% of what I come across while looking into articles for background, it may well stay out of that article, though I could assure its presence there because some specialized commentaries do link Palestinian stone throwing to this text. I don't for the moment because I want to evaluate the specific set of manuscripts whose reading here was excluded from the Septuagint's textus receptus. All this started because stoning is endemic in the Middle East, not specific to Jews (as Morris tries to make out) but all travelers of all nations record incidents like the minor tradition re Elisha, and finally, the Bible itself mentions it not simply in the restrictive Leviticus code of stoning adulteresses, but in various contexts like chasing away tax inspectors or exactors (the treatment meted out [yirgəmū] to Rehoboam's agent ’Ăḏōrām at 1 Kings 12:18, for example). In any case, it's quite fascinating in its own right: a text that embarrassed the tradition, and endless worries over the age group referred to in (nə‘ārîm qəṭannîm), at the nature of the possible cultic resistance at Bethel, etc. (All Israel stoned Acham to death at Joshua 7:25). Your note is invaluable in its own right. Thanks indeed. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comne to think of it, perhaps it would be good for the Elisha article at least if one can pin it down.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. Of course, since LXX and MT are in fairly substantial accord here, it's not necessarily surprising that these manuscripts were excluded from the LXX textus receptus. And there remains the question of whether they were, in turn, based on a Midrashic tradition of some sort or from an actual minority Hebrew text that was excluded from the tradition that eventually became the MT.
 * Do you know Lamb otherwise? There's a biographic sketch of him here, at what I presume is his current place of employment. Why don't you ask him what his sources are?
 * We won't be hearing from Dovid until after Shabbat his time, and I'll also try to look at Sanhedrin and Sota over Shabbat myself. Have a good weekend. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Lamb qualifies certainly in terms of the curriculum vitae. Thanks. I only disturb scholars when I have exhausted my patience trying to find out for myself. There's a reason for this. A quick email, if replied to, means one doesn't find all of the interesting stuff in unthought of byways that independent research throws one's way. Lucretius's wonderful dictum, Ardua dum metuunt, amittunt vera viai (De Rerum Natura 1:659))/If the tough way upwards (cf.‘ălêh qêrêaḥ) gives you the willies, you'll miss the true track, or the truths along the way' if I may be permitted a wild construal!). Don't ruin your Shabbat following up my queries. In short, Oneg Shabbat, Steven! I'll keep plugging away, alone and with a pizza and a cuppa at my elbow, and a slight touch of envy at those wonderful Friday evening meals! We'll hear from Dovid in due course. Best Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dovid needs to hand in a paper tomorrow night, so is quite out of the running. :) Debresser (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah
I saw incipid, and I read insipid. Thanks for reverting me and teaching me a new word. :-)
 * My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor's contributions
Hello, Debresser, It's been a while! I was hoping you could look over some contributions from Monochrome Monitor on articles involving Judaism. I reverted some changes that seem like they made fundamental changes and I posted a warning on MM's talk page. But you are more familiar with the involved articles and how contentious they can be so maybe you could look them over as well. Thanks for any help you can provide! Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Liz. I noticed some of his edits as well, but saw no reason to see them as part of some general problem. However, I still have to work my way through two days of edits to articles on my watchlist, so I'll post again after I finish that. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Since the great debate over Jewish descent in Spring 2014, I have most of these articles on my Watchlist and it's unusual to see an editor going to most of the important articles and making changes to infoboxes and other sensitive information. They are not large edits but they are like this edit which reduces the importance of European heritage. I mean, we had battles before over edits like this so maybe I'm hyperaware of how contentious the articles on Jewish ethnicity can be. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any serious problem, of the POV kind, or anything like that. I have posted on his talkpage about something I noticed, and was very satisfied with the result. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are satisfied, I'm satisfied! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So I am now officially the most paranoid editor around? :) Debresser (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no. You've been here 7 years! You are the most familiar with the articles and care that they are accurate. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just kidding. I remember many editors who used to be active in the field of Jewish article, who now are less active, if not gone completely. A few are still active, like Malik Shabazz, who is actually an admin, and does many good things on Jewish articles. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Beacon Pictures page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=659761743 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F659761743%7CBeacon Pictures%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This article doesn't exist Cuisine of the Ashkenazi Jews
There's a Cuisine of the Mizrahi Jews and a Cuisine of the Sephardic Jews but no Cuisine of the Ashkenazi Jews. Someone needs to change that. There's certainly no dearth of information that could be added. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  04:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Something for you to do while you refrain from editing the Richard Feynman article. :) Debresser (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh that still bothers me! Unfortunately I don't know that much about Ashkenazi Jewish food. I know about my own family (Lithuanian and Russian) but there are so many variations that it's going to be a huge collaboration. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  20:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still make a few family recipes but nothing too ambitious. They were Polish and Austro-Hungarian Galician. Maybe a link up with project Judiasm and food and drink? You make a valid point MM. It would be a very useful addition. Irondome (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Um,..hope that doesn't include the numerous Ashkenazi recipes for cooking up a golem!:) Actually, there was a great diversity, surely. I doubt Carciofi alla giudia, artichokes cooked in Jewish fashion, a great delicacy in Rome, was widespread out of Italy.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My family puts chicken fat in EVERYTHING. It's pretty great. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  01:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment
With respect to your ridiculous posturing on my talk page, please feel free to open up a thread on WP:ANI at your earliest convenience so that I can enjoy people telling you how silly you are. While you aren't as profane as I am, your behavior with respect to being a rude shit and an edit warrior has pretty much mirrored my own. The discussion had long since petered out, but you keep raising it again with your preposterous grandstanding. So go ahead and do it. I need a good laugh. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I consider my post on your talkpage to be a warning. I think any editor would agree with me on that. You are showing the whole world what an immature person you are, and I wanted to spare you that embarrassment. I can see that my intentions were not appreciated, and have therefore posted on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment 2
With respect to your ridiculous posturing on my talk page, please feel free to open up a thread on WP:ANI at your earliest convenience so that I point out your preposterous grandstanding. First you remove form Criminal rock throwing a perfectly good photo, then you accuse me of editit warring when I replace the photo. Your behavior is aggressive and destructive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:BRD that if you add something, you have to show consensus for it. And you are the one starting an edit war, when you edit despite a lack of consensus. It has become fashion to insist on all kinds of edit despite a lack of consensus, with editors reverting vehemently in the middle of ongoing discussions. I see this on more than one page, and, frankly speaking, am saddened by it. Believe me, that I derive no pleasure from these edit wars. I wish editors would go back to the feelings of mutual interest and pride to be ale to contribute to this common project that inspired editors like me some 8 years ago to become active on Wikipedia, instead of seeking personal glorification by insisting on this or the other inferior edit. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Case at WP:AE.
Hi. I have opened a case against you at WP:AE. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have expected WP:DR, but okay, I'll post there soon. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Seven Laws of Noah / Homosexuality
Please take a look at my argumentation on Talk:Seven_Laws_of_Noah, and comment on it. Thank you. Teiresia (T) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Belshazzar
Thanks. I honestly had no idea this article was such a hot topic - pieces on obscure figures like Belshazzar are usually pretty dead, with nobody caring or watching. I edit them to keep my eye in, so to speak - I do a lot of writing professionally, and this is like relaxation to me. (My professional writing has nothing to do with bible subjects, by the way). I feel mortified about Jason, as he'll probably think this is some kind of personal attack, which it isn't. PiCo (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello PiCo. I am sure Jason understands this was just a coincidence, so no reason to feel bad. I am all for it when editors improve articles. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ramadan#Ramadans Alledged Pagan Origins
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ramadan. Thanks. Mtd2006 (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I need an invitation? Nu, thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The bit about Ramadan being Pagan is not soruced. Or at leats the soruce is questionable. Originally two soruces were listed, and I know one of them has no reference to Ramadan in it's given placement.

I'd rather remove soemthign that has an uncertain degree of validity than to leave it in as a fact. Right now the article says Ramadan was Originally pagan on the atrenght of one citation that may not actually say this. It use to be two citations, and we know one fo them dosnt say this. What mak syo thinkt he second Citation is accurate? Shudl we tel the orld Ramadan was originally Pagan if there's noreal evidence for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.206.208 (talk • contribs)

Halacha on gentiles
Hi User:Debresser, why did you delete my post on gentiles and Halacha. I have the post in the talk section under the post "Halkha on gentiles solved" Are your negative due to the stilistics or the accuratenes? Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that post. I noticed also, based on your posts, that you are very emotional about this issue. I noticed that another editor also reverted, claiming that the source is not reliable. My reason is that on Wikipedia we write article, not a list of external links. That is a stylistic argument, or a content argument, as you please. Closely related to that is the fact that the general article about Halakha is not the place for seven or more details (the number of links you posted) about such a relatively minor issue as Halakha and gentiles. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Debresser, you are absolutely right on your critisicm about the stylistics, but I beg to differ about the ::unimportantness about Halkhic rulings on gentiles. According to many people this has life and death consequences. See for instance
 * rabbi David Bar Chaim at 25:00 and at 1h:16:00
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8
 * The halkhic ruling is that Jews should not save a gentile from death, at 25:00 he takes the exampel that if a gentile is about to fall ::from a cliff, and at 1h:16:00 he takes the example if a gentile is drowning. He explains also that there is no halachic ruling about ::saving a gentile from death to prevent desecration of G-ds name, but one is not to admit that one is a "masterswimmer".
 * There are many Jews that are emotional about the rulings on gentiles. See for instance the thread on "the Failed Messiah"
 * http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/so-another-goy-.html
 * Where two pious Jews, Rabbi Shmaraya Rosenberg and the commenter Satyaman are demanding, very emotionally, that the racist rulings on ::gentiles should be completely removed from the corpus of Halachot.
 * Rabbi Shmaraya Rosenberg makes the statement that the halachic rulings are causing deaths, so it can't be a minor thing, even if you ::disagree with his opinion.
 * See also the revered rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg emotional cries at page 112 and 118
 * http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU7_Shapiro.pdf
 * It is a fact that many Jewish people have strong antipathy towards the halachich rulings on Gentiles, and want them exposed.
 * See also the late professor Israel Shahak's chapter 5, he was also a pious Jew, and also friend with intellectual giants like the orthodox ::scientis Yeheshoua Leibowits, who coined the term "judeo-nazi".
 * http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Israel.Shahak/Jewish.History.Jewish%20Religion-The.Weight.of.Three.Thousand.Years.pdf
 * Then you also have professor Noah Feldman from Harvard, that felt the need to expose the prohibition of not saving gentiles on sabbath ::in his article in the New York Times,
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=3&ei=5087&em&en=4f9d372ba8aa7e8a&ex=1185336000


 * Please rethink, your position of not regarding this as an important issue, and if you are a Hebrew speaker, let's write this piece ::together.


 * If I have convinced you about the urgency to expose the halachic rulings on gentiles, that is if I have convinced you that the rulings ::have life and death consequences, we really need to write this piece. Let's then first reach consensus about the headings, and then ::try to fill out the body.


 * In case you are not convinced about the existence of life and death consequences, please explain why you don't think so. See also this
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/army-rabbi-gave-out-hate-leaflet-to-troops-1516805.html
 * Kindest regards,
 * Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Amalek, please let me make a comment on this. Then I will have two suggestions for you.
 * My comment: This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and not a newspaper. Speaking for myself personally, I don't disagree with you about the importance about the issue per se. I don't disagree that it could be a good idea to air it somewhere. But I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is the place to do that.
 * I should be careful in trying to interpret Debresser's language on his own talk page, but: When he said this issue was "relatively unimportant," I suspect what he meant (at least in part) was that in the context of an entire article on "Halacha," this subject is a very small piece within the whole subject of halacha. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for this subject to have more than a very small place within this article.
 * Mostly, then, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for this subject, and if it is, a general article on Halacha is also not the place for it (more than a brief mention). This is where my suggestions come in.
 * If you absolutely insist that this is an appropriate encyclopedia article, then give it its own article. Call it Gentiles and halacha, or anything else you want. Write it there. Invite comments and collaboration by going to WP:WikiProject Judaism and asking for help. Make sure you have sources, notability, verifiability, and all the rest. And then you will be able to make your case. (If you write that article, and if it ends up surviving as an appropriate article by consensus, you would certainly be allowed a mention of the subject and a link in the main article about Halacha. No one is going to try to hide your article just because it's separate from the main article.)
 * Better yet, start writing this as a page in your own user space. The advantage of this is that nobody will bother you about whether you've proved notability and verifiability while you're still writing. (Some rules still apply—especially WP:BLP.) Invite comments and collaboration. Then, when it's ready to publish, move it into article space.
 * I hope you find these suggestions helpful. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I thank you User:StevenJ81, I find your comment very reasonable and insightful. I really think your suggested track is the best :::: way to go. Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Concern about a similar issue marred and still hinders the neutral and comprehensive drafting of the Israel Shahak article. I would disagree that with Steven that this kind of thing shouldn't be on Wikipedia, if only because there is no reluctance to point out the running sores in Christian and Islamic heritage. On the other hand, given that this place should give no pleasure to the not-inconsiderable masses of people who pruriently leap at 'facts' to shore up interfaith enmities and stoke wild imaginings, such material should only be referred to after it has been thoroughly documented in scholarly sources, which should form the basis for the RS criteria used on sensitive-issue pages. That makes editing controversial subjects more difficult, but ensures that the issues are presented neutrally and objectively. In this sense Steven is correct that if you do wish to proceed along this line, do it on a sandbox page, and ask Debresser and Steven to comb over it when you think you have more than a stub. Only proceed to transfer it to Wikipedia mainspace when you have met possible objections, and found collegial assent for the detachment of the presentation and the quality of the sources used in documentation.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual I agree with my talkpage stalker, StevenJ81. :) Debresser (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani and all other editors on Halakhah, my idea is to write the text on Halakhic rulings on gentiles in two parts


 * old gentile bashing rulings
 * modern universal humanist rulings.
 * The first part will just contain a short and dry summary of equalities and differences in rulings of the sages listed as the most important on Wikipedia-Halakhah, not more like this
 * "All the sages are in agreement on abcd except rabbi X who ruled edf". A subsection of enough text from each sage in Hebrew on each selected topic will follow, accompanied with enough text translated so that the charge of cherry picking cannot be raised.
 * These rulings are unfortunately very inflammatory, therefore the last part, which I hope will be funnier to read and what stays with the reader, will be the modern rulings based on universal humanism.
 * For the first part I am contacting a former rabbi and head of a Yeshiva, to obtain internet links to non-censored versions in Modern Hebrew as well as info about where to read. Here I think I might need translation help from somebody, a friend who
 * promised to help seems to busy.
 * For the latter part I am talking to "Rabbis for human rights" http://rhr.org.il/eng/


 * I would like to co-author the second and last part with someone, or receive help from you people on assembling texts on rulings and responsas based on universal humanism.
 * Do you like this structure?
 * Who can help me out with Hebrew translation? Can you RolandR,translate?
 * Who can help me in co-authoring and/or obtaining text written by modern humanists rabbis?
 * Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you like to help me out? Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no interest in helping to write an article on these lines, since I do not think that such an article would be notable. And I reject absolutely the sources cited by Amalek in her/his earlier edits, which seemed to me extremely unreliable and tendentious. RolandR (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be careful here, You are already characterizing "old" rulings as "gentile-bashing". And while there is some truth there, it would be reaching too far to overgeneralize. You will find "old" rulings that are more universal, too; please be sure not to leave them out just because you have a hypothesis. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but Halakhot are not derived from 1 or 2 rulings. Halakhot are derived from consensus among
 * the most important sages. I've heard that there must be at least 9 of the most important sages which are already mentioned on the Wikipage.
 * I have no documentation on the number of the sages that must have reached consensus for a ruling to be part of the corpus of Halakhot. There are, 1 or 2 "old" rulings, that are based on universal humanism, the first is [|Rabbi Menachem Meiri], he is not considered important. Shulchan Aruch also mentions 1 rabbi that ruled that Jews are obliged to pray for the well being of the gentiles. There is not enough weight, though, to base a universal humanist halakha regarding gentiles, from the most important sages. There are however modern followers of rabbi Meiri who demand the complete revoke of the gentile bashing halkhot. See for instance this thread:
 * http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/so-another-goy-.html
 * The "legacy halakhot" regarding gentiles today, in orthodox Judaism are gentile bashing, there is no way around that. Unfortunately the question here is only if we want to continue censor this. But why give rabbinic Judaism special treatment?
 * Are we afraid of that a pogrom might appear due to an article on Halacha and gentiles? That would be reasonable argument for censorship.
 * On the other hand, it is a fact that the world needs a context to understand, the in news-articles documented enticement Army rabbis of Israel are doing when handing out pamphlets with texts with gentile bashing Halakhot. This results in heavy loss of Palestinian civilian life. Read this compilation of articles, that have a sub-section on army rabbis and religious leaders. https://direktdemokratihalmstad.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/israhell-killing-theory/
 * For a complete review of the Halakhah of war, see the teaching of rabbi David Bar Chaim, an alumni from Yeshivat Merkaz Ha Rav Kook where elite-students are groomed to take the highest positions in Israeli armed forces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8


 * I believe that I've chosen the most righteous and balanced path, and that is to expose the lethal gentile bashing halakhot, but make it crystal clear that there are many many modern rabbis who are in complete opposition to this, that they completely reject halakhot that are not based on universal humanism. The amount of text on rulings from modern rabbis, should be as large or even larger than the legacy halakhot, and should be placed in the document in such a way, that the reader has the strongest memory of the modern rabbis.
 * That part should also have a more satisfying to read prose, a little innocent psychological manipulation to calm down as much as possible, the inflammatory feeling the reader will get from reading the legacy halakhot. Unrighteous activist will of course claim that consensus is not reached among the editors on a text that simple sums up what the most important sages have said, with an accompanying translation, just to be able to censor the truth for political reasons. Here is where I hope that you StevenJ81 can rule wisely.
 * Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You will have access to completely uncensored sources, endorsed by Daat Emet http://www.daatemet.org/index.cfm, translated into modern Hebrew. The founder of Daat Emet, is a former rabbi and a former head of a Yeshiva, Mr. Yaron Yadan. You can see him on Youtube. Are you still declining my request for help on translation? I can also pay you for your effort. Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am actually insulted by the suggestion that my unwillingness to collaborate on an article could be overcome by a monetary inducement. I don't think there is a place for such an article, and I am not for sale. RolandR (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not ask you to help translate some fringe and obscure rabbinical texts. I asked you to translate particular parts related to gentiles from the most revered and important(mentioned on Wikipedia) sages from whom Halakhot are derived.
 * It is still unclear why you don't think that there is a place for such an article.
 * Is it the case that you don't believe that the rabbis of the respected Israeli organisation Daat Emet can support us and provide us with censor free texts? http://www.daatemet.org/
 * Do you perhaps think it is to inflame the senses too much, by revealing to the gentiles what the Halakhot are saying regarding saving their lives?
 * I can relate to the last issue, believe me. But it is also a fact, that if you sign up to the idea of universal humanism, you are obliged to expose those Halkhot, because those Halakhot still until today have impact on pious Jews behavior, and they have LETHAL consequences for innocent gentiles.
 * Proof:
 * http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,5081,5140#msg-5140
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3&ei=5087&em&en=4f9d372ba8aa7e8a&ex=1185336000
 * http://archive.is/Xhnn
 * http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=119
 * http://www.talkreason.org/articles/sources.pdf
 * http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,5081,5179#msg-5179
 * http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/so-another-goy-.html
 * At 25:00 and 1h:16:00, the "logic" explained why Jews should not save non-Jews from death on Weekdays.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8
 * I have now proven to you that there are still people today who think these  Halakhot represent valid behavior toward the gentile, sanctioned by the creator. I have also proven that these Halakhot have lethal consequences for gentiles.
 * Are you objecting to my conclusions, and if so, why?
 * I ask for your help to translate the corresponding texts from each of the sages mentioned on Wikipedia, which are the sages from which Halakhot are derived, for free if you want.
 * I also ask for your help to write a text on modern Rabbinic Judaism on these matters.
 * We can work together contacting humanists rabbis, synagogues etc, organizations gathering responsas and texts in these matters. We already have rabbi Menachem Meiri and rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg. Rabbi David Bar Chaim is bashing rabbi Lichtenstein, so Lichtenstein must be a humanist. Yes, these rabbis are lightweight, they are a minority, but we don't care, we don't write that. We'll present them as modern heavyweights with the majority of followers. We will write a text that hi-jacks Rabbinic Judaism in favor of these people, and write that these are the majority,
 * that old-school Judaics are in minority.
 * We can also claim without proof, (we don't care), that the hardliners were always in minority (I don't believe that), that is was a reaction towards christian persecution (I don't believe that either). But a text like that will tip the scale of the definition of rabbinic Judaism in favor to the humanists-crowd, and to do that we need to shame the old-school rabbinism by simply reveal what they actually believe by displaying the texts of their most esteemed sages with a small compilation of who opposes what. For instance the Rambam is of the opinion that if a Jew has sex with a gentile woman, the gentile woman is killed, the other sages (mentioned) are in disagreement and hence this does not belong to the corpus of Halakhot. See rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinbergs comment on page 118
 * http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU7_Shapiro.pdf
 * (Page 112 is also nice to read). AND at the end we claim or write "it is very likely"
 * that the hardliners were always in minority, and as today, we write, it is very likely the situation was the same in the old days, that there where only a few Judaics who knew about these Halakhot and lived by them. What ever to calm things down. This is how you through an article on Wikipedia can hi-jack rabbinic Judaism to the favor of the humanists. You shame the old-schoolers by simply exposing their beliefsystem and
 * with clever formulations you transfer the authority to define Judaism to the humanists. Our message: Humanist Jews were always in majority, and we hide that modern humanists rabbis are not in majority.
 * This is how you can save gentile life, save the religion of rabbinic Judaism in favor of the humanists and transfer the authority of defining the religion to the humanists crowd, this is how you save the day. Are you with me RolandR? Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your correspondence with your "good friend" Michael Hoffman, discussed below, confirms the concerns I had about your edits, and reinforces my unwillingness to collaborate with you. Kindly do not attempt to communicate with me any further. RolandR (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your correspondence with your "good friend" Michael Hoffman, discussed below, confirms the concerns I had about your edits, and reinforces my unwillingness to collaborate with you. Kindly do not attempt to communicate with me any further. RolandR (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This interaction with RolandR, who is a very experienced Wikipedian, makes me very wary about what you are trying to accomplish here. This is an encyclopedia. Original research is not permitted here. But it feels as if what you are trying to publish here is original research. You have said to me that your friend Michael Hoffman complains that Wikipedia articles are being hijacked. But that is just what you intend to do; you say so just above. In fact ... what you say above is that you are willing to play loose with the facts in order to try to paint a picture that will move things in the direction you want. That's just plain embarrassing.

If you and your "good friend" Michael Hoffman want to publish this somewhere, be my guest. But what you are trying to accomplish is not something for Wikipedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No absolutely, no. My intention is only to do as little damage as possible, while revealing the truth.
 * I don't think that you would like to just have a translation of what the most important sages have ruled, because it will not be a pleasant reading.
 * If you don't want to censor, you really do want to calm down the inflammatory feeling a gentile reader would get, because the last thing you want is a pogrom against Jews on your neck, committed by people having just read the Wikipedia-article you just sanctioned for publishing. Don't think you want that.
 * Do you have better ideas on how to calm inflammatory feelings than the ones I posted, I'll be happy to follow them, and I don't have any stake in saving rabbinic Judaism to the benefit of humanists Jews, I was just trying to be kind, and not destroy a faith. I can drop also that if you insist. You wrote "you are willing to play loose with the facts in order to try to paint a picture that will move things in the direction you want. That's just plain embarrassing." No it is not! Embarrassing is if people get killed because of :something you do, or something you refused to do.
 * I would like to reveal the truth about the Halakhot on gentiles, but make sure that no Jews are killed, therefore I suggested something on being loose with facts and paint the modern humanist crowd stronger and bigger than it actually is. I do think that you can relate to my worriesStevenJ81. But if you think that I am exaggerating out of fear, painting everything black without reason, and that there will be no pogrom, thus no need to calm down feelings, then let's leave the Tikkun Olam outside Wikipedia, and just inform, I was just trying to be kind.
 * I think though you should think it over StevenJ81. Do you really want to censor something that has lethal consequences if it is not revealed? If you don't want to censor, how would you have it done? Wouldn't you want to tell the truth in such a way that you can say to yourself that you've done everything not to cause any physical damage to people?. Don't you feel a responsibility?
 * RolandR is of the opinion that the gentile does not need to know that the Jew is recommended not to save him from death. See at 25:00 and 1h:16:00 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8
 * RolandR is an experienced editor, but he is also a tribal operator, who wants to censor Halakhot on gentiles to the benefit of the Jewish tribe. There is no other explanation to be given. He does not engage in a discussion regarding the existence of people who :consider the Halkhot about gentiles to be divine, and he does not want to engage in a discussion regarding whether Halakhot on gentiles are causing deaths. Apparently he does not disagree, but he does not want the truth to be revealed either, because of tribal concerns. He is apparently not a humanist, but that doesn't matter as long as he is not in a position of power, only then can he do damage.
 * But you StevenJ81, do you subscribe to the concept of universal humanism? If so, then you would like to reveal this, and thus save a gentile life. You might ask, how can revealing the truth about Halakhot save lives, if people don't want to save life, they don't? Answer = Because when the criminal Halakhic rulings on gentiles are out in the open, there will be an outcry from the Judaic community :demanding from the rabbis to "remove these Halakhot now, and officially or else we don't want you!". See these demands made by frum Jews here http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/so-another-goy-.html
 * Then no rabbi will dare to respond like this
 * http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,5081,5140#msg-5140
 * or like this
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3&ei=5087&em&en=4f9d372ba8aa7e8a&ex=1185336000
 * Are you with me StevenJ81 If not, please answer me on these:
 * Do you think that I have proven the existence of people believing that the Halakhot on gentiles are divine, if not why?
 * Do you think that I have proven that the Halakhot on gentiles have lethal consequences for gentiles?If not why?
 * Do you subscribe to the idea of universal humanism?
 * Is the psychological character of the person a determining factor, if the article is admitted, or is it the accurateness, the :objectivesness and the neutrality of the content? That is does it matter if I am an activist as long as I post according to the rules?
 * Consider this now StevenJ81 You censor = people will die because of truth is not let out. You publish without calming :things down = you can have a pogrom on your neck. You choose. Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Amalek, please update your choice of words, because the Jews are not a tribe any more, nor have they been for the last 2,000 years. They are a nation, or a people.
 * Also, please understand that Wikipedia does not exist to save lives or prevent pogroms. Halakha exists independent of Wikipedia, so please do not try to pressure people by stressing the possible consequences of our edits here. I consider that not ethical, and akin to pressuring with legal threats. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, some of your sources are less than ideal. Failed Messiah, for example, is a vicious anti-religious website, while the motto of Daat Emet, "Enlightenment, education, and freedom from religion", testifies clearly to that site's anti-religious character as well (although it a voice of reason compared to the viciousness of Failed Messiah). Such sources can hardly shed any light on the point of view of Judaism on whatever subject it may be. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Debresser, I don't agree with your opinion on rabbi Shmaraya Rosenberg. It is my very strong opinion that you are slandering him for a purpose, and that you probably cannot bring up one single proof behind your proposition that it is "vicious anti-religious website". He is indeed a pious Jew, a very religious man, a human being who signs up to the idea of universal humanism, as rabbi Menachem Meiri, and as rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, see pages 112 and 118 on Weinberg,http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU7_Shapiro.pdf
 * Rabbi Shmaraya Rosenberg simply dislikes the Chabad Lubavitch movement, because they, as followers of the Rambam, are racists towards black people, they don't think that black people can be Jews. He refused to accept this and became excommunicated :::from the Lubavitcher movement, and that is something that honors him.
 * The purpose of linking to the discussion thread on "The failed Messiah", http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/so-another-goy-.html, was to show that there are Jews who oppose the supremacism in the Halakhot towards gentiles and want them completely removed, as well as there exists Jews who are very happy and satisfied with the supremacism towards gentiles. Another commenter is somewhere in the middle and show his embarrassment and oppose the discussion before the eyes of the gentiles. There are also links to sources in that particular thread,http://www.talkreason.org/articles/sources.pdf These sources and the summation in plain english are acknowledged as correct by Jeffrey Spitzer ,Chair, Dept. of Talmud and Rabbinics Gann Academy, The New Jewish High School, on this thread http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,5081,5178#msg-5178
 * But there are only provided texts from 5 or 6 of the sages of which Wikipedia denotes as the most important.
 * About Daatemet,http://www.daatemet.org/, it is not relevant here that they promote secularism. The relevant facts here are that they are a respected organization in the academia, their board members are rabbis or former rabbis and their work is supported by 15 professors from Israeli Universities. Would you dare to suggest that these professors would support an organization with no regard toward sacred texts? I don't think so.
 * You are not succeeding, if your attempt was to stain them, or somehow throw suspicion on whether they are objective or not.
 * The founder Mr. Yaron Yadan was a rabbi and was also the head of a Yeshiva, before he turned to atheism. There is no question that they are a reliable source for obtaining non-censored texts from the sages mentioned on Wikipedia as well as correct teaching regarding the subject at hand.
 * Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that I have an ulterior motive in casting doubt on the reliability of these two website ("you are slandering him for a purpose") is unfounded and a violation of Wikipedia's assume good faith rule as well as the rule to stick to the issue and not make it personal.
 * The point I made regarding the reliability of these website remains correct. Failed Messiah is anti-religious and especially fiercely anti-Chabad. You yourself admit the latter. You also admit that Daat Emet is anti-religious.
 * The facts that Rosenberg was excommunicated from Chabad and Yadan is an apostate, which were both unknown to me, only lend more credibility to my arguments. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Debresser, you are not addressing my challenge to you, that is to come up with one single proof that the failed Messiah is a "viscious anti-religious website". Rabbi Shmarya Rosenberg is a pious Jew, who signs up to the idea of universal humanism. Chabad does not. You have not disputed, and can not dispute that the Chabad-movement are followers of the Rambam. You are not disputing :either that the Rambam taught that black people can not be Jews.
 * The Chabad-movement is also anti-gentile. They obey to what the most important sages have written regarding gentiles, that is the sages who are mentioned on the Wikipedia-Halakha page, from whom Halakhot are derived.
 * Regarding Daat Emet http://www.daatemet.org/ . I still don't think that you would like to suggest that simply because a person has lost faith and turned to atheism, that it something that discredits his character. Your objection that the Daat Emet is discredited :and can not be trusted as an source of information for non-censored texts, because the founder is an apostate has no value and cannot be counted.  Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not even accepting your "challenge". I am willing to discuss, but without challenges, please.
 * When I said that "Failed Messiah is anti-religious and especially fiercely anti-Chabad" I based myself not on the person of Rosenberg (whose name I hear here for the first time), but on the content of the website, as much as I have seen it. See this article, which claims that Rosenberg has personal grudges. If so, then that is a taint on his reliability according to Wikipedia standards, yes. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Daat Emet. I am not doubting anybody's character, rather whether they are knowledgeable and objective in regards to Judaism. Both the website and the personal history of its founder, as I heard it from you, lead me to seriously doubt at least the latter and possibly the first as well. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very funny to read your replies because you are grasping for straws and it is so obvious to anybody who would read our discussion. First I thank you for responding to my challenge. In the article you linked to the author claims personal grudges of Shmarya, another way to see it is righteous indignation. You are not disputing that the Chabad-movement are followers of the Rambam, and you are not disputing that Rambam was of the opinion that black people can't be Jews. Most people, apparently not you, think that racism is bad, and thus it makes Chabad bad. Rabbi Shmarya Rosenberg is doing what he belives is his G-d's will, and that is to reveal the truth, because he believes that G-d endorses truth. You are also not disputing the fact that the Chabad acknowledges the anti-gentile rulings of the most important sages.
 * Rabbi Shmarya is tzadik and the Chabad-movement is not because it is racist and supremacist, end of story. Gentiles who don't know what we are talking about, would just conclude that this Shmarya-dude is a blogger who is doing investigative citizen journalism in a field that is his expertise, and like many other bloggers he concentrates on one single issue, nothing wrong with that. Must go now. I'll be back, responding to your Daat Emet attack. Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I protest your use of the word "challenge", as I already said above. Likewise I protest your use of the word "attack". I do not attack anybody. I discuss their reliability according to Wikipedia rules.
 * What you call "straws" are in my opinion serious POV concerns. The relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines would be WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Whether you call that "righteous indignation", or we call that "personal grudges" as the reliable source I quoted above, makes no difference.
 * I am not in the business of deciding who is a tzadik and who is supremacist. We at Wikipedia restrict ourselves to relevant information that should be verifiable and reliable. Let reliable sources decide who is or isn't a tzadik or a supremacist.
 * Saying that Chabad are followers of the Rambam is a vague statement. All of Rabbinic Judaism are followers of the Rambam, who was a leading codifier of rabbinic Judaism. If any rabbi has a problem with the Rambam, his opinions can not be normative in rabbinic Judaism. It is as simple as that. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Debresser I am going to leave Rabbi Shmarya Rosenberg Shlit"a for now. Regarding Daat Emet, my brother I know, that you know, that I know that you are aware of that Yaron Yadan was not a rabbi and the head of a Yeshiva for Jews in Antarctica, but in the Holy land, and above that, he has people still being rabbis, tied to the organization. See the members of the editorial board http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=119, so stop this questioning of whether Daat Emet has competence on Jewish matters. They have it and I know that you know it. My brother the truth about the Halakhot towards gentiles are going to come out, whether you like it or not. My love towards Judaism and the Jewish people will not allow you to stop it. What we want is to release this truth in a controlled manner, that is we should control the release, the people should learn about it from us, and not from some antisemites who are blowing things out of proportions. The things people hate most of all are cover-ups and reactions to these usually become violent if antisemties are handling the release. We don't want that risk. I don't like taking risks. You certainly don't need that people find out about the Halakhot in a way that is not prepared and controlled. Rabbinic Judaism doesn't need these supremacist lethal Halakhot. Work together with me instead, and help me write this text according to my layout, which I've explained above, or if you have a better outline for releasing the information in a controlled manner, let's discuss it. Will you cooperate, do you have uncensored sources and can you translate? Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Amalek. Even if the expertise of Daat Emet is not the issue, their neutral point of view certainly is, as I said above.
 * I am always willing to work together with other editors to improve articles on Wikipedia, especially in the area of Judaism. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Explanation about ownership behavior
I'll explain what I mean by ownership behavior.


 * Editor A places on a tag in an article calling for discussion. Less than two hours later, Editor-owner removes the tag and comments "Agreed, but some background is allowed." Editor-owner has made an arbitrary decision that the disagreement is settled before the tag has been on the article for even a single day. No other editor has had any more two hours to discover the disagreement before the Editor-owner has determined that his own decision is final without consensus or the opportunity for discussion. Editor-owner should not remove the tag before giving Editor A and others the opportunity to express their thoughts.
 * Three hours later, Editor-owner comments "Why would I want to own an article about Ramadan of all things? 2/ You [Editor A] still didn't discuss this on the talkpage." And yet two hours before that, Editor-owner entered two remarks in the Ramadan talkpage comments that say "Reply to Editor A". Still haven't commented? - less than a half a day later? Please, Editor-owner, give Editor A and everyone else a chance to live our lives! Again, Editor-owner made an arbitrary decision without consensus, or allowing other editors any reasonable opportunity for discussion.
 * IP Editor B, one who is inexperienced, removes an outrageous assertion claiming that Ramadan has its origin in pagan festivals dating back to Egypt, Greece, etc. IP Editor B says one of the references is not only suspect but blatantly invalid. There remains a second reference with undetermined validity. Editor-owner inserts himself into the dispute and determines, without sufficient knowledge of the second reference, that there is a rule that the second reference is valid until disproven. IP Editor B (newcomer) is flummoxed. IP Editor B adds a section to the top of the Ramadan talkpage, that explains his position at 03:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC). Editor A invites Editor-owner to the discussion. But Editor-owner has already decided the outcome of the dispute and bites the newcomer. Here's the kicker. The same day that IP Editor B commented on the Ramada talkpage; Editor C refuted the second reference at 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC). Editor-owner entered the discussion and said, "Even though the source disagrees, that does not mean those 3 don't have that point of view, and it is therefore sourced reliably now," and later "After considering this again, I agree with you regarding the Ashura and will restore your removal of that paragraph." Is Editor-owner the final arbiter of what is or is not reliably sourced in the Ramadan article? Newcomer IP Editor B, as it turns out, was correct and Editor-owner's determination that the second reference was reliable was incorrect and arbitrary. If Editor-owner had waited, less than a day, until the dispute process had a chance to work, he would avoided a nasty dispute with a newcomer, and the removal of the outrageous assertion about pagan festivals would have been credited to the newcomer as it should have been.


 * An editor-owner does not allowing others the chance to make contributions before he makes arbitrary decisions by his own determination and without consensus. An editor-owner makes decisions and states opinions in revert comments, rather than assuming good faith and allowing other editors to have their say.


 * Please allow other editors to state their position before you make unilateral decisions.
 * Please assume good faith when an editor makes a bold change and gives a plausible reason before reverting or making arbitrary determinations.
 * Please let the dispute resolution process to run its course. Most times, one must wait several days to allow other editors the opportunity to comment. Give other editors a chance to reply before you jump in and revert!

Mtd2006 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I deny the WP:OWN accusation. As you can see, I am active on the talkpage of that article, while you refuse to post there about this issue, even though per WP:BRD (which is a continuation of WP:BOLD you mentioned) the onus of proof is on you. That is unnecessary stubbornness, leading to this edit war.
 * By the way, this tag has a discuss parameter not for esthetic purposes, but for it to be used. In general, tagging without opening a discussion is called "drive-by tagging" and is not universally appreciated on Wikipedia, see WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your personal opinion; you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
 * I joined an existing discussion concerning the Origins section. On 23:38, 2015 May 28, I agreed with Fauzan who said, "I think that section should be removed." You assert that I "refuse to post there about this issue, even though per WP:BRD (which is a continuation of WP:BOLD you mentioned) the onus of proof is on you. That is unnecessary stubbornness, leading to this edit war." Your statement is patent nonsense. I added my tag at 04:55, 2015 June 1, and included a reason option that stated my rationale. I added a second comment on 06:57, 2015 June 1, that repeated that "I propose that the Origins section be removed," and I stated in part,
 * In the pre-Islamic calendar, the name of the month was Nātiq, and prior to Islam's prohibition of nasi', it always occurred in the warm season," is off-topic and contributes nothing to explain the origin of the religious observances during the month of Ramadan.
 * After my second comment, you replied with edit comments "Reply to Mtd2006" on 07:21, 2015 June 1 and 07:22, 2015 June 1. That sequence of events is not in any sense a refusal to post. I expect that when editors say that a section should be removed, it's clear that we mean all of the included material.
 * Regarding edit wars, I observe that the first to revert is, by sequence of events, also the first to violate the three-revert-rule.
 * Neither I nor others are required to meet your deadlines to add comments. Editors may have many reasons for not adding comments promptly, including, for example, a death in one's family, a medical appointment, vehicle maintenance, illness, hunger, thirst, the need for sleep, the call of nature, and performing research needed to make an intelligent contribution to a discussion. You cannot expect that every other editor is in your time zone. Some editors can contribute only during weekends. To be fair to everyone, it's necessary to allow for these possibilities. You are not unreasonable, but too frequently, you make unilateral decisions before allowing other editors the chance to contribute.
 * It seems that you care deeply about each sentence and every individual reference in the Origins section. If others are to disagree, it becomes necessary for us to be prepared to overcome your convictions on a sentence-by-sentence, reference-by-reference basis.
 * Finally, I observe that regarding the pre-Isalmic calendar statement, you have said, "You have convinced me. Not that I think it is not good to have it, but at least in so far as to not oppose its removal." Now, two editors, you and I, agree. It's not a clear consensus; it would be helpful if other editors are allowed an opportunity to agree or disagree before my tag is removed and a decision is made final. Mtd2006 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I noticed that you were no less hasty reverting me, than I was reverting you, calls of nature notwithstanding. :) I really think that editors should abide by WP:BRD, which I think is one of the most important guidelines in Wikipedia to help advert edit wars.
 * We'll talk about the issues themselves on the talkpage. Thank you for posting here. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

3RR at Ramadan
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * You appear to have broken the WP:3RR rule. Within a period of 5 minutes you made 5 reverts, , , , , including 3 times reverting me, and 2 times reverting Scientus. Khestwol (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Multiple reverts instead of one big revert is basically one revert. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Khestwol, next time please sign your posts. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:RSN for The Palestine Post
FYI: Reliable sources/Noticeboard (7 June 2015) --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am actually unpleasantly surprised that Huldra didn't notify me himself. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And I am *extremly* unpleasantly surprised to be referred to as *him*, ..as I since I started editing here, nearly 10 years ago, has made it clear that I am female. (See my user-page. And no male in the world would name themselves after Huldra, anyway. (Horrible article, by the way))
 * As for the Noticeboard: one is not obliged to inform *any* editor when one raise an issue at that noticeboard; undoubtedly, if I had raised it on to talk-page of an editor with a different view from yours, "someone" would have seen that as "canvassing".
 * As for the issue itself: I will return to that. NB: I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration Huldra (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, all editors on Wikipedia are male, by way of convention, because there is no way of knowing and some. Now that you mentioned it, I'll try to make an effort to refer to you as female, but frankly, don't even pay attention to it.
 * Since I am your direct opponent in the issue of the Palestine Post, as you are well aware, it would have been a matter of courtesy to let me know about the post. Not as an obligation, just out of courtesy. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Shabbos
I actually ran across that bit a while back when someone tried to add it to the article Jewish holidays. (You'll recall I spent a lot of time on that article at one point.) I got rid of it there, because I thought it was entirely irrelevant there. But I was very careful to document where someone could go to find it if s/he was interested. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the spelling of the word, Shabbat or Sabbath (like in this edit)? or to the stress in the Yiddish pronunciation of Shabbos (like in this edit? Debresser (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to the analogy I drew between Ramadan and Shabbat on AN/I during your little kerfuffle on Ramadan. Not important at this point. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Zalman Shazar's name
If you must know, Zalman Shazar's name is spelled differently in Belarusian and Russian -User:CalicoCatLover 11 June 2015 10:33 AM (PST)
 * 1. What are your sources? 2. Different spelling in one thing, but those are different names altogether! You do read Russian, don't you? Debresser (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess not. -User:CalicoCatLover 16 June 2015 18:50 PM (PST)
 * Then I'll remove that from the article. Debresser (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yiddish
We worked well together on the Ashkenazi article. I found your judgement precise and informed. Yiddish language is related. There are lots of things that need a knowledgeable eye there, your's would be appreciated. I'm thinking that one should describe it with an awareness that opinions differ.


 * Max Weinreich:Loez Jews arrive in Rhine speaking Judeo-Romance language and that spreads out as they take in Middle High German (his Loters are Bnei Hes
 * Dovid Katz Aramaic speaking Jews settle in Ravensburg which becomes the cradle of the language.(Danube) Bnei Ches.
 * Alexander Beider, Western and Eastern Yiddish don’t have a common origin. For Beider, Western Yiddish wasn’t fused from the start with Yiddish
 * Paul Wexler (the predominant, eastern) Yiddish is Slavic
 * Manaster Ramer. Roman Jews in the north adopted and mastered the German of the tribes that invaded the area, then spread eastwards (variant of Weinreich)
 * Source: Batya Ungar-Sargon,

Mystery of the Origins of Yiddish Will Never Be Solved Tablet magazine 23 June 2014
 * Forget it if it's a bother. But with your linguistic background, . .  Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like how we can present uncertainties as such, and add strengths/weaknesses of theories and let reader ruminate on all this rather than presenting assumptions as hard facts. The article on Yiddish language has 37 kb of prose, so could easily be 25% bigger without crossing the 50 kb threshold where someone will begin nagging to chop up the article. Interesting topic. (Leo Rosten warrants more than one line??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with this subject. I find the theory that eastern Yiddish is a Slavic language counter-intuitive. I'll try and find some time in the next day or 10. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sufficient you keep your eyes on the page, without feeling you must duck in. I personally have no idea what the origin is. I only think all theories should be represented proportionately, irrespective of their merits. Like Old Chinese, theories flourish and yet editors insist that there is only one POV among several. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, are these what you had in mind? I hope I didn't step on any toes. :) Debresser (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. It's not anyone's private domain. I remembered the way you neatly ironed out the Ashkenazi lead definition as editors talked past one another, proof that you can see through both sides and arrive at a commonsensical solution. The lead sentence is just wrong, as I noted on the page, because, (a) as written it implies the Slavic fusion occurred in the 9th century (b)The best succinct survey of the variuous theories of origins I know off is Neil G. Jacobs, Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction, pp.4ff-21., and I think our lead should reflect the theoretical distinctions, and not, as it does, just argue that Max Weinreich's thesis is basically right (it is majoritarian, however). If you can 'throw a slow shufti' over those introductory theory-survey pages, I reckon you can, without haste, come up with something that reflects this complexity. I'm not going to worry the page, in any case. All I want is a competent linguistically sophisticated, preferably Jewish, scholar or editor to look after it and see that it reflects scholarship, rather than polemics. The point that Germanists think of divergence (lapsed German) whereas Yiddish scholars, while disagreeing on the details, highlight convergence, (p.11 I think) is an important point for navigating these approaches. Best Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this
Hi something has come to my attention that you should probably know about since you were involved with these editors on Halacha on gentiles here and on the talk page. One of them outed himself as Michael A. Hoffman II and called the other his Swedish colleague. They showed up in a google search on Halacha.

contribs and contribs

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/

Jonney2000 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should inform other editors on WT:JUDAISM. It should be done in such a way that would aboid obvious problems with WP:OUTING. If you agree, I'd be happy to do that. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where and how did Hoffman out himself? Debresser (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Debresser and  Jonney2000. Hoffman posted my e-mail communication with Wikipedia, where he :: was on co-hearing, and asked me immediately if I wanted it taken down. I declined, because I did not think there was a problem,
 * usernames being anonymous.
 * If you feel it is a violation, I can just mail my good friend Hoffman, to take it down.
 * Hoffman believes that some sensitive subjects are hi-jacked and censored by editors with an agenda, that's why he is so Anti-Wikipedia.
 * Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Amalek. I see no problem with the posting of some Wikipedia materials on Hoffman's blog.
 * Yes, it is obvious that Hoffman is worried about censoring on Wikipedia. Another conspiracy theory, by the way.
 * I am more worried about editors with such strong POVs editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish there had been a more private way to contact you.Jonney2000 (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know all of wikis rules but I would not object to WT:JUDAISM Jonney2000 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a more private way. My email is listed on my user page. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Reason for revert
What was the purpose of reverting my edit on Cyrus II? warrior 4321   12:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Apart from annoying you, you mean? :) Well, for starters, I don't think the removal of the etymology section was a good idea without any prior discussion. Regarding the cleanup, you completely removed the first paragraph mentioning Herodotus, again without prior discussion. By the way, you also removed a nice picture and introduced capitals in headers.
 * I would like to see a very good reason to remove the etymology, and were you would move it to. The cleanup in itself is not a bad idea. And the minor points need some attention. All in all, nothing that can't be worked out easily and quickly, I think. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The removal of the etymology section might have been hasty but why the revert on the cleanup? The only real information from that paragraph was the other version of Cyrus where he works in a median court. Why wouldn't you just add that line and the image back in rather than revert the entire edit? warrior4321 <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#CD7F32">✆  talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#CD7F32">✉ mail  14:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put in the section about Cyrus working in the median court along with a couple more references, let me know what you think about it. I've also started a discussion regarding the etymology section on the talk page. warrior4321 <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#CD7F32">✆  talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#CD7F32">✉ mail  20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this in stride. See you on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I need a timeout
I think I am done with Wikipedia for a while. Too much drama Cheerers.Jonney2000 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a known problem. Especially as a Jewish editor on some Islam-related articles, I get a lot of criticism, I noticed. I am not afraid to revert a bad edit summarily, which does not make me popular. You just have to do what is right. But yes, there are too many edit warriors lately, which is a bit tiring sometimes. Have a nice break. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your recent edit about user "rms125a@hotmail.com" aka Robert aka "Quis separabit?"

Much appreciated for pointing out that he is deleting from sections where deletion is not merited. He has been warned by others on his talk page and apparently has a history and has even admitted to "deletionist tendencies"

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.111.148 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's always my pleasure to make this project just a little better. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Jewish American/-American
Thanks for adding the hyphen, but now that category is the only one in the Jewish American literature tree to use it. Do you plan on renaming the entire tree? Thanks, Aristophanes  68   (talk)  19:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. :) But it should be done. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Political agenda
Thank you for your highly appropriate warning here. The misbehavior has been continuing. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. If he continues, he should be blocked. Just that we usually don't block IPs for more than 3 months, if I understand correctly. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was ready to invoke WP:AIV, but knew there was some such limitation, and hoped you had a stronger remedy up your sleeve. This is all moot for now, as within minutes of my level 4 warning the vandalism ceased – the important thing. Cheers. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, as I've worked w/you before and I noticed that you reverted some of this person's vandalism incidents, I thought I'd direct your attention to the warnings I posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.151.119.182#July_2015

כל טוב

MosheEmes (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my eyes open, thanks. Apart from reverting his vandalism, there isn't much I can do, since I am not an admin. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Malach
I don't think you understood what I did, and I don't think you looked over the result. There was no change visible to the page. The only change was to make it possible to share a bit of text between The Malach article and the Malachim article. I'm going to put it back again; please use page history and check out both versons to see that what I'm saying is true. If you still have an issue with it, please discuss before reverting again, and you will be affecting two pages.
 * I understand the workings of these tags very well, thank you. Nevertheless, you're right that I missed something. Thanks for posting here. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring others' comments
Per WP:TALK, please do not refactor other people's comments however odious or objectionable they may sound to you. You are free to raise it with or start an RFC. JFW &#124; T@lk  08:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is an obvious attack (WP:NPA), it can be removed per that same WP:TALK ("Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism"). And that post was a vicious attack by an author who makes such attacks for years already, and I was perfectly within my rights to remove it. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWN reminder
This edit with the edit summary "I created and wrote the whole article" just says: WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying I own the article. But you left an edit summary reverting saying that I made a mess of the article and the sources (which I'd added). The earlier editor had made a mess by deleting references for no reason. Avaya1 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edits were fine. I just wanted to drop you a friendly reminder about WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent message
It would be nice if you would assume good faith, refrain form aggressive behavior, and avoid foul language when addressing other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In your case, you make bad edits all around. Good faith has nothing to do with it. I don't remember what language I used, but I am fed up with your constant bad level of editing and you thinking on the other hand that you're the best editor around. Debresser (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I checked it and it turns out I called you a "prick". Well... You are so full of yourself, and so sure your edits are Gods gift to Wikipedia... I hope you understand why I consider you a prick. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You violated the wp:1RR
- You violated the wp:1RR. Please undo yourself.<P> - Moreover, you are out of the consensus. Ykantor (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a 1RR rule on that page, but since the issue is a technical one, related to how to represent sources in a citation template, and has nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict, you are just trying to use that rule to push through your opinion, which is not something I am willing to stand for. That is called WP:Wikilawyering.
 * As to the actual issue, 1. we do not, and I repeat, we simply do not, put page number in the actual quote. That is not how citation templates are used. 2. The specific quote is three fragments from different pages, whose context and connection can not be understood, followed by a whole sentence from one page, which has some meaning, and which I therefore left. I simply improved the reference. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

DS Alert
Note that the 1RR restriction does not distinguish between types of reverts. If a page "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", which undoubtedly is the case with David Ben-Gurion, then any edit on that page must respect WP:1RR. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That disregard for the distinction between different types of edit is stupid, and per WP:IAR should be ignored. Please refrain from trying to convince me of the opposite. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for arbitration enforcement
-There is an enforcement request concerning you at WP:AE.<P> - You have been asked twice to revert yourself as you breached the wp:1RR rule, but you ignored it. <P> - A civilized person can express his criticism in the talk page before the taking extreme step of reverting it again.<P> - Moreover, you are out of the consensus. Ykantor (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you broke the WP:1RR at David Ben-Gurion. There may still be time for you to respond at WP:AE. For example, you could offer to abstain from the article and its talk page for one month to avoid a block. An admin reviewing your record can see that you've previously been blocked seven times. This should make you exercise extra caution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I'll respond forthwith. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, 7 times in 7 years. I think, none recently. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your arguments that you think that there should be a 1RR exception for cases like this, but I doubt anyone else feels that it safe.
 * Regardless of that line of discussion, you did admit to an error and agreed not to do it again, correct? Can you make a clarifying statement to that effect?  The back and forth is distracting.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said specifically that I hadn't paid attention to the edit restriction on the page. As soon as I was reminded, I desisted, complying with it. I have no intention of deliberately ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to the contrary. What do you mean "the back and forth". Debresser (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring Cyrus
What exactly is your contention over this edit? You haven't stated any relevant reason why you're reverting besides simply claiming that you're the consensus. The article claims that Cyrus was the only non-Jew to be called Messiah (or anointed one), but the source cited in support of the claim doesn't say that. Rather Cyrus was the only non-Jew to be called Yahweh's Messiah (or anointed one). There is a vital difference. The cited source goes on to point out that others have been called Messiah, including the Aramean king Hazel (who was non-Jew). But Cyrus is still the only non-Jew to be specifically referred to as Yahweh's Messiah. For us to say in the article that Cyrus was the only non-Jew to be called Messiah is incorrect and unsupported by the cited source. In which case the passage will have to get tag because the cited source doesn't support it. EyeTruth (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the correct place to establish consensus is the article's talkpage, not my talkpage.
 * Consensus can also be shown by a certain versus standing unchallenged for a certain period of time.
 * Do not edit war without showing consensus. You risk being blocked...
 * Even though I think this discussion should take place on the article's talkpage, I can already tel you that my main argument is that the source adds to the original text it discusses. It is this incorrect synthesis by the source, which you try to implement. I don't think the source is reliable enough to rely on its synthesis. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Talking of editwarring, you just broke the WP:3RR with your last reversion, but coming at it from that perspective is the least of my interest at the moment. I'm here to understand your rationale for the reversions. So your point is basically that since the source is unreliable, we cannot use what it actually says, but at the same time we will retain it as a citation for a passage it doesn't support, nor are we going to rewrite the passage to match what the source actually says. Anyways, it's interesting that you keep describing yourself as "consensus". I've started a discussion at the article's talkpage. EyeTruth (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you re-read WP:3RR you'll see that 3 reverts is allowed, more than 3 isn't.
 * I'll be happy to go to the talkpage. Per WP:BRD that is what you should have done right away. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You actually did break WP:3RR. You carried out 4 reversions (even with counting the one you did in two steps as one): 1, 2, 3, 4. But seriously, let's put this behind us. I'm more interested in getting that passage to be lucidly verifiable, than arguing about editwarring. It's why I tagged the passage with cns tag in the first place about a month ago. EyeTruth (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right. Miscounted. I'm sorry. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Two items
1. ?חברי, הלשון "פּריק" לא קדש השם, נכון 'Nuff said.

2. Have a look at Shemini Atzeret. I'm never going back to GA, because I think that's a losing battle. But do you think that we can at least restore it to B-class now? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It's not a matter of kidush Hashem. It's a matter of being one or not. I could tell you a nice story about this.
 * 2) It's a nice article. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but I try to get my kids not to do that even if it is deserved. Sometimes I even succeed.
 * Thanks. Based on that comment would you mind changing the rating to B-class on the talk page? C-class happened after the non-Jewish GA reviewers chewed through it. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Debresser (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Undo's on revisions to the page on Chabad
I would like to address the points you wrote in the change explanation of a recent reversal of a recent revision I had done.

You wrote: "1. You can't say present." If Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is no longer the leader as is implied by your previous revision, reverting the change of his leadership years (1902–Present) back to (1902–1994). Then who is the current leader of the group? This is not a statement on his physical life as his birth year is not 1902, but rather the period of his reign as the leader of the group. Being that even after June 12, 1994 (3 Tammuz 5754) he is still considered by the group as a whole as the leader and there has been no legitimately accepted new leader since to say under "leadership" Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–Present) is the facts.

You wrote: "2. It is not the whole group. " Define who is a member of the group. To be a member of a group and this does specifically apply to the ultra orthodox hasidic international group which is known as "Chabad". Just identifying oneself as being a member does not automatically mean they must be included when speaking about the groups opinions and beliefs. The Chabad structure is setup that the leader the "Rebbe" is the single leader who decides how its run, where its goals will lie and define what the group essentially is. Even more then 20 years after June 12, 1994 (3 Tammuz 5754) the group still uses his teaching, talks and written documents to lead their lives and shape their future. No one has assumed the mantle of leader let alone "Rebbe" which would have been the case as was in the past when the leadership changed. Finally anyone who associates as "Chabad" yet makes the claim that the "Rebbe" is no longer the current leader of the group is not bringing a valid opinion that he is not the leader. You cannot attribute to the people who denounce the basic tenet of the groups foundation as the basis for the current structure of the group. Even the current people who publicly shape the group such as Rabbi Krinsky who currently is the Chairman of Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch and Machneh Israel and director of the Kehot Publication Society and was even named sole executor of Rabbi Schneerson's will. Leading tot he fact that today, Krinsky is among the most influential figures within the Chabad movement. (All this information about krinsky is pulled directly from the page on Rabbi Krinsky). Even he has not dared assume the mantle of leader/rebbe for chabad and acknowledges Rabbi Schneerson's leadership to this day. Listening and watching every address from leaders in the Chabad movement will always refer to Rabbi Schneerson and his directives. Even if one wishes to make the point that merely identifying oneself as a member of "Chabad" is enough to label oneself a true member. Nevertheless that does not grant one the power to make claims to change what the group is and who leads it. For example can a soldier in the United States army say "The current President is not my Commander-in-chief"? That declaration does not remove the title of Commander-in-chief from President's office, anymore then that statement also does not remove the soldier form being a art of the organization called the army to which he has submitted himself to.

Howdy770 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Howdy770


 * 1) There is no leader of Chabad at present. That is a fact.
 * 2) There is a large segment of Chabad who consider the Rebbe to still be the (spiritual or material) leader of the group. But not more than a large segment, not the whole group. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson
I wanted to discuss the reasons behind the content that you reverted in your edit. I have altered the Wikilinkage to provide a direct-link to the Wikipedia "Old Style/New Style" article's section explaining how to calculate dates in the two different style, hopefully that will keep other editors from possibly being confused. I also restored the cite web on that one reference to bring that citation into the reference style generally used throughout the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Heilman & Friedman state on Page 66 of their book "The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson" why two different birth years (1895 & 1902) are mentioned in various government documents along with reasons why. Your edit summary states "All this is already explained here".  The different birthyears are mentioned in the "Note" along with assertions that the information differs in government documents but no cited sources are included to back up any of these claims.  Some reference pointing to Page 66 of Heilman/Friedman really should be included.
 * Heilman & Friedman also state that the Rebbe's birthdate was April 18th (see page 66) without mentioning whether or not they are using Old-Style[OS] or New-Style[NS], I was citing that information and reference per WP:VERIFY.
 * I think there was no need to make that link more specific, but thanks anyways. Debresser (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, until I read up on it I didn't realize that a very particular form of Old Style was in use in Russia until 1918, so I wanted to make it clear to anyone who clicked on that link. I am still troubled by the presently-unsourced claim of
 * The accepted date is April 5, 1902 (Old Style). However, government documents, including his Russian passport, his application for French citizenship, his application for a U.S. visa, and his U.S. World War Two draft registration all indicate he was born in March 1895.
 * That statement looks like a reference when reading through the article but as of now it is merely an unsourced assertion and should be referenced in some fashion. Including a short note mentioning Heilman & Friedman's book would do that, here's a direct link to page 66.  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a footnote, rather than a reference. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it is part of the article and should be referenced - I don't think footnotes are exempt... I'll try out some various solutions, maybe nested references with magic words or adding a separate Notes section. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that book would be a good reference. By the way, just from reading two pages of it, I already found some mistakes. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, a generally-accepted reference would be better than none I think. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement, in general terms. I thank you for coming to my talkpage to discuss this with me. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)