User talk:Debresser/Archive 9

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

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

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


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

Adding Lubavitcher Rebbe to American Jews Info box
Right now on Talk:American_Jews there is a debate about if the Lubavitcher Rebbe should be added to the info box for American Jews. I think that you could probably contribute to this discussion more than I, as you are more experienced wikipeidia editor. yisraeldov (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:More plot
Template:More plot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorverse categories
Regarding these:

After a long and painstaking process of cruft consolidation, we have exactly four articles covering fictional material on this subject:


 * 1) List of locations in the Honorverse
 * 2) List of organizations in the Honorverse
 * 3) List of alien species in the Honorverse
 * 4) List of Honorverse characters

We used to have numerous subcategories for both characters and listed, but they were deleted at CfD as excessive subcategorisation of fictional material in these TfDs:


 * 1) Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 5
 * 2) Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 10

At the same time, almost all of the redirects were uncategorised. There is no justification for categorising every redirect: these are, by and large, minor plot points in an expansive work of fiction, and as the material is so closely consolidated there is no need for an additional navigation system outside of the list articles themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you. In the situation before the merges, the redirects were categorised correctly, in my opinion, as per the policy I quoted, but now that all these have been merged, I agree that there is no need to have a category with so many redirects. I shall undo my edits. Debresser (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohel (Chabad)
Hi, could you take a look at what's going on at the end of this article? Are there any specific references to kohanim at the Ohel? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for clarifying this. I had no idea what a "kohen box" was. Now that I knew what to look for, I found a reference for it. Thanks again! Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy to have been able to help. And even more happy, that it is now referenced. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus debates
Hi Debresser: There is still much discussion about what the article about what The Exodus should be. If you are able, please see the discussions at Talk:The Exodus and Talk:The Exodus. There is an important need for editors knowledgeable about Judaism's and classical Torah views on this subject. Most of the discussions lack this and would benefit from your knowledge and input in this regard. Thanks! IZAK (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you fir your implicit praise. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I just got married, and am very unavailable. :) Debresser (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mazal tov. May you build a "bayit ne'eman b'yisrael"!  StevenJ81 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

David Ricardo article
Hello Debresser,

Could you please take a look at the Article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo?

I had intended to fix the Date of Birth in the box to match the correct one in the main Article, and somewhow messed up the whole thing.

Thanks, Michael David (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! Amazing! I seems to have gotten fixed in the time it took me to write the message request to you. Michael David (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy to hear that. You wrote me on the day of my wedding, so there was no chance I could have helped you. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Marvelous! My very best wishes to you both! Michael David (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Debresser/What more's up?
Mazel tov! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Her name is Miriam Levin, from Minsk (originally, nowadays Beitar Illit). Debresser (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

 * Thank you, that was nice! Debresser (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

 * Thanks for the invitation. I will definitely take part in the survey. I hope it will allow me to express sufficiently that I think dispute solution on Wikipedia is working frustratingly poorly. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Reversions
Regarding, please see Restoring part of a reverted edit. --Chealer (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to litter my talkpage with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I am well aware of. Btw, check WP:BRD yourself. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unjustified reversions
Hi Debresser, regarding, please see REVEXP. Regarding your comment "In essence, this editor is trying to cast doubt onto the obvious.", please see Comment_on_content,_not_on_the_contributor. Note that "BRD" is merely an essay. The spirit of BRD is discussion. A prerequisite to discussion is information - each side's position in this case. --Chealer (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You give no arguments yourself, just post policies on my talkpage (which irritates me to no end). And, FYI, BRD is very much a guideline you are supposed to follow. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We are discussing your behavior here. If you think my behavior was inappropriate, you are welcome on my talk page to explain why you think so. This is valid with everyone, and not only on Wikipedia; if you think someone is going in the wrong direction, don't push in the opposite direction, tell them why you think they're wrong.
 * BRD is not a guideline, as explained in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages." --Chealer (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't I already inform you that you need not point me to policies and guidelines. I know what they say. I have been here for five years. You are insulting me. And your behavior is not up to standard, so please do not hide behind the fact that BRD is "only" a guideline. Debresser (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No. In any case, again, BRD is not a guideline, as the first sentence on BOLD, revert, discuss cycle explains: "While [ BOLD, revert, discuss cycle ] is not a [...] guideline [...]" (emphasis mine). Again, we are discussing your behavior here. If you think my behavior was inappropriate, you are welcome on my talk page to explain why. --Chealer (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to discuss only my behavior here. Are you making up that rule? In any case, I think you are littering my talkpage with incorrect statements. Please be so kind to keep all discussion to the point and on the talkpage of the template. Thank you for not disturbing me here. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a rule. What I'm saying is that this topic is about your behavior. If you want to discuss a different topic, such as my behavior, it's better to do that in a new topic. For a topic about my behavior, my talk page would be the best place. If I make incorrect statements, please say so. Thank you --Chealer (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What you consider to be not the best place, is good enough for me. And also, didn't I ask you not to post any more silly comments on my talkpage? You know that there is a guideline about that also? Debresser (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Erlau (Hasidic dynasty)
Hi, I was just wondering why you lowercased "Rabbi" in front of everyone's names? Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the way it has to be in English, see Mos. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:JOBTITLES says. You don't write "president Obama", but "President Obama". On second mention, you say "Obama is the president of the United States". Yoninah (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see that guideline more closely. There is a number of further stipulations there when a capital should be used. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. This seems to be what's pertinent to our discussion:
 * "When followed by a person's name, when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon."
 * Honestly, I don't know why you all of a sudden decided to change Rabbi X to lowercase when it is a given grammatical construction in every book, newspaper and magazine in the world. Does that mean you're going to lowercase rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson in every Chabad article? I think not. I'd like to reinstate the capital R in the Erlau article now. Yoninah (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done that more than once. And please, do not get personal. 17:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a look at a few more articles her on Wikipedia, and they used a capital "R". So I'll take this to WT:JUDAISM, and we'll do whatever they decide there. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From the first three reaction over there, I would say consensus seems to be that "Rabbi" should be capitalized. If you want I can do this myself. Just please do not simply revert my edits, because they did other good things as well. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both based on WP:JOBTITLES and on what I learned in junior high school, Rabbi is capitalized when followed by a last name, specifying an individual. (After all, even Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss is/are capitalized.)  StevenJ81 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Adin Steinsaltz not Adin Shteinsaltz
User_talk:68.237.35.133. --68.237.35.133 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As they say in Russia, "Fuck you" is written with "ck" or "just a "k"? Debresser (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Items to be merged
Your comments would be welcome about this edit, which I've raised a comment about on the category talk page. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I indeed have a clear opinion about this issue, which I was happy to lay out for the readers of that discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Shiva Rose
Well, first of all, the intro said something not totally correct, which is that she was born to a Persian-American family. This was contradicted by the more accurate statement under early life that her ancestry was both Persian and Irish. Second of all, I don't know, is her being of half Persian ancestry related to her notable activities? In what is probably her best known film, David & Layla, she played a Kurdish immigrant, not a Persian. If she had played a Persian, would that make it notable to her activities? I don't know. Her co-star, David Moscow, played a Jewish character in the same movie. If we could confirm that he is Jewish to whichever degree in real life (and I'm sure I could look it up), would we put that in the intro of David Moscow's article?
 * Basically, a lot of questions! All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Kurdish. Anyway, I was just raising the question, because there is something to be said for it, but I also had these and other questions. So I decided to ask your opinion. Debresser (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, David Moscow: Jewish father, LDS (Mormon) mother! (in case you were curious). Obits of his maternal grandparents (well, grandfather and step-grandmother) are here and here. How interesting! Now, I wonder if I can find a genealogical connection between Moscow and Mitt Romney, as I did between Zach Braff and Romney? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that info should be added to his article. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would if I could. But I can't find a source that discusses his religious heritage explicitly (only an article from 1992 that mentions that "Harry and Susan Sterner of Murray went to LA recently so their 17-year-old grandson, David Moscow, would have adult supervision while starring in the movie"...) [as we know, David Moscow is actually Susan Sterner's step-grandson] ... Otherwise, I got his Jewish paternal grandparents' names from GenI and his LDS maternal grandparents' names from those obituaries. That would probably constitute original research, accurate, but original. I wonder, did his mother convert to Judaism, or was he raised LDS (in New York?) or raised a nothing. I don't have access to conversion certificates so that will probably remain a mystery, at least for now. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wouldn't could it "religious heritage". Judaism is as much an ethnicity as it is a religion. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. Ashkenazi Jews are one of the most homogeneous ethnic groups. On that note, it's funny, I've heard Mormons referred to as an "ethnic group", which I found very strange, although Jon Huntsman, Jr. and Mitt Romney share some very recent ancestry. I've also heard people referred to as "ethnic Catholics", which was weird - don't think that can be backed up. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mormons might, given a thousand years, turn into an ethnicity. An interesting thing, to consider such time spans. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they will. As a generalization, of course, Mormons like to marry non-Mormons way too much (and then convert them to Mormonism). A reason why perhaps a majority of American LDS have Scandinavian ancestry (i.e. Amy Adams or Jon Huntsman) is that so many Mormon missionaries went to those countries to bring over converts (Adams' family tree is such a great visual illustration of this - all these people being born in Norway, Denmark, and England, and dying in Utah). It's a very proselytizing religion. Romney and Huntsman are married to converts for a reason. (of course, American Judaism is going much in the same direction these days). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Prod2 template
Hi, When I use the prod2 template (see International Journal of Databases for an example) it produces "[[Category:]]" just below it. I see that you edited the template yesterday, so I guess something went wrong. I don't know anything about template syntax, so I didn't even dare to revert your last edit... :-) Could you have a look at this? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for reporting the issue to me. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Pott's" not Pott Disease
Hello, again. How do you go about changing the main title of a article? Here's the one I'm speaking of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pott_disease

It's spelled correctly in the main body of the Article, but the Article's Title is wrong.

Thanks, Michael David (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see in this article that it is spelled "Pott disease", so I'd say: first establish consensus that the spelling is as you claim, and then ask me again to do the move for you. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just one of several medical dictionary entries for Pott's Disease: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=19051


 * Michael David (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:X4/doc


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I used that page for some sophisticated template functionality testing. See Template talk:Ambox. You may delete it now if you like. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Discussions on Elazar Shach talk page
Hi,

There have been some recent discussions on the Elazar Shach discussion page:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach)

"Links to Speeches and Letters of Shach"

"Adin Steinsaltz"

"Relationship with R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinski"

I'd appreciate your input, if possible,

Thanks,

Yonoson3 (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Kehuna
I noted you reverted one of Marecheth_Ho'eElohuth's edits here. here. What is your take on the duplication between articles to wp and own website http://kehuna.org/mitzvah-to-kohanim-to-sound-silver-trumpets/ - complete with links to website and appeal for donations. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert him, just improved a little. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the business website? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether that is his website. If he is not spaming, and the site is considered a reliable source, then it should be ok, even if he is connected somehow to the site. Otherwise (spaming, not a reliable source) it would be a problem. Debresser (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well a bot tagged two of his (meaning Kehuna, the new User name) as conflict of interest, after looking at the duplicate content of the silver trumpets article Kehuna created on wp with the website, and the $1,200 for a silver trumpet I left a message on the Kehuna user page. It would be good if someone spoke to him before someone official does. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

76.66.210.60 on Elazar Shach discussion page
Hi,

Check out the contributions of 76.66.210.60 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.66.210.60

I think his language has gone overboard. What do you think? Should he be banned from Wikipedia?

Yonoson3 (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like the way he is ranting, and he might have phrased things more respectfully. But I do not think that is reason to ban him from Wikipedia. And he does have a point about Shach being a controversial rabbi. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Just clicking on my name in the blue box will take you straight to my reply to your posting last night. Thank you, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your edit summary this morning. Good editing!  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You too! :)
 * Templates? I am confused.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Payess?
I noticed on Gareth's page you said something to him about your knowledge of Jewish law or custom. My edit of the Annie Hall page introduced the word 'payess' to the article in reference to the ear locks that Woody wears at one point. I'm not certain this is right term. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See Payot for various spellings, and an explanation of the practice. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hymns
Because a hymn is by definition religious. A "religious hymn" is redundant.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See hymn that only usually religious. So not always. So I suggest to revert those edits. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Noach
Thanks for participating in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha). I appreciate your input. --Dauster (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Spacing in headings
It's become such a natural part of what I do that I hardly notice I do it anymore. It may be required by Wikipedia standards, but I see plenty of pages which don't have spacing at all. I don't think it necessarily adds clarity, but that's not why I do it; it's just a stylistic decision.  Ss 112  14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your polite feedback on how to go about amending pages regarding religion. It should be noted that, I had no intentions of presumption in thinking that I, myself, am capable of superceding countless other contributors to postings. Also, although I am indeed only one user, my contributions were largely cited in sources considered universally, or at least predominantly, to be of scholarly worthiness regarding the topic for which I had contributed amendments.

Although, I understand that my additions may have come off as dogmatic for seeking to shed light on where Muslim practices in Ramadan originated, I hope to improve upon the manner in which I intend to continue contributing. As an experienced Wiki contributor, I value your assistance, as it is clear you hold collegial postings in high esteem. I want to make it clear that I do too, and the Ramadan page, despite alleged consensus, is still sorely lacking the type of fidelity that Wikipedia hopes to continually improve upon.

In retrospect, I see how some of what I hoped to add, perhaps, was a bit too dogmatic, and having viewed other pages regarding important tenets and observances totally agree -- so I will be more mindful moving forward. However, I am still unclear as to what consitutes, what you termed "propaganda", in any of my prior postings that you disapproved of, as I simply cited, what are called authenticated (sahih) hadiths.

Thanks again for reaching out to a newbie on here.

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckLava (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Category:Articles with too many wikilinks from July 2012
If you notice AnomieBOT is not creating a dated maintenance category such as Category:Articles with too many wikilinks from July 2012, please fix the underlying problem or let me know so I can fix it. In this case, it turns out that Category:Articles with too many wikilinks wasn't in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 13:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Church redirect not accurate
In March 2012, you reverted Armenian Church to Armenian Apostolic Church by giving the explanation saying "This is clearly the main meaning. See talk page". No sir. It may "mainly" refer to Armenian Apostolic Church as the majority of Christian Armenians are adherents of the Armenian Apostolic faith. But in actual fact the Armenian Church is not the Armenian Apostolic Church only. In disambiguations, we do not consider "mainly refers to" as "good enough" criteria to render an inclusive disambiguation into a subjective redirect as you have done. All Armenian Churches are Armenian Churches including the Armenian Catholic Church which is an Armenian Church and the Armenian Evangelical Church which is also part of the Armenian Church. We have no right to exclusively and unilaterally denote the Armenian Apostolic Church as "the" Armenian Church. This is a highly sensitive issue that you have ignored totally and chose to bypass with your edit. Furthermore, there was only a symbolic discussion of two one liners. You cannot base your move on just two lines nobody knew about. I am requesting that you revert with immediate effect to the earlier status mentioning all the Armenian Churches on an equal footing and without discrimination or subjective personal opinions and (at best) a sketchy and dubious discussion in a talk page. We don't want to endorse and perpetuate in Wikipedia common mistakes when some people commonly refer to Armenian Church as being the Armenian Apsotolic Church only. If this is not done, I am willing to take this into a much bigger discussion. What we have now is an insult to the legality of the Armenian Catholic Church and Armenian Evangelical Church as part of the global Armenian Church with full rights of being calling Armenian Church as well. Please see also what I have added in Talk page here Talk:Armenian Church after being aware of the discussion that was held. werldwayd (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you open a broader discussion somewhere, because I disagree with you. Not with what you say that all different nominations of Christianity in Armenia are "Armenian churches", because that is obviously true. But the singular form "Armenian church", meaning the singular most important church in Armenia, is to my understanding the Armenian Apostolic Church. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Template LondonGazette
No, you didn't fix it, I did. The template was already "broken", in the sense that it wasn't compatible with the citation template, but you just had to start shouting when I started to fix it. Why didn't you try fixing it yourself, instead of shouting at me? 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Malleus Fatuorum
 * As I said already previously in this edit summary, I wasn't shouting, I just had my CAPSLOCK on by mistake. Which is clearly recognizable in the editsummary of this edit. Also, let me ask, why did you have to use the F-word here? In addition, see the template talkpage, that I think the code was good before, after your first edit. Perhaps you care to explain (there, at the talkpage) why you were not content with that version? Debresser (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it didn't work compatibly with sfn. Malleus Fatuorum 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

World
Hello. You recently reverted one of my edits - I do not mind that at all. The article was The Quiet. You feel that 'World' does not need to be capitalised. Until recently, someone suggested to me that 'World' is indeed something which needs to be capitalised. I would be interested to hear your thoughts Galaxycat (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC))


 * I fail to see the reason the word "world" should be capitalised. Would you perhaps care to have a look at Manual of Style/Capital letters. Perhaps there is something there I missed? Debresser (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, then I must concede that you are correct. Thank you(Galaxycat (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)).


 * It is not in there. And that is precisely the reason I think it should not be capitalised. :) Debresser (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It could potentially be. It is, after all, a proper noun. I guess that is a word which might potentially be included in the near future. I shall leave it how it is at the moment (uncapitalised). Until recently, I have always left the word uncapitalised, but then I was told otherwise and the reasoning does make sense. Anyway, thank you for the comments. (Galaxycat (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

Peta Wilson
You're kidding right? I've put ever single time why I removed her height and it's because it does NOT belong there. Height is only stated in the infobox of athletes or dancers, etc. When it is relevant. Quit changing it back after I have repeatedly told you why it doesn't belong or I'll have to go to an administrator because you are edit warring. Lady Lotus (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are no less edit warring... And your argument is incorrect, see the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The header is a borderline personal attack and the first line of this wikipedia policy states "comment on content, not contributors". Not to mention it shows a lack of ettiquette.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have you talkpage watched, since I posted there. Come on! Don't look for personal attacks, and you won't find them. It is a neutral description: "edit made by editor". Or is "tax reform of Obama" also a personal attack? :) Debresser (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why not put 'edit made by editor/contributor' instead of my user name? And pretty sure Obama isn't an editor, it's different. Lady Lotus (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am not opposed to something even more neutral. But not just "height", since the section is also about the "known_for" parameter. Debresser (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok this whole thing has truly exhausted me and ALL i was trying to do was get you to understand where I was coming from and why it didnt need to be in the infobox and instead of discussing it, you chose to just yell at me about consensus and hand me your opinion instead of explaining to me why it should be on there and agree with wiki guidelines. Ive grown too tired for this argument when it's clearly going nowhere so since you are determined to keep it up there, go for it. i might suggest maybe listening to other editors in the future when they are trying to explain their viewpoint. just saying. Lady Lotus (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tried to understand your point of view, but failed to. But I admit I am allergic to editors who keep stubbornly reinstating their edits without first reaching consensus, once they have been made aware that there is disagreement about something they did in their edit. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Peta Wilson
Hello Debresser, please see the section at User talk:Calmer Waters regarding the recent and ongoing edit war at Peta Wilson. Please immediately discontinue reverting the infobox on this page until this dispute can be worked out before blocks are handed out. I suggested a couple of avenues of approach that may facilitate this. Kindly Calmer   Waters  02:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted there. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Lotus
You seem to keep referring to them as he or him. Their user page points out that they are female. Just pointing that out... Dismas |(talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, on Wikipedia everybody is "editor", so he. But I'll try to take that into account, since I really hadn't noticed that. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that and thank you Dismas for pointing that out :) Lady Lotus (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Talkback here Pass a Method   talk  12:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That page is on my watchlist, but thanks for dropping a note Debresser (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I modified the text of proposal to address your concerns. Please, review your !vote. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you for letting me know. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Split section
Hello! Is there a particular benefit to the use of ambox instead of mbox? The tag appears primarily in the article namespace, but it can be utilized elsewhere (and currently has one such transclusion). —David Levy 14:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking, old friend. First of all, the same can be said for most maintenance templates, and still virtually all of them use Ambox. But also, and that was my main reason, because Ambox has - to the best of my knowledge - the most features. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Most maintenance templates relate specifically to article content issues (and therefore have no valid applications outside the article namespace, apart from documentation and the like) —David Levy 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most maintenance templates relate specifically to article content issues (and therefore have no valid applications outside the article namespace, apart from documentation and the like) —David Levy 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Most, but by far not all. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's why I wrote "most" (in response to your statement that most can be utilized outside the article namespace), not "all".
 * Templates used exclusively in articles should be based on ambox, while those used in multiple namespaces should be based on mbox (so their styling is correct in all instances). —David Levy 19:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Does split section rely on any features not present in mbox? —David Levy 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does split section rely on any features not present in mbox? —David Levy 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Does Mbox support the parameters "all", "cat", "cat2"? Debresser (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so (at least until someone updates it), but didn't the previous coding (before this revision ) provide identical categorization? —David Levy 19:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * It did. Split sections was not in use outside article namespace (nor should it, judging by the categories which all contain the word "articles"), so I reverted to usage of Ambox. Split section was in use on 1 category page and 1 Wikipedia page, and I took care of them. Do you see any other usage that would justify keeping Mbox? Debresser (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Future usage justifies it. Why would the fact that you just took care of the current non-article uses mean that such functionality is unneeded from now on?
 * What's the benefit of switching to ambox? As far as I can tell, the only difference in the rendered templates is the incorrect styling outside the article namespace.  —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm sure that this was a helpful change, but please don't cite the template's current disuse outside the article namespace as justification for reverting to ambox. What matters is how it's used on an ongoing basis, not how it happens to be used at the moment. Thanks. —David Levy 01:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as I already said previously, 1. almost all maintenance templates are Amboxes, even if theoretically they could be applied outside article namespace as well; 2. these two templates categorize into categories with the word "articles". And actual practice is at least an indication of the way the templates should be used. So I don't think these two templates should be using Mbox, but Ambox instead. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said previously, most maintenance templates relate specifically to article content issues, so they can't be applied outside the article namespace. For the minority that can, we have mbox.  —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said previously, most maintenance templates relate specifically to article content issues, so they can't be applied outside the article namespace. For the minority that can, we have mbox.  —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect: most maintenance templates address issues that pertain not only to articles. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You acknowledged the opposite above.
 * Most maintenance templates pertain to issues along the lines of poor/nonexistent sourcing, unencyclopedic tone, incorrect citation formatting, et cetera. Others, which pertain to issues that can arise inside or outside the article namespace, are based on mbox.  That's why it exists.  —David Levy 03:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * These are relevant to e.g. Wikipedia, Portal and WikiProject namespace as well, and even to templates, the wording of which is often discussed in great detail. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there is no "WikiProject" namespace.
 * Secondly, please explain how matters of poor/nonexistent sourcing, unencyclopedic tone and incorrect citation formatting apply to those areas. —David Levy 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The categories technically are misnamed, but this has never bothered anyone enough to change them. —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The categories technically are misnamed, but this has never bothered anyone enough to change them. —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. There are many categories that use the word "page" and not "article", where such was deemed necessary by practical use. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was referring specifically to these templates. —David Levy 03:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And these templates are used, albeit only occasionally, outside the article namespace.
 * To what end? What practical difference, apart from causing the tags to no longer display with the correct styling in non-article namespaces, does this change make?  —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To what end? What practical difference, apart from causing the tags to no longer display with the correct styling in non-article namespaces, does this change make?  —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To what end? What practical difference, apart from causing the tags to no longer display with the correct styling in non-article namespaces, does this change make?  —David Levy 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all there is the argument of uniformity. For further argument, see the talkpage Debresser (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What uniformity? We have a uniform messagebox style for each namespace.  Switching from mbox to ambox broke the uniform styling outside the article namespace.  —David Levy 03:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of maintenance templates using Ambox, and of them being used in articles. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. If a template is used in multiple namespaces, what's the benefit of configuring it to be uniformly displayed in the article-specific style (instead of adapting to the various namespaces in which it appears)?  —David Levy 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

French-language singers
The top of Category:French-language singers includes a notice to not put French singers in the category. It basically boils down to doing so is a needless duplication of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the same rule applied to other languages? Debresser (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is already see on Category:Singers by language that yes, so okay. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Please view the link at the TfD page and on my talk page before talking about my misplaced ideas on any more areas of the encyclopedia. I've been working with WikiProject Wikify for over a year now. I am clear on what is and is not an aspect of wikification. Ryan Vesey 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Debresser taking unilateral action against consensus due to his unique interpretation of wikification. Thank you. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting this notification. I have replied there. The gist of my reply is that since we are actively discussing this, I see no need for an ANI post. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Staying cool when the editing gets hot
Hi Debresser. I know you are one of the most active Wikipedians and I appreciate your work. I am only writing this to you to tell you to keep cool and use the WikiProject Wikify talk page. Ryan Vesey shouldn't bring the matter to ANI since I don't think you misused any tools. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think we are staying cool, and I enjoy the discussion. I also think RV has some interesting ideas, just that a little broader discussion is necessary to see whether they should be supported and to what extend. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citation needed by
Template:Citation needed by has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Beland (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I agree with you that this template should be deleted, and have posted there. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there
hey there buddy i can see you are very adamant to erase all opinions you disagree with. but you can not defend magic on an encyclopedia as a 'report' on the Luria page, the 'behold a son' will come to you can you? then you say 'misinterpret' in your angry style but another user on the talk page made the same request for luria's page, plus it has been a controversy in judaism for centuries. then you take vengeance by randomly erasing well sourced quotes on the jews of america page. then just because you disagree say i do not understand the sources, you know you're wrong the sources are referring to kaballah of ashkenazis influenced by Luria, why is any view other than yours 'wrong'. i did supply a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryester (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of having a personal agenda is not nice, and in this case also incorrect. As I said, I think you misinterpreted the sources by a long stretch. But just to be on the safe side, I have asked some fellow editors to have a closer look at your edits as well. And we shall see, who is having an agenda, and who is misinterpreting the sources. I will be the first to admit I am wrong, if that were to be the case. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR violation at Beitar Illit
Please self-revert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain. Isn't 1rr that I can make 1 revert a day? Well, I made 1 edit, and 1 revert. I made the revert based on the above understanding, after checking the relevant guideline. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I quote from Talk:Beitar Illit: "WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period)". Debresser (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You made 2 reverts. The first partially reverted this, the second was a straight revert of this. Im of a mind to report and be done with it, but I wont for now. But dont keep trying to push your edits in, it will not end well.  nableezy  - 14:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was over a week ago. As you should know, the 1rr rule means 1 revert within 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call "pushing" I call insisting on correct application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See the talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really want to try that defense, ask that I report you. The first edit was a revert, it does not matter if the edit it reverted was from a week ago or an hour ago. You are allowed 1 revert per day. A revert is not defined by how long the period from the edit it is reverting is. And yes, I know of the talk page section. I also know that you thought yourself arbiter of who may participate in the discussion, and even more, think of yourself as the judges on what the correct application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is. Yes, please see the talk page, where it is readily apparent that you do not have consensus to remove any material you feel does not make Israel appear as the light unto the world that we all know that it is.  nableezy  - 15:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw strong voices that the section is not appropriately sourced, and therefore should be removed or revised. And the first two reactions from today say precisely the same thing... I think you are misinterpreting the discussion. And I am afraid that the reason for that is that you have a bias. So yes, I view your edits and behavior with a certain amount of suspicion. That does not mean I do not respect you as a Wikipedia editor, of course. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats nice. If you would like me to tell you what I think about your edits in this area, and in general, please let me know.  nableezy  - 16:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain why you would post that notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism? Exactly what relationship to WPJudaism does this colony have? And does it have a similar relationship to, I dont know, WPIslam, or WPArabWorld?  nableezy  - 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I'll be happy to explain myself to you. As I said clearly on the talkpage, I posted on all the three WikiProjects that the Beitar Illit page is part of. See the top of the talkpage for their banners. As to why they are there, and how appropriate that is, and whether other WikiProjects are related as well, you should discuss that on the talkpage in a separate section, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you specifically have asked somebody to carry on this edit-war, is there a reason I should not report the 1RR violation?  nableezy  - 17:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no violation, so there is nothing to report. Do not threat me. And I have not asked for a continuation of any war (not that I was aware there was a war going on). I asked editors to act upon consensus, since I can't do it. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you feel that way, WP:AE.  nableezy  - 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Another 1RR violation at Beitar Illit
You reverted me too, right here. Please read the definition of 1RR; it's one revert per editor per page per day. Consider reverting your reversion of my edit. If you think it's oversourcing, let's discuss it on the talk page, please.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done before I saw your post. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But yes, I think the reference we had is enough. Or at least put them together behind the comma. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You want to start a section on the talk page about that and we can discuss it?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we need a discussion about something so simple as grouping related references...? Debresser (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the larger issue is what you expect to be supported in that section. I still don't understand, as I said on the talk page.  If we're going to talk about what in the section needs support and what kind of support, I think we ought to talk about it there.  I don't actually think the source is necessary, but I thought that it supported something you thought needed to be supported.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We had that already. But I don't mind another source. Just let's put them together at the usual location, after the comma. Just did that. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR
You should self-revert on the article to show that you understand what 1RR is, otherwise you'll probably get into trouble, as you've been brought to an AE. You just reverted someone again. If you have questions about 1RR, feel free to ask me, but first self-revert. -- Activism  1234  19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did that even before I saw your post. :) Debresser (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All right. Also, you should clarify on your AE if you understand what 1RR is now, as two editors said that you didn't and you should explain either that you do or admins should explain it to you. -- Activism  1234  05:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see two editors saying correctly that this was a good faith carelessness. Another editor seems concerned that I do not know what a "partial revert" is, but I do, just that I didn't pay attention (especially as partial reverts are less obvious). Debresser (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that you acknowledge that the first edit was indeed a revert, and hence that you violated 1RR when you made the second revert? --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And now I have a few questions for you as well. Did you notice that the editor who reported me stopped partaking in the discussion? That he has been shown in that discussion to be biased to the point that he is not willing to stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Debresser (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I am the biased one here? I am the one trying to eliminate material on the most notable aspect of that colony? Get off it. Keep it up and we'll be right back at AE.  nableezy  - 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Debresser) Sorry, but I prefer not to comment on other editors. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. You go all crazy that someone said you're biased, then you go and call the subject you're discussing a "colony," which I'm sure you know is biased... That is so hypocritical. -- Activism  1234  14:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a colony, by the plain meaning of the word. But please look up the meaning of the word hypocritical before you use it again. Good thing you dont care much about civility. Oh wait, that wasnt you, was it? I mean, it would be hypocritical to complain about somebody being uncivil because they used the words um, no and then make a straightforward personal attack, wouldnt it? And no, I did not go all crazy because somebody has called me biased. I wrote, calmly, that the biased user who has been repeatedly ignoring Wikipedia policy to remove anything that makes the Greatest State look less than the perfect creation that we all know it to be has no business making such bogus accusations.  nableezy  - 14:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can shout all you want that it's a colony, saying so is biased, and you know it, no matter how much you think you're correct, it is biased. Saying "settlements" would be neutral, as the term commonly used, saying that it's a "colony" is itself biased, and this is regardless whether you want to think it's true or not, as I'd simply tell you it's not.  I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this, it's silly. -- Activism  1234  14:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I havent shouted Sherlock. And you can simply tell [me] anything you want. Your ideas on this subject dont concern me. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the topic with such comments as this (where you make a blatantly false statement) or this (where you argue that even if sources specifically say that this colony is illegal under international law, it still shouldnt be included). So Ill give your simple comments the consideration they deserve, thank you very much.  nableezy  - 15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds awesome. Loving the definition of "false" too, but that's not important.  I appreciate it.  Have a good day.  -- Activism  1234  15:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nabllezy, please do not insult my intelligence by calling Beitar Illit a colony on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Debresser, just so you don't miss it, Killer Chihuaha has asked a question for you on your AE. -- Activism  1234  19:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would have missed that. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck it out though as Killer noticed your comment here so it became irrelevant. -- Activism  1234  19:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And you just violated the 1RR again. Self-revert or another report will be made, and this time you wont have an excuse for not understanding. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of threatening me, perhaps explain. I made an edit this morning, based on the talkpage discussion. You reverted me, and I reverted you. I am entitled to 1 revert a day. If I misunderstood, I'll self-revert right away! Just explain, please. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first edit was a revert. But either way, once something is reverted, stop reverting. Until consensus is established, the article should be returned to its stable state and discussion occurring on the talk page. You do not get to decide that your arguments are better so your edit rules the day. You do not get to attempt to force in your favored edit into an article. That is edit-warring, even without a 1RR violation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My first edit was a partial merge and a partial removal. Something which had not yet been done, so this was definitely not a revert. And I acted based on the discussion as I understood it in good faith. As you can read for yourself, I actively participate on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was a revert. It removed material that another editor added. Quoting from WP:EW: A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The discussion, by your own admission, resulted in no consensus for the removal of the section. You attempted to reverse the need for consensus, despite WP:CON saying In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. Either self-revert or dont, but you have violated the 1RR and you will be sanctioned for it. Or you can self-revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't call every removal of text a revert. That is ridiculous. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not said that. I quoted from WP policy. An admin at AE has also agreed that both edits are reverts. I dont care anymore, you will likely be topic-banned as a result of this violation. You can still correct the issue by self-reverting. Or you can await the inevitable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to see more qualified opinions than yours in that discussion on WP:AE. I am an honest editor, and confident that I have nothing to fear. And if I am wrong, I will either be punished or forgiven, but I will not be bullied by you. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your life. But see this <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. I have invited him to explain to me why he seems to disagree. Perhaps he hasn't read my explanation here to you, that this was not a revert. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it was a revert. It reverted the inclusion of the section reinstated here. This is about as clear a case as there can be. And you can still remedy the issue by self-reverting. That wont deal with the edit-warring, as even performing 1 revert a day can be edit-warring, but it corrects the immediate issue. Like I said, your life, do what you want. But Id place a decent wager that if you do not self-revert the following things will happen. 1. The material will be reinserted by somebody else, and 2. you will be topic-banned. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is 12pm here, I'm going home and to sleep. I will be back tomorrow, and as I said, I feel certain that I am right, and that my edit of this morning was not a revert, but if somehow editors would be able to show, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that I was wrong, I will self-revert first thing in the morning. I, however, have no doubt that even the one admin who said that this was a removal, will notice that it was actually not so (I am referring to the addition of the sources and the internal link to the lead section). Debresser (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your life, I expect you not to have the opportunity to self-revert in the morning. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

While in the bus on the way home I considered this again, and came to the conclusion that my edit of this morning was in part a partial revert. In part, because is was also a merge, and partial, because it reverted the restore of the second part of that paragraph. I will self-revert, although I must say that I am not happy with the present state of affairs, in which a "in part a partial revert" is reason for a WP:AE discussion and possible month-long topic bans (not that I was likely to edit any other articles in that topic). Debresser (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Question
I didn't notice it. I have now removed it. Thanks for the heads up. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The request at WP:AE has been closed
Debresser, please see the closing message. The request has been closed with no action, but at least two admins thought that the 1RR violation called for a topic ban. If you make further reverts of this or other articles concerning the legality of West Bank settlements, this may lead to further complaints. I recommend that you open an WP:RFC on each individual article where you think the settlement language needs to be changed. Either that, or obtain a clear talk page consensus prior to your change. From now on, your understanding of the WP:1RR rule is assumed. Even an inadvertent violation may lead to a sanction, so caution is advisable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I always knew what 1RR means, just that I have problems with the concept of partial reverts. I have noticed in the past as well, that partial reverts don't catch my attention. I will try my best, of course, from now on.
 * I was interested only in the Beitar Illit article, since I started to live there a few months ago. But I do think the issue needs addressing for other towns and villages as well. I'll consider what the best steps would be. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

September
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User_talk:Betty_Logan has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) There was no template involved; I formulated my own warning.
 * 2) If you revert a vandalism edit, that is one thing, but if you revert a normal edit without good cause, then that is still edit warring.
 * 3) Therefore, your warning template here insults me. You should know better than place standard warnings on talkpages of experienced editors. But I shall not remove it, as you removed my warning. I like to be open and frank about things. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to better acquaint yourself Wikipedia policy. If you check the edit history of the article in question you will see that the only edit-warring was by an editor that was evading a block. I—along with several other editors—reverted these edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Reverting edits by a block sockpuppet do count towards 3RR as per WP:NOT3RR. Warning editors for "edit-warring" on the basis of them reverting edits by a block sockpuppet is clearly inappropriate. The reason for the reverts are very clear with the edit summaries noting the editor was a blocked editor and I also provided links to the sockpuppet case. In addition, if you had bother to check the pages belonging to the sockpuppet you would see he had received a range block for abusing mutliple accounts. My edits were COMPLETELY consistent with Wikipedia's policy, and if you feel that there is a matter for admin intervention in this regard then please take it directly to the 3RR noticeboard where someone who knows what they are doing can look over the case. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Distinct Jewish groups (Jewish ethnic divisions)
Hello. thanks for your clarification, i think that the word "distinct" (in that particular places, i removed it from), should be changed to "distinctive", that's because i fear the word "distinct" to be a bit ambiguous in the current situation. i speak English for more than 18 years and i failed to understand the word "distinct" to be as "uncommon", and I'm afraid that others will do that mistake also. hence i offer the aforementioned change. please tell me your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.151.131 (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Distinct" means "different one from another". That seems to be precisely the intent here. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Black Swan (film)". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Due to the fact that you have not done me the courtesy of responding to the message that I left you on my talk page and seeing as how you are still acting like Betty Logan and I did something wrong Talk:Assassination_Games I will point you to this Sockpuppet investigations/90.200.85.232/Archive. This Burton-on-Trent editor has never responded to any posts about their editing. Once they get to a new IP they are persistent and prolific. Their edits are reverted on sight by numerous editors and admins and blocks are continually being handed out. I do hope that you will try to understand this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history I do not understand why you left your edit warring message on the pages of two editors who had not touched the article since last week and on the page of the IP who edited it today. You did not contact any of the editors who reverted the IP today nor did you leave a note for any of the IPs that were reverted in the past. I am just trying to understand where it is that you are coming from but if you do not wish to respond I will most certainly understand. MarnetteD | Talk 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood something. I saw a normal edit being reverted. And I saw this was going back and forth. That the editor was blocked, I didn't notice. Frankly speaking, why revert an good edit, even if it is from a blocked editor? Debresser (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you reply. As has been stated by several of us we revert Socks to discourage their editing here. If we don't you wind up with something like this WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* (and I have at least three others that I could point you to just as bad) where a prolific sock had laced articles with incorrect info some of which was not caught for a year. As we pointed out at the talk page of the film in question not all parts of the edits were good as there were violations of various MoS's but, as was also pointed out, you are free to restore any that you deem necessary. Thanks for all your good work here over the years. MarnetteD | Talk 17:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your patience and explanations. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Things like this can be confusing, especially for an editor like you who has worked on content enhancement. If you ever come across an oddity like this that you see my name connected to please feel free to ask what is going on. MarnetteD | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Null template edits
Please don't make edits like this which do nothing but alter the internal calling of templates. You did the same here, where you suggested that these things were errors. From a technical perspective it does not matter whether a template is invoked via a redirect, nor whether it is invoked with an initial capital letter, nor how the whitespace sits within the brackets: as such, these things are typically left to editorial discretion, and the convention is generally that this means they should not be altered in null edits. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. We should not use bots or AWB for this type of edits, but manually one may make such edits. Especially since you - specifically - use very unconventional names. Nobody uses "Refs" or add a space after the {{ . Debresser (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That was the polite request. This is the less polite one: stop stalking my contributions to make "corrections" that make absolutely no impact to articles. I don't want you on my watchlist unless you're actually improving articles. It's telling that in the last few months it's been left to me to improve articles on subjects such as Weber and the Honorverse (subjects that I'm led to believe you are an expert on, or at least an enthusiast) while your contributions have been at best pointless and at worst needlessly antagonistic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you leave politeness behind, I'll do the same.
 * Don't be delusional, I am not stalking your contributions. You just happen to show up on articles that have been on my watchlist for years now. You're invited to bugger off from them at your earliest convenience, if that fact bothers you. :)
 * I have made my major contributions to those articles you mention years ago, and welcome yours. I do. But there is no reason I shouldn't make minor modifications to ensure standard markup. If you don't like that, again, you have the choice to get the hell out. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Userbox category
Greetings: Thanks for offering an explanation of why you undid the category addition I made to a userbox for a yeshiva student. It was greatly appreciated. I agree with you that "students are not (yet) clergy" and concur with your revision. Shalom.Drdpw (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your revert
I started a discussion about your revert at Talk:Land_of_Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I will be happy to take (further) part in the discussion. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback-Chol Hamoed

 * I usually watch talkpages when I post there. Especially user talkpages. But thank you for the notice. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, too, but don't like to take that for granted. Chag sameach.  StevenJ81 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chag sameach! Debresser (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

From April8
Hello! How are you doin`?

Following up my last post to you, dated 4 August 2011 - the page Hasidic philosophy really needs renaming (moving to) as "Hasidic thought", as soon as possible. See the full reasons I explained in that last post: User talk:Debresser/Archive 8. I'm currently (very intermittently) reading academic-university books on Jewish Philosophy (Medieval and Modern), and the academic study of Kabbalah and Hasidism. The term "Hasidic philosophy" is entirely incorrect from the perspective of serious scholarship (ie. academia); it jars with the correct and precise usages of terms in the academic study of religion and confuses the issue:
 * Eg. the Alter Rebbe as other Habad leaders are correctly designated "mystics", not philosophers. Within Hasidic explanation of Kabbalah, the Alter Rebbe, Tzemach Tzedek (Sefer Hakira) etc. take the most philosophical path relatively - but this is still within mysticism.
 * Eg. Medieval Jewish Philosophers were Rationalists, as in their time it was thought that Aristotelian Science-Physics lead logically and innevitably to Metaphysics based on rationalism alone - Universal Medieval acceptance of the philosophical proofs for G-d etc. In his book "Must A Jew Believe Anything"-Littman Library, the Modern Orthodox Maimonidean (anti-Kabbalistic) academic Menachem Kellner explains the unknown theological foundation behind the Rambam's 13 principles of Judaism. He calls it "non-dogmatic (because intellectually demonstrable with enough effort) dogmas". Later Judaism accepted the shell of Maimonides, believing that Judaism had dogmas, but rejected, ignored, or didn't know the theological substratum behind them: Aristotelian Physics leading to Neoplatonised Aristotelian Metaphysics. Hence the opening of the Mishnah Torah means "The foundation of Metaphysics and the pillar of Physics..."; Maimonides alone codifying beliefs in the 613 Mitzvot; Other authorities reading Judaism's dogmas only as a literary/polemical device...See Kellner's book for more explanation. I think, in the Habad view, that this does not necessarily rule out Kabbalah, as "Kabbalah begins where Philosophy ends". (Kellner elsewhere, in his book "Maimonides' Confrontation With Mysticism", reads Maimonides' whole project as a silent attack against "Proto-Kabbalah", and emerging Kabbalistic systemisation as a silent attack against Maimonides.)
 * Eg. Modern Jewish Philosophers are no longer Rationalists, as Classical and Modern Physics and the Sciences became agnostically divorced from "Metaphysics"-Philosophy, and Modern Philosophical consensus rejected the philosophical proofs for G-d, while Biblical and Rabbinic texts were also divorced from necessary belief in the academic study of Judaism. Modern Jewish Philosophers, rather, used ideas from modern secular philosophy alongside, and in interptetation of, their particular level/type of Jewish belief.
 * Consequently, Hasidic thought outside of Habad is generally anti-Philosophical and anti-Rationalist, being rather an emotional-faith romantic movement, at the other end of the historical Rational-Mystical Jewish temperement. Within this are various stages on the spectrum, from the anti-philosophy of Breslav, through the polemics between Galician Wonder-Working-Tzadik Hasidism and the Galician Maskilim, to the intellectual-Talmudic focus of Gur/Polish Hasidism. As the page Hasidic philosophy covers all diversity of Hasidic thought, so the term "philosophy" is perversely unsuitable!
 * Habad thought differs in being a uniquely intellectually investigated Kabbalah, synthesised with some of Medieval Jewish Philosophy. It remains "mysticism", rather than "philosophy", as it rests on, and its followers (like me!) hope it demonstrates, belief in the sanctity and Divine revelation of Kabbalah, locating Kabbalah and the rest of pre-modern (non-critical) Jewish exegesis, through Hasidic thought, in Divine Torah min Hashamayim. However, see eg. Dor Daim page for Orthodox Jewish rejection of belief in Kabbalah. Within its belief system, Habad is profound and intellectual mysticism. Outside of its belief system, Habad is actually anti-intellectual: most Lubavitchers see no benefit in the academic study of Hasidism and Kabbalah, or wider academic-critical study of Judaism, most have no interest in studying Medieval or Modern Jewish Philosophy, Habad mysticism characterises Sciences as Kelipah contaminating the intellectual faculties of the Divine soul..etc. One can be a Lubavitcher and study and appreciate all these things, eg like Yitzchak Ginsburgh finding the Messianic recification of Science through uniting it with Kabbalah, eg Yitzhak Block professor of philosophy, eg a Lubavitcher where I live who works in a university department of Jewish mysticism, following the critical-historical academic methodology of Gershom Scholem...etc. However, to demonstrate that Habad thought is mysticism, not philosophy, believing in the revealed theosophy of Kabbalah: consider the reactions of philosophers (espercially after Hume) to the Tanya's distinction between Jewish and Non-Jewish souls - this cannot be demonstrated by philosophy, though perhaps it can be argued for historically (as the Tanya does regarding martydom), with qualified, subtle commentary, rather than the Tanya's plain-meaning Rabbinic hyperbole. It is true that the Medieval ("Proto-Kabbalistic"-Kellner) Jewish Philosopher Yehudah Halevi (uniquely in Jewish Philosophy) in the Kuzari, argued systematically for the innate uniqueness of the Jewish soul (based on prophecy), however that is the purpose of his work: to argue for a philosophical theology systematically. Medieval Jewish Philosophers were accurately "Philosophical Theologians", rather than pure Philosophers. The Tanya, in contrast, does not seek to systematically argue for propositions, such as belief in G-d, the existence of the 10 Sephirot etc, but to demonstrate them inherently in laying out its mystical psychology-theology. To properly demonstrate the historical argument for the Jewish soul would require comparative religious studies. Rather, the intellectual structure of the Tanya and subsequent Habad thought, allows - I believe - Divine Wisdom to descend and demonstate its truth by the clarity, unity, harmony and perfection it brings to traditional Jewish exegesis. As philosophy is human wisdom ascending, this is Divine wisdom descending into human intellect. Consequently, Nigleh began with the revelation at Sinai, and descends through the generations. Nistar ascends as the generations progress, from the Zohar to the Ari to the Baal Shem Tov to Habad...in new revelations - mysticism not philosophy.

Therefore, the page really needs renaming "Hasidic thought", not Hasidic philosophy. See the following linked article on the different approaches to Maimonides-the-Philosopher (Moreh Nevuchim) in the Modern Era - from Maskilim, from Mitnagdim, from Hasidim (across General Hasidism to Habad). It is written by the academic Allan Nadler, who is also a critic of contemporary Habad. I found it linked from his university page, which lists and links to many articles of his. The relevant essay among them is: The Rambam Revival in Early Modern Jewish Thought. It includes rare academic discussion of the Tzemach Tzedek's Sefer Hakira.

I won't have time to move the page name Hasidic philosophy to "Hasidic thought". Do you have time? Can you do it? Tell me what you think. (It is long overdue, and actually rather urgent!) As I only check up on wikipedia every few months in the internet cafe, I won't see your response immediately. You could write it here, below.

P.S. The space bar on this keyboard is sticky. I hope I haven't accidentally joined up words.

P.P.S. I saw your photo on facebook!

P.P.P.S. Despite my name, I'm male. April8 is my birthday. One correspondent thought my name is April! April8 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You have convinced me. I'll raise the subject on the talkpage, and if there is no serious opposition, will make the move in another week or so. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Jewish Sources
I don't know why you accuse me of misrepresenting sources. Dat Moshe does not mean that its in the Torah. In fact it is not in the Torah. Dat means a custom or practice. You should do some research on this word. If you have the Bar Ilan databse type in the word Dat and you will see this in Rashi all over. It is certainly not in the Torah and nobody says that it is. Can you give me a singe source that says that its in the Torah and where it is.

As for the 613, see what I wrote in the Talk under NPOV and have a good look at Maimonides Book of Mitzvoht. The reason that many commandments are not counted are because they were not given to Moses at Sinai. And Maimonides clearly says that 613 commandments were given to Moses on Sinai, so this is what the 613 are. The complete written Torah was not given on Sinai but dictated throughout the 40 years. Moses did not know in advance, for example, that sending spies would result in an additional 40 years in the desert. As Maimonides explains in length in his introduction to Commentary on the Mishnah only those commandments that were given to Moses on Sinai came with an oral interpretation. So instead of accusing me of things do some learning of your own.Learned69 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You also think that "redate basic tenets of Judaism to talmudic times" is diminishing a tenet. In Judaism the earlier a thing comes from the greater authority it has. So citing the Talmud gives something more authority, as opposed to something that is merely a later custom. I don't know why you have a problem with thisLearned69 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing that bother me is your accusation that i "deliberately" misrepresented sources, when in fact my edits were done in good faith, and this is simply a disagreement about how to interpret 2 passages of the Talmud. This accusation is a violation of WP rules of "assume good faith".Learned69 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have replied to the first 3 paragraphs of this post on your talkpage, where you posted them in reply to my message.
 * As far as assuming good faith: I find it hard to assume good faith when I see 1. a pattern of making the same edit over a long period of time, in blatant disregard of recent discussion which resulted in a consensus edit 2. that both your edits are trying to diminish the sources for basic Jewish tenets by sourcing them to the Talmud where they should have been sourced to direct Sinaic Divine revelation. Both these problems are serious in their own right, although they are related to completely different things. The first is an editorial issue, the second a content bias.
 * I'd prefer it to keep the discussion centralized (on your talkpage). Debresser (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I explained myself on my Talk page. Just want to make sure that you read it. Learned69 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I have your talkpage watched. As is my habit, after posting on a talkpage, especially a user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sefer Hatemunah
Regarding your deletion of the added sections (Interpretation of Cosmic Shmitot in later Kabbalah):

1 View of Luria: THE ABOVE -"PARAGRAPH 1A"- YOU KEPT
 * From the Medieval flourishing of Kabbalah onwards, attempts were made to systemise its diverse teachings, especially commentaries on the elusive imagery of the Zohar. 16th century Safed saw the realisation of this aim in the two normative, comprehensive versions of Kabbalistic theosophy: the quasi-rational linear scheme of Moshe Cordovero, followed by the supra-rational dynamic scheme of Isaac Luria that replaced it. Their view of the earlier doctrine from Sefer HaTemunah, of previous Cosmic Shmitah cycles before ours, was that previous cycles refer to spiritual processes, not actual creations; our universe being the first physical creation.

THE ABOVE -"PARAGRAPH 1B"- YOU DELETED
 * Luria described the Medieval Kabbalistic views of prior physical worlds as a non-authoritative misinterpretation of a particular concept that applies only to spiritual processes (Worlds). Instead, Lurianic Kabbalah relates the previous authoritative concept to the undeveloped primordial spiritual realm of Tohu. The shattering of the sephirot in this realm is the meaning of the Midrash that God made and destroyed worlds before ours, from which our spiritual and physical reality was founded.

2 Alternative Lurianic approaches to the age of the universe: THE ABOVE -"PARAGRAPH 2"- YOU DELETED
 * As Lurianic interpretation became the authoritative system and foundation of modern Kabbalah, so contemporary Kabbalists and Scientists offer alternative approaches to reconciling the Big Bang with Genesis. In his book cited above, Aryeh Kaplan translates the 19th century text of Israel Lipschutz as an option for contemorary Orthodoxy, but acknowledges that this possibility conflicts with Luria. Gerald Schroeder, instead, cites the Medieval Kabbalist Nachmanides' detailed description of Creation in his classic Torah commentary to support the exact Scientific description of the Big Bang. He sees both the scientific and the traditional Jewish ages for the universe as complimentary, based on the expansion of the fabric of Space-Time since the Big Bang: from the view of the Earth, the age is measured backwards to the Big Bang; in the relative scientific measurement of time from the early universe, the figure of exactly 5½ days (the creation of Adam) becomes approx. 14 billion years. Alexander Poltorak gives a different approach, based on the consciousness interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. He combines the interpretation of Luria that Physical Creation only came into being with the sin of Adam, with the collapse of the quantum wave function. According to this, before the sin, Adam resided in the spiritual world of Yetzirah, as described by the first account of Creation in Genesis 1. The second account in Genesis 2 describes the emergence of Creation into physical existence. In the consciousness interpreation of quantum theory, human consciousness causes potential wave-energy to materialise as particle-matter. Combining the Kabbalistic and quantum approaches, makes both the Big Bang age of the universe and the Torah age complimentary. At the physical creation of Adam, the 13.7 billion year back-history of the universe also came into being; both ages being true from different perspectives.

MY THOUGHTS:

PARAGRAPH 1B: is necessary in some form to flesh out (a) the reason why Luria disagreed with Sefer Hatemunah, (b) how he thought its mistaken interpretation arose, (c) and what alternative explanation he offered to the same conceptual root. Paragraph 1A is based on the citation of the 3 hour video class by Yitzchak Ginsburgh on inner.org. I watched this about 1½ years ago, and it gives extremely detailed explanation of a, b and c. Leaving just paragraph stub 1A is not enough explanation, and does not do justice to the detailed content of the videos. This lack becomes even more urgent when one considers the motive (beyond just historical philology) why the page Sefer HaTemunah was written: Many Orthodox Jews have a crisis of faith between the Scientific and traditional Torah ages for Creation. Some people (not my view) have used Sefer Hatemunah's cosmic shmitot (49,000 years) as a saving intellectual hope through this difficulty. This was the stated motive of Aryeh Kaplan in his book cited on the page (Immortality, resurrection, and the age of the universe: a kabbalistic view), in publicising Isaac of Acco's commentary of Divine years (leading to 15,000,000,000 years old Creation). Aryeh Kaplan, there, and it was originally delivered as a keypoint conference speech, acknowledges that this intellectual option conflicts with Luria, but he felt, still opens up the possibile choice for contemporary seekers. Therefore, just cutting Paragraph 1 back to 1a, merely knocks this intellectual faith crutch from under people's feet, without offering them an alternative. indeed, I saw myself, one such comment of delight on Adin Steinsalt's website by a contributer, expressing his delight in Kaplan's book, that allowed for him the possibility of belief in Torah. If, on the other hand, Paragraph 1 is fleshed out to become paragraph 1A+B, then hope can be restored for such a person. To do less, fails to do do any justice to the profundity of Ginsburgh's 3 hour talk on the topic, which relates directly to Sefer Hatemunah: why Luria disagreed, how he saw the mistake arising, and his deeper explanation (Tohu) of the concept behind the mistake. As it was 1½ years since I saw it, my summary of its points was not ideal, but still better than nothing, and crucial for a fleshing out of the concepts.

PARAGRAPH 2: The need for some fleshed out summary of the videos (Paragraph 1B) is also reinforced by any extra possibility: Those, like me who follow Luria's rejection of the doctrine of physical Cosmic Shmitot (Sefer Hatemunah's 49,000 years expanded by Isaac of Acco to 15 billion years), but maybe allow Luria's alternative spiritual explanation (World of Tohu) to still have some physical manifestation. This relates to Paragraph 2. According to different possible approaches by contemporary scientists that agree with Luria (Cited in paragraph 2), one option, cited in the linked video of Alexander Poltorak (on Torahcafe), describes the 13.7 billion years before Adam as existing materially only as an indeterminate wave-function. Only with Adam's sin did he fall from Yetzirah into material Asiyah, and the pre-existing wave-function 13.7 billion year back-history of our material Universe retro-actively collapse into determinism. In other words, 5773 years ago, a physical Universe of 13.7 billion year history came into being, one that was truely 13.7 billion years old (with all the events that took place before, such as evolution, early hominids etc.). In this scenario, agreeing with Luria's rejection of physical shemitot, nonetheless, in the video on the age of the universe and Bereishit (1 hour long), Dr. Poltorak explicitly links the 13.7 billion years of material energy wave-function with Sefer Hatemunah's earlier shmitot doctrine. He then cites Luria's denial of physicality to this as, in his view, connected to the indeterminate, but still physical, quantum wave possibility 13.7 billion year history wave function. I was going to add this particular extra point today, directly connecting the other possible Kabbalistic approaches (paragraph 2) with Sefer Hatemunah. In short: (1) Ginsburgh's Sefer Hatemunah video class explains Kabbalistically how the mistake of attributing the "Worlds prior to ours" (Midrash) physical reality, came about, whereas Luria explains why they remained undeveloped in Tohu. (2) Poltorak's video nonetheless, grants that the earlier spiritual realms before ours did materialise, based on the Kabbalistic axiom that the 4 Worlds are merely emanations one-to-the-next. Every thing in our world has its direct source, parallel, counterpart above, and above that, and above that (or below, below that and below that).

Based on this direct connection between Poltorak's approach and the earlier realms, on which Sefer Hatemunah is also based, one can go further and connect the 15,000,000,000 billion years of Isaac Of Acco with the 13.7 billion years of Poltorak's wave-function. These two numbers are in the same ball park if one bears in mind the range of data sources for the age of the Universe, the earlier acceptance in Cosmology of 15 billion years, and especially the truth from Einstein's General Relativity that gravity causes time to dilate - leading to 18 billion years age of Universe for dense regions of Galaxies etc. This, merely speculative approach, nonetheless explains for the first time, why (in Torah) in the Luria-Poltorak approach, the universe should appear roughly as old as it is. The other citation approach in Paragraph 2 - Gerald Schroeder - gives an alternative explanation of why (in Physics) the 6 days become as old as they do cosmologically, based on Nachmanides. Perhaps, Schroeder's and Poltorak's approaches can be complimentary, as everything in Torah, and by extension, everything in Creation has an infinity of depth, allusion and meaning (a particularly Kabbalistic doctrine).

CONCLUSION ABOUT PARAGRAPH 2: Poltorak's approach in his video is directly connected, and cites, the development of the doctrine from Sefer Hatemunah (physical Shmitot) to Luria (Spiritual Tohu) to Quantum Theory (Indeterminate physical energy). Aryeh Kaplan (and myself) still allows the possible complimentary connection of Isaac of Acco's 15 billion years to emanated materialism - at least as an intellectual possibility that opens up the vista - and the first wholely Torah explanation for why the universe should be as old as it is cosmologically. Shroeder's alternative gives a calculation for why in Torah the Universe is as old as it is based on Nachmanides' 6 days. Poltorak is directly connected, and needs to be on the page. Shroeder is crucial alternative context to the discussion, and needs to be somewhere accessible and hilighted on Wikipedia. If Shroeder alone is to be removed from the page, then please suggest to me where else his approach should be stated and directly linked to (and anyway the link from Sefer Hatemunah page will comprise some explanation that he offers an alternative approach - ie. not much different from my brief citation of him anyway!!) At the moment, there is no Wikipedia page Kabbalah and Science, that could comprehensively cover all aspects of related topics (and I also read that wikipedia does not favour pages called "x and y"). So tell me what you think...April8 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My further response
OK, I was trying to edit the page in a rush (hardly get anytime to edit). My points, I think, are valid, though Shroeder citation should be put on a new "Kabbalah & Science" page. In the longterm future, I'll make a new page called, something like "Kabbalistic approaches to the Sciences and Humanities", based on Yitzchak Ginsburgh's website inner.org (his "Torah Academy": Maths, Exact Sciences, Social Sciences) and Sanford Drob's website newkabbalah.com (Lurianic theosophy and Modern Philosophy, Psychoanalysis etc.). In the shortterm future, I'll add details to Sefer Hatemunah page, after taking detailed notes on Yitzchak Ginsburgh's 3 videos "The shemitot and the age of the universe", citing also Poltorak's and Ginsburgh's application of the "First Shemitah" to contemporary cosmology and geology.

Kabbalah: Science: ....When I have time April8 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sefer Hatemunah received the Zohar teaching that a prior order of 7 Days - 7 Kings of Edom - preceded the 7 Days of Creation, took the first shemitah to expand to 7000 physical years, foresaw 7 physical shemitah cycles
 * A different minor Medieval text speculated that ours is the 7th shemitah based on a gemara opinion that 2000 years - Shabbat and Yovel - follow us
 * Ramak and Ari denied physicality to the first order
 * Ari agreed that we are the "Second Order", explaining the first as spiritual Tohu - Nekudim undeveloped points
 * The Alter Rebbe follows this, but reintroduces the term "First Shemitah" to describe Tohu
 * Rashash and subsequent Sephardi Kabbalists relativise time across the Lurianic Seder Hishtalshelus, rectified days expand to 7000 years as they ascend above
 * Yitzchak Ginsburgh discusses alternative relative views on the age of the Universe from the different 4 Worlds; accordingly, 13.7 billion years "memory" may be correct in Asiyah, fossils etc. being fallen images from Tohu
 * Poltorak relates the cosmological age of the universe to an uncollapsed quantum wave function

Extra-conclusion
NB. The above list of 6 points in the developing history of Kabbalistic interpretation of Cosmic Shemitot (Sefer Hatemunah to Sephardi students of Rashash), and the 2 points of applying this to contemporary cosmology (Ginsburgh and Poltorak) - these 8 points (explained) should, I think, be added to Sefer Hatemunah page, in the new sections I was attempting (badly-rushed). Wider, comprehensive coverage of the age of the Universe and Kabbalah, including other opinions like Shroeder's, would be put on the future page "Kabbalistic approaches to the Sciences and Humanities". The above 8 points explained, are, I think, directly connected to Sefer Hatemunah: Sefer Hatemunah's Physical Shemitot was a universal doctrine in pre-Ramak Kabbalah. Ramak and Ari "killed it" (elevated it to spiritual Upper Worlds). Alter Rebbe gave it respect again. Rashash's students "gave it life again" (showed how it does apply in a modified way physically-time relatively). Yitzchak Ginsburgh in his videos calls this the reincarnation of the doctrine of Shemitot, as the doctrine contained a spark of truth. The mistake of Sefer Hatemunah was to separate-extrapolate that the first order-shemitah was self-contained/unconnected 7000 years from our second order-shemitah; a complete creation to itself. Ari's explanation that the first order was Tohu is based on the fundamental Lurianic process that nothing dies completely - but continues and comes back again to be rectified. Tohu is reincarnated in our realm of Tikun. In fact, the whole purpose of Tikun is to continue, rectify, reincarnate the sublime lights of Tohu. This is why, though reincarnation was accepted in Medieval Kabbalah, no one could explain it. Luria explained gilgul, as a natural outcome of his more comprehensive scheme of Creation; dynamic withdrawl/exile and revelation/redemption, higher worlds/souls becoming enclothed in lower worlds/bodies. Similarly, Rahash's (who himself was a gilgul of the Ari) teachings and students reincarnated and rectified the very doctrine of Cosmic Shemitot itself, as Ginsburgh's videos explain. Their explanation of Lurianic Seder Hishtalshelus expanded the understanding of each World in a new 3D dimension of depth. Their explanation of relative time across each world continued, reincarnated, rectified Sefer Hatemunah's view. April8 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostrophe in “Qur'an”
Hello! I notice you reverted an IP’s insertion of apostrophes in “Quran” at Ramadan. I can certainly see that it doesn't belong in the name of the template (which it ‘breaks’), but what is your objection to the other two instances, in the article text? “Qur'an” is given as the standard form in the Arabic MOS. The article is inconsistent now (and, I believe, has been for some time); IMO inserting apostrophes wherever they’re missing would be an improvement, per the MOS (and for the same sort of reasons we don’t write “Koran” any more). Would you object if I did so—skipping templates &c., of course? Otherwise the few remaining apostrophes should be removed.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article is at Quran. So I suggest you take it up there. But as long as that is so, please do not change it anywhere else on Wikipedia. By the way, this is not the first time this question has been raised. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, article & section titles are governed by somewhat different policies from those concerning text—but I will attempt to determine the consensus in this case. In the meantime, though, Ramadan still includes examples of both styles, and AFAICT consistency within articles is generally considered more important than adherence to a particular guideline.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can satisfy both, by changing all of them to Quran (which is the prevalent spelling in that article). Debresser (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, by something like four to one.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Last Extra
NB. SCHROEDER: In mentioning Gerald Schroeder's attempted scheme for reconciling cosmological and traditional Jewish ages of Universe, based on Nachmanides and physics, I wasn't implying agreement necessarily. Rather, I suggest its mention on a future Kabbalah page, mostly because of Nachmanides' description of an inflating Universe from a point, similar to the Big Bang. Schroeder's attempted resoltion is debunked on this webpage: Not a Very Big Bang About Genesis, regarding both his cosmological scheme and archeological scheme.

REBBE'S LETTER: The same website also strongly criticises the Rebbe's well known letter on Science-Age of Universe (as printed in the Feldheim book "Challenge"), on this webpage: Challenging the Challenge. The Rebbe's letter has 2 arguments, the first in 3 parts. The first argument is that cosmology and evoltion are weak because 1)speculative vs direct, 2)extrapolation vs interpolation, 3)temporaly antecedent vs consequent. The author disagrees with these charecterisations of the Scientific method. From this the Rebbe concludes that evolution has no evidence (!) - a false generalisation if taken as read (I hope the exact language derived from the Rebbe's secretary, who scripted the actual words of letters) - and that various cosmological/geological estimates of age are incompatible with each other - a situation I trust has changed in the decades since the letter was written (eg now evolution is based on two sciences, Paleontology and Genetics). The Rebbe's second argument is that fossils/old Universe etc could have been created ready made. From this letter, which most Lubavitchers take only at its basic implications, Lubavitch becomes unfortunately anti-intellectual. As I mentioned in the above post about Hasidic thought being mysticism not philosophy, Lubavitchers don't have to be anti-intellectual, if the Rebbe's letter is understood in a different context. Yitzchak Ginsburgh does just that in the 3 videos cited above on "Shemitot and the Age of the Universe". He reads the Rebbe's letter in an entirely different, Kabbalistic, and non-absolute way. This takes the Rebbe's letter as opening up the intellectual topic, not closing it down. Admittedly, this is a wiser and more difficult step to take, as most people only see the direct meaning. It is wiser, as it requires some understanding that a Lubavitch Rebbe looks at the world Kabbalistically.

GINSBURGH'S READING: Yitzchak Ginsburgh's approach to Science is uniquely-qualitatively different-superior in traditional Judaism, because he is the only one who has the Kabbalistic basis to approach the problems. Harmony with Science can only come from Kabbalah, not Nigleh, and these then point to future mutual fruition between the two, as Converting the Wisdom of the Nations outlines. The writings of other Orthodox religious Jews concerning Torah and Science usually do damage on different levels (some radically!) - just read the many debunking articles on the website I link to here, talkreason.org. Ginsburgh reads the Rebbe's 2 arguments in relation to the 4 Worlds: In Asiyah cosmology may give the correct age of the Universe at 13.7 billion years; In Yetzirah perspective the Rebbe loosens the absolute authority of Scientific ages based on weaknesses of Science; In Beriah perspective the world is created Yesh-mi-Ayin at this or any moment from nothing, already with a prior "memory" - fossils/tree rings/ice core layers/distant supernovae etc; Atzilus sees Yesh-mi-Ayin from the perspective of Ayin. Now the Rebbe's letter is read in a non-absolute way, not anti-Science, the very opposite from the way most Lubavitchers read it. In this, the Rebbe's second argument about ready-created fossils is transformed from awkward/inelegant leap of faith to a causitive reason/explanation: fossils/dinosaurs being fallen images from Tohu, time being relative in Kabbalah across the spiritual worlds.

GINSBURGH: Therefore, any future page on Kabbalah-Science would cite Ginsburgh most of all. Shroeder's references quoting Nachmanides would be there, but his scheme would also be conterbalanced with its rebuttal-debunking link I cite above. Any less would do as much damage as good for skeptical readers. Fortunately, Ginsburgh does not lay out a scheme reconciling cosmological and traditional ages based on Science, which would naturally be shot down. He does hilight scientific and kabbalistic structures that point to mutual fruition. The Kabbalistic commentaries and structures are revelatory for those limited to the confines of Nigleh. See his 11 lectures video/transcript Torah and Modern Physics Seminar. Here Kabbalah indicates how to solve Modern Physics, while Physics deepens our understanding of Kabbalah. I just listened to the full 9 hours audio of Ginsburgh on Kabbalah and Evolution: Torah, Evolution, and Intelligent Design Seminar. Here, eg: 1) Seder Hishtalshelus (Descending/Evolving spiritual Worlds) is Direct Light, while Natural/Bilogical Evolution is Returning Light. Malbim is cited in support of a rectified theory of evolution, fixed by Kabbalah. Evolution is based on Lamark (inhereted characteristics) rather than Darwin (Nuatural Selection) or Mendel (Random Genetic mutation). Evolution causes physical existence to seek to ascend to G-d, culminating in Man. 2) Evolution genetics is sexual-female, the unsolved problem of 2 sexes in Evolutionary Theory. In Kabbalah it is the Mother principle. Interestingly, the three figures of current theory are Aristotle, Darwin, Mendel - acrostic Adam. Adam is the aim of evolution, return to Adam Kadmon. "Let Us make Man" receives 5 traditional interpretions, related to the sefirot. The highest is G-d consulting his heart - feminine, necessitating two sexes in Evolution....etc.

I hope this last post helps in pointing the way to a future page on the issue (not in any near future for me though!). See also the double post I just added to Talk:Bible Code, which I'll expand a little further this/next week, taking skepticism further into account. (Statistically, the "Bible Codes" so far have been debunked as non-convincing. Also, Christians use them for their aims! From Yitzchak Ginsburgh/Kabbalah perspective, they are also distracting/denigrating/desecrating to the real deep mathematics-kabbalah unity in Torah shown by Ginsburgh) Note that (quite rightly) the Bible Code page is maintained by one of the skeptical opponents. (I do think that a few/minority of the codes are interesting/beautiful, possible encoded, but that there is no way to statistically demonstate it. The Ripps/Witzum "Famous Rabbis" experiment in Genesis is probably false - Gematriot etc are encoded in associated topics, not randomly across the Torah. This type of Code mangles the Torah and so is likely illusionary. Drosnin then mangles it infinitely further. Note that Jimbo Wales had to intervene on Talk:Bible Code Archive 1 because of all the crazies attracted to the topic!) April8 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

BC and BCE
You should know better than make edits like this. The articles has dozens of occurrences of "BC", and this "BCE" was recently added. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I already saw your revert and thanked you on your talkpage. You were absolutely right. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! StAnselm (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh
Dunno how I made this mistake; thanks for fixing it. --Dweller (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Thanks for dropping my. Debresser (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Skolian Saga
Hi Debresser, saw your offer in the AfD for Lyshriol to do merge. I did some searching and found four other articles that have the same problem of no sources and in-universe fan stuff: Eubians, Rhon psion, Ruby Empire, Skolian Empire. They should all probably be merged to Saga of the Skolian Empire, with reduction, along with Lyshriol. Thought about starting a multi article AfD for them, but wanted to see what you thought. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right. Even though I like the articles. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * lol yeah there's no rush. Just hate to see people put work into building them because they seem to all eventually get AfD'd (notice all the redirects in Category:Saga of the Skolian Empire, and the AfD's that created them, like skeletons on an old battlefield). Would be good to consolidate the remaining pieces and set a new direction. But it might be a lot of work. I know nothing about the series or names. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for someone to drop me a note when that Afd closes, and then I'll do all of them. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, Articles for deletion/Lyshriol closed with a merge result. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done. :) Debresser (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Looks good. What do you think about Eubians, Rhon psion, Ruby Empire, Skolian Empire? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally like these novels and am not happy about deletion nominations or merging, even though if a merge nomination were to be made, I would have to agree that according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines they should be merged. Debresser (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Armenian calendar
Hi. I'm not sure why you took such offense to my edits to Armenian calendar (which I infer from the "!"s in your comments), but I'll offer some explanation. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 11:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous version of the article said "The ancient Armenian year consisted of thirteen months of 30 days each,except the 13th month which had 5 (or 6 if leap-year) daysб called epagomenê." While correcting the errors (thirteen→12, missing space, spurious "б"), it was unclear whether epagomenê was supposed to be the name of those extra days themselves or the 13th month because of the ambiguous wording. Neither made sense, since all the other days are individually named, and the 13th month isn't listed in the table. So, I looked for the word elsewhere and was unable to find it anywhere that did not look like it was either the source for, or a copy of, this article. Further, the cited source says the 13th month is named Avelyats. Thus, I requested clarification. Can you elaborate?
 * By similar to Roman, I meant that it was not positionally decimal and used alphabetic digits. Upon further reading, I realize the subject is more complicated, and that it is, indeed, more similar to Greek and Hebrew. Excuse me.
 * I'll note that the current version of the sentence has an extra word ("days") at the end of it. There are other issues with the article, too, requiring more research.
 * Thank you for this post. I removed the extra "days" now. I see your point about what precisely was meant by epagomenê, but I think the present text makes it clear that epagomenê is the name of the days. If further research would show this to be less than exact, please feel free to rewrite, since I am not an expert. Still, in the present wording I see no need for a tag. Previously yes, that I why I rewrote it. Just that I rewrote a little different than you did, but still based on your idea. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yom tov sheni
Thanks for the help. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a rabbi, and have explained the subject a few times to laymen. I just have very little time lately, and can not write my own articles or sections. But I'll be happy to follow this article, and add my 2 cents. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Arab/Arabian Jews
My apologies for the late response. The reason I created the 'Arab Jews' category is because the term 'Arabian Jews' refers to the Jews who inhabited the Arabian peninsula, whereas 'Arab Jews' is a broader term referring to people who identify as both Arab and Jewish. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I see. Okay, I have no problem with that, basically. But 1. that needs to be clarified on the category page. 2. are you sure that such is the only possible or even most likely meaning of the word "Arabian" = "from the Arabian peninsula"? If there is cause for confusing, we should consider this very carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Placement of dmy template
I hoped it would stick indeed. :) That it is against practice I know. That it is against common sense I strongly disagree. It is pointless for a non cleaning or non infobox template to be placed at the top of the article. Much better at the bottom with the categories, persondata and so forth. Garion96 (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let me explain the logic. Note that this issue has been raised recently at some other template with a similar function like Template:Use British English or so.
 * Since this template comes to inform editors that they should use a certain style, be it in dates or in language, it should be at a visible place. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Jews
I told you to take it to the talkpage. If you make such a serious accusation that an editor would be a sockpuppet, please provide proof. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor was a sockpuppet, hence why he's been permanently banned. There's no reason to take up the sudden re-introduction of his arbritary selection of celebrities in the infobox, where photos have been objected to by dozens of users over the years. The selection is absurd - for starters all but one of the figures is Ashkenazi, and no other groups are represented. And as has been stated before, the use of a photobox is inappropriate for an article about a religious group. There are associated ethnic groups for this religious grouping and they have their own articles. But this article describes a religious group, and no other religious group has a photobox, let alone one that only represents Europeans members of that group. Avaya1 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see now that he is blocked. If these specific pictures are against consensus, then I have no problem with your revert. But skimming the talkpage, I see no real objections to these specific pictures. If I am mistaken, please let me know. But the fact that 2 out of the 8 are Ashkenazi (Maimonides and Spinoza are Sefaradi) is not a problem. If more Ashkenazim are famous than Sefaradim, then the pictures should reflect this. And since Judaism is most certainly an ethnicity as well, the last argument is not a problem either. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I will copy this thread to the talkpage, and would appreciate it if we could continue the discussion there. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wording
hello. I'm sorry. Didn't mean any disrespect, but you're just frankly plain incorrect. '''"Josiah" does NOT have the word in Hebrew for "God" in the word. "El" or "Elohim" is not part of the word.''' It means "healed of Jehovah" or "supported by Jehovah"...NOT "healed of God". Also, you made a POV comment that is simply not correct. You said "Yehovah is definitely wrong". That's a circular assumption, based on flawed reasoning. A number of scholars disagree...though some agree. It doesn't matter. "Yahweh" can be used, but it's not the "J" sounding Anglicized version. "Jehovah" preserves the four Hebrew consonants (in Latin). There are both sides of that argument. The point though is if we say "Josiah" with no problem, with the "J", then why not the Name of God? Side point.

But regardless of that, sorry, it's simply factually incorrect to say "Josiah" has the word Elohim for "God" anywhere as part of the word. It just doesn't. (That's not a matter of opinion, but checkable provable linguistic fact.) Hence my reverting. You changed what I did simply for "I don't like" reasons, and then replaced it with something genuinely incorrect. So I changed it back. Sorry. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And how do you understand "Yah" as in "Yoshi-Yah"? If you don't know what you are talking about, don't edit! Debresser (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The selection of notable Israeli Jews in the montage at the top of the article Israeli Jews
Hi Debresser. I decided to contact you since you recently took part in the discussion on this matter. Please participate in the latest part of the discussion and help form a consensus based resolution by stating your ideal option regarding the main issue in dispute here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go there right away. Thanks for the note. Debresser (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orlah (cleaning up unnecessary disambiguation)
Hi. I've never done something like this before, so just wanted to check with you to make sure I have this right. (I tripped on this as I was updating Tu B'Shevat at Jewish holidays.) So I think what I'm supposed to do, in order, is: So: (a) Is that right? (b) Does it really need discussion? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a disambiguation page at Orlah that leads to only two places: Orlah prohibition and Orlah (Mishnayoth).
 * Clearly the former has to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The latter is a stub, and in any event the subject of the masechet is the former.
 * 1) Delete the current disambiguation page.
 * 2) Move "Orlah prohibition" to "Orlah"
 * 3) Add a "For ... " hatnote to the new "Orlah" to point to the masechet.
 * 4) Add a new redirect at "Orlah prohibition"


 * I see no need to discuss it. If anything, we discussed it now. There will be no need to create the redirect in step 4, since the move of step 2 will do that. Are you an admin that you can delete pages? Debresser (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you could propose this on the talkpage (of Orlah, I guess), and I'd second it, and then put a Editprotected template there so that an admin will pay attention and do it. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you for helping.  StevenJ81 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cyrus the Great
I checked my edits/reverts on the Cyrus the Great article. I wrote a wrong edit summary for my revert. IP user removed the sourced content and his/her edit summary is disruptive. I just recovered the source and content. I think my edit/revert is correct but I agree that my edit summary is not clear/obvious enough. Also, I checked the ref/citation and it seems that IP user edit is just blanking.1 Zheek (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that there is room to remove the part of the paragraph that that editor removed. Calling it propaganda is overdoing it, but I see little use in the high tones of the present text. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Jona Lendering as WP:RS calls it propaganda, so there's no high tone, just facts. Cheers. --109.60.45.72 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. after reading comments on article talk page (and my talk page), I agree his/her edit is correct and clear. So I don't revert it again. The problem is solved. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy to hear that. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm not altogether sure that your question to 'Remember the dot' over at least the edit you have highlighted is technically reasonable thing to ask. It is reasonable to ask what and why "Remember the dot" is doing, but, looking at the edits shows that at least that edit appears to be wise. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think my question was reasonable the way it was asked. Anyway, see my reply there. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">  Gareth Griffith-Jones  – The Welsh  Buzzard  – is wishing you the season's greetings. Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus, or the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.


 * Thanks. :) Debresser (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing name of Jewish ethnic devisions article
Hi :-) I started a vote on the talking page regarding changing the name to Jewish ethnic sub-divisions. I saw that you showed interest in an idea so I'm inviting you to take part in it! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I replied there. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See discussion here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Jews#Related_ethnic_groups

I'm not sure why you think Hebrew is a modern language, because the Hebrews all spoke it before the diaspora happened.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer187 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is easy to explain. Because Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are not the same language. Just saying "Hebrew", which is a redirect to Hebrew language, is ambiguous. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Purim Torah," and suchlike.

 * 1) תודה רבה.
 * 2) מזל טוב on your wedding!
 * 3) Given #1 above, I don't want this to sound unappreciative. Still, concerning commas, quotation marks, and WP:MOS: Someone brought that to my attention earlier today.  Notwithstanding what it says in the MOS, I didn't—and don't—see true consensus on the subject in any of the archived discussions.  I learned "American" (or TQ) in school, and "British" (or LQ) just looks wrong to me.  So I don't do it.  Frankly, even if I committed to using LQ (and I'm not), I'd probably forget, as TQ is too ingrained in my habits.  So if you, or, or anyone else, want to make those changes in my work, go ahead. To quote someone I respect a lot, Kol HaKavod. But I just don't think it's worth the time or effort. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :)
 * I did see a consensus opinion in wp:mos, that punctuation has to be logical. If the quotation is itself a sentence, then have the punctuation inside the quotation marks, and if it is only a word or a few words, then have the punctuation outside of the quotation marks. When I see an edit that do not do this, especially if the rest of the article does keep this rule, I usually change it, and that is not much of an effort. If I have something else I want to change or add, then for sure I do punctuation too. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I say, I won't argue the point. My view of the history, including archived discussions on it, goes like this:  Early on, some consensus developed in the direction of LQ.  Recent efforts to change that have not achieved sufficient consensus to do so.  So if that constitutes a "consensus opinion," so be it.  However, the same recent efforts to change that have also shown substantial opposition to LQ as a required standard .  So the way I see it, it's not so clear there is truly a consensus.
 * Separately, I'm going to 's talk page. I know s/he feels strongly about Shabbat as תחילה למקראי קודש, and I can't argue that s/he isn't halachically right.  But the idea of the weekly Shabbat as holier than the annual Yom Kippur is a complex one, and in some respects it's not even true.  (For example, Israel becomes like the angels, etc., etc.) So I'm going to ask him/her to cool that.  (S/he did it on the page Yom Kippur, too, and I'm going to partially reverse that edit.)
 * StevenJ81 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I already did that an hour ago. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One more note/question: I thought about adding a sentence about safek walled cities in the Shushan Purim paragraph.  I didn't, because I thought it was too much detail for the survey article.  You did, of course, and you're not wrong on content.  But I'd still ask:  is this too much detail for this survey article, since the subject of these safek walled cities is addressed in the Purim article itself?  I've been trying not to add too much fine detail to the Jewish holidays survey article, because I don't think that's its purpose.  StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit doesn't give a reason, just states the fact in short. IMHO that should be ok. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Result of your 3RR complaint
Debresser, please see WP:AN3. I've warned both you and the IP not to revert again until you've gotten others' opinions on the adequacy of the sourcing. A reasonable place would be WP:RS/N. If you have access to the newspaper Yated Ne'eman (English edition) for August 18, 1989 it would strengthen your case. That is where the author of the article in Printing the Talmud says he got the information about the other rabbis banning Steinsaltz's work. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look right now. Thank you for reviewing the case, and for dropping me a notice here. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am in definite agreement with you regarding the IP's incredible rudeness. However he/she has raised some serious policy issues which I think need to be examined on their merits. That's why I have removed the controversial sentence from the references that seem quite weak and in compliance with EdJohnston's decision. I am in no way opposed to restoring the sentences in question if we can establish the museum piece as a reliable source, but as it stands now that looks extremely weak.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping a note. So not a hothead after all. :) I replied to your post on the talkpage, arguing why I think these issues aren't issues. I have considered the IP's arguments, of course, as soon as they were made, but I don't think they are a problem. Meet you on the talkpage! Debresser (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have again reverted the edits in question since, the more I read of the 'Printing the Talmud' website, the more obvious it becomes that the writer simply copies snippets of information from other unverified sources. Additionally, some of what he writes in the the pages before the Steinsaltz section is incredibly ignorant and obviously wrong. If we can find multiple reliable sources attesting to the 'facts' he has invented, by all means the information should be restored. That, however, has not yet occurred and it might be taken to defame Rav Steinsaltz in its present form.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Claims Jews are not an ethnic group
Hi! I went on the Germans page and saw that on the collage they put Einstein and Marx, who were obviously not German. I opened a discussion on the topic on the talk page, and I got a bunch of Germans saying Jews are not an ethnic group but a religion. Could you join the discussion and help explain them that Jews are an ethnic group and Einstein (who identified as a Jew) and Marx are Jewish.

I guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know of Black, Asian, South Asian who identify as Jewish because they follow the Jewish faith, but certainly don't identify as as Jewish ethnicity :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What's so hard about this? Anyone look up ethnoreligious group?  StevenJ81 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @BWilkins The religion and the ethnicity go together. Even converts over a few generations become part of the ethnicity. And those who only identify with the ethnicity over the time lose even that. It is a dynamic process, but in the end, only the combination of the two is what constitutes the Jewish people. But yes, for a few generations, there are those who would identify with one and not the other. Over the length of the existence of the Jewish people, that is a pebble in the sky. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact these Black, Asian, South Asian BWilkins mentioned are most likely converts and not born Jews.--Gilisa (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or their descendants, yes. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments in TfD closure
Closing this TfD as "keep" is obviously the correct way to read the discussion. But inserting your own personal opinions on the topic in the guise of a closure statement is completely inappropriate. If you have a view on the issues raised in the TfD you should have addressed those in the TfD proper instead airing of your views and then immediately closing the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No sir, it is customary for closing editors to explain their rationale. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You went way beyond explaining your rationale. If you can't separate your personal opinions from the job of interpreting consensus then you shouldn't be closing discussions. You're welcome to participate in discussions but if you're going to do so then you can't also claim to be a neutral judge of group consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps stop telling me what is inappropriate and what I can't do? A discussion is not a vote, and I am at will to lend weight to certain arguments. And I explained my reasoning in my closing commentary. I understand you would have wished for another outcome, but that is no reason to start teaching me morales. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rabbi Meir Baal Haness
I never heard of an organization called Rabbi Meir Baal Haneis Salant that existed during the times of the old Yishuv. Do you know anything about this organization?--Research36 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, never heard of it. But I definitely know about the famous Colel Chabad, probably the oldest charity in Israel active till the present day and on a large scale. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warrior = possible double account
Hi Debresser--please have a look at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring (hope this link comes across properly). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The link is okay, yes. I'll have a look right away. Thanks for the post. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category reply
The series' plot is based partly on the Anabasis, so I felt it appropriate. Eladynnus (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

See the spaces in the header and after it?
See? Debresser (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Chabad
Hello Debresser,


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chabad&oldid=538910617

You missed the opportunity to place a space between the "Chabad" and "footer"! Oh well...

I'd say a reason for renaming the template simply "Chabad" is that there seem to be far many more footer/navbox templates that don't include "footer" or "navbox" in their names than those that do. Perhaps that's because the footer/navbox is taken (knowingly or not) as the default kind of navigational template..?

Best wishes, CsDix (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I considered adding the space. Done now. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case I think the sidebar is the more popular one, and it definitely is more visible and looks better. Debresser (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page
Hi,

Your input would be appreciated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach#Works

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Elazar Shach, you may be blocked from editing. ''I shouldn't have to template you, but given that you've already been blocked in the past for refactoring the talkpage comments of others, I think it important to try to get your attention to the fact that doing it again just now may not be the best idea. I understand discourse may be emotional. But that's not appropriate; certainly not with the reason that you gave.'' Epeefleche (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When have I been warned for this previously? Must have been a long time ago. In any case, see this edit and the edit summary "removed personal attack + whining unrelated to article improvement". This is precisely what I did. Please explain if you disagree. And indeed, it would have been more polite to write me, then to template me. I should trout you. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * More than warned. As I said, you were blocked for it.  At 20:36 on August 23, 2011, by Fastily, for 31 hours.  You can find your block record here, if you don't know where it is.  And no -- if you think that after having been blocked for refactoring, you should trout someone who is trying to get your attention before you are blocked for engaging in the same precise behavior again, they you are somewhat wrong-headed in your thinking.  Recidivist disruptive behavior is a special concern of sysops, and I'm helping you by alerting you before you get blocked again.  As to your refactoring, it was materially different, as you can see here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This was indeed a long time ago. In any case, I suggest to remove IZAK's comment, or at least half of it. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

[citation needed]
Dear Mr. Debresser

About your edits Kupath Rabbi Meir Baal Haness

First edit: Your request to provide a source for this paragraph “The offices of Kupath Ramban are flooded with requests for help.” is absurd. However I suggested deleting the entire paragraph. You preferred not to delete it, but leave the quotation request.

Your second edit: You deleted this paragraph “Rabbi Chaskel Besser, served as a member of Kupath Rabbi Meir Baal Haness America's Presidium “ on the grounds that the information is not relevant

Quote '''The line mentioning that a Mr. Besser was a member of the presidium of America's Kupah is utterly irrelevant. …In addition it is unsourced. But let me make clear that even if this were perfectly sourced, it would still not be worthy of mention in this encyclopedic article''' End quote

1. The Name of an org's president is relevant information. 2. I have provided a source when I added the paragraph. 3. And FYI Rabbi Besser was the President of the Kupah, only in his later years he became part of the Honorary Presidium.

Your edits makes me wonder about your intentions. Please do not undo my edits again, so I don't need to file a complaint. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy1w2 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC) --Sandy1w2 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you feel you need to "file a complain", go ahead! I know my edits are in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and yours are not. So I don't mind somebody else telling you the same thing.
 * Your whole "argument" is your statement (!) that my request for a source is "absurd". Proof by assertion will not be accepted on Wikipedia.
 * The text you add is that he was a "member of the presidium". That is not relevant. If you could show that he is president, that would be relevant. That he was president and now is "part of the Honorary Presidium" is not relevant. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hallo, Mr. Debresser. Sorry, I apologize for getting you aggravated (please understand that I am aggravated as well) lets both try to communicate better, so we can enjoy working together.


 * Let's get back to our subject. For Rabbi Besser check this source and let me know if it's sufficient. About the “citation needed”. Do you want to keep the paragraph with the tag, or you want to delete both? Waiting for your response.--Sandy1w2 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As to your second question. I think that the information in that paragraph is relevant, so I'd prefer to keep it. But since it is a rather large claim, it has to be sourced. So if you can source it, all the better, but if not, we need a "Citation needed" tag. Removing the paragraph is of course a valid alternative in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, but I'd regret the loss of that relevant information. I am sure you agree with me at least on that account. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As to the first question. That is quite a poor source: the names of the people who signed an obit. But in any case, the point is as above: if he is presently president, that would likely be notable. If he was president and the more so if he was only one of the people of the presidium, then that is usually not notable. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A Serious Man style
Shouldn't an American film use American style? I thought that was the general method but I don't keep up on these things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It should in spelling and dateformats. For punctuation the rule is that we use "logical" punctuation. See MOS:LQ. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Happy to have a good and ready answer to a fair question. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Birthright
How can you just say it's vague? Explain what is vague. I edited it to explain what was meant since the first time you said it was unclear. If you think it is vague, why not add stuff rather than remove the whole thing? This is highly unethical behavior. I am not going to be intimidated by your calling the paragraph vague and telling me not to undo it. Unless you start making a substantial critique, I am going to lengthen the paragraph to flesh out the points even further because otherwise it is UNCLEAR TO ME what exactly it is you think is good for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit started with "Undid edit by Debresser". Therefore I hadn't noticed that you added text. I apologize. Your last edit was indeed better. For a more specific question, see your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia automatically put that there because I clicked undo and then began editing from there. I answered your question on my talk page. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, that is the way undo's work. I am happy we have started a discussion, and have replied there. Then I copied the discussion onto the talkpage, to make things transparent and to receive input from other editors. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Birthright Israel
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Birthright Israel.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Birthright Israel or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yeah. No need to template me. Especially since you should have noticed that we started a discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor vent
I hope you recall my belief in using consensus by compromise a long time back on Judaism. The ability of those disparate editors to accept compromise was fairly good -- but now I (mistakingly) tried to help in finding a compromise for the lead of United States at DR/N and ended up with the Wikipedia equivalent of a whoopee cushion <g>. How does one explain to people that the lead is not required to delve into every permutation of opinion in an absolutely perfect manner, but is intended to help a reader figure out what the article is about? I am afraid I do not understand what is going on ... Anyways, sorry to vent here, but I figured you would at least have an idea where I was coming from. <g>   Oh -- and my very best wishes in this great holy season! Collect (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit war on Birthright Armenia
Hello Debresser, please see the result of your edit warring complaint at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will do so forthwith. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciate the cleanup, didn't mean to pull out the other two, just the dead merge discussion... (Which will, undoubtedly, be restarted shortly, given it's just finished. ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Thanks for replying. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse" regarding Rabbi Elazar Shach
Hi,

Just wanted to know if you have anything to add/respond to the discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lag BaOmer
Hi, I don't know what to make of your comment on my talk page. An IP noted on the Lag BaOmer talk page that the first mention of Lag BaOmer might have been later than the Talmud and Midrash, so I did a bit of online research and came up with enough refs to show that it's true, Lag BaOmer was only mentioned for the first time in the 13th century. I tried to stick to traditional sources, but I also came across a lot of information about the Lag BaOmer-Bar Kokhba revolt link at the Jewish Virtual Library. I'm sorry you think I did too much to the page; perhaps we can discuss paragraph-by-paragraph what exactly you don't like? As it's getting late for me, I won't be doing any more edits tonight. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Debresser, for what it's worth, Yoninah did not just "waltz in"; she has been working on the article for quite a long while--longer than I have. BTW, I've never seen a source earlier than medieval, either.  I tried to find one when I updated the Lag B'Omer section of Jewish holidays, but couldn't.  StevenJ81 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that Lag BaOmer is not mentioned in the Talmud. By "waltzing in" I meant that he (or she, as you say) made a series of more than 10 edits, some major, with significant changes to the text. I'll be happy to see Yoninah take it slow and/or discuss major edits before hand. The subject of no Talmudic sources I already agree with. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not happy with Yoninah undoing my revert. That is not WP:BRD. Especially since the edits were NOT all sourced, as he claims. Now I had to make some 10 edits, just to remove his inaccuracies. This is not the way things should be on Wikipedia. I had 1 hour to be with my family, who are al home because of this very same Lag BaOmer, and now I had to spend this time on fixing every wrong thing that Yoninah wrote. That is why there is a revert button, damned! May be I made the wrong choice, but Yoninah should not have undone my revert of his edits like that! Debresser (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor on Wikipedia is "he", as far as I am concerned. It makes absolutely no difference if he is he, she, gay, lesbian or transsexual. If an editor would like to be addressed as "she", he/she should write me so, and I'll make a considerable effort and shall try to do so. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)