User talk:Debresser

What I do on Wikipedia.

My rewards.

What's up?

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

Can you help identify these favicons?

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

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

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

My 'orphan' favicons

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

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

Special characters

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

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

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

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

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

TUSC token 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

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

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

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

Account creation system

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

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

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

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

DABbing

How ugly. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A matter of opinion. I see beauty in templates. But the sentence you wrote was completely unacceptable, because it does not conform to Wikipedia standards of encyclopedic language, with its reference to a reader. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't agree at all there. That said, no further worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Same courtesy shown from this side. You could also check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid). Debresser (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(self-references_to_avoid)#Neutral_self-references_are_acceptable therein. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But the disambiguation message is never styled as an address to a reader of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Only sayin', I don't think that's true and I don't think there's a policy against it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hill Street Blues

Well, Nurse Echo, the issue of those meaningless "fame and fortune" names is resolved. Now, how to make the rest of that cast list more orderly and meaningful. Any thoughts? Drmargi (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, no. :) I just deleted the one off appearances. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The other editor seems to have picked up his/her toys and left in a huff, so there's an opportunity to make some major fixes. I'd at least like to separate the police command structure from the cast. As it is, you can't tell who matters from who doesn't. Drmargi (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that 1. All non-major characters should be treated in the "Other characters" section, even if they are part of the command structure. 2. Fay Furillo and Joyce Davenport should be treated more extensively. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a first stab at some sort of reorganization, however temporary, designed to at least help readers identify the main cast and major players. It's only a placeholder. I'd submit we need to cull the list first, then figure out how to organize what remains. I do think the command structure is useful, but needs significant pruning. I agree that, in addition to that, we need discussion of the major players, particularly ones like Frank, Joyce, Larue, Belker and Bates who had major storylines the whole life of the series. To get that article in shape is a major undertaking.

Meanwhile, Tumadoireach has put the issue on the notability notice board. Since he/she is such a self-proclaimed expert on all things Wikipedia, I reminded him/her to put a reminder in a few key spots, which merited a sarcastic welcome to Wikipedia statement on my talk page. Is is me, or is the Wikipedia becoming increasingly burdened with "win at all costs" types? Drmargi (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it time for an ANI for incivility on Tumadoireach? Drmargi (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd wait for some outside reaction on the noticeboard. Depends on your nerves. :) Debresser (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no taste for the ugliness that accompanies an ANI, but the accusations and insults have to stop. Drmargi (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi There -article talk page annex ? hmmmm i am delighted to see that here at least you both can bear to refer to it as a cast list -now why is that not acceptable in the article ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please notice that I have not used the word "cast" in my posts. It is a list of characters. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A list of characters that includes the names of the actors portraying them is,by definition, a cast list. What is more interesting than that fact is your horror at the notion of using the word. last gasp cast aspersions asperity -aspirin needed ! --Tumadoireacht (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that combining "officers" and "cast" under the heading of "characters" is like grouping "kings" and "castles" under "royalty". Debresser (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A herculean leap would be to just call it the cast list then like any theatre program sensibly does or simply "cast" with subdivisions for ranks and for hollywood stars even. I am still wondering how a character list that includes the actors names can be called anything BUT a cast list unless by James Joyce or someone on acid--Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I could live with calling it just "cast". Debresser (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI is apparently mostly for for death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats and suchlike Drmargi -but you presumably already knew that. I have looked at it prompted by your mentioning it. One to bear in mind. Thanks for the info.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have bad experiences with the enforcement of WP:CIVIL on WP:ANI. They frankly don't care, and are capable of laughing in your face in addition. And WP:WQA doesn't have any teeth. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Homepage attack helicopter photo

I enjoyed you homepage/user page with all the colourful and informative lozenges about your interests and tastes. I must get around to learning how to do that.

Just a thought on the subject of taste; Civilian Palestinian, Gazan, or Lebanese editors or readers who have lost adult relatives or children to Israeli gunship helicopter invasions might find your humour on the subject offensive.

You may be unaware that sales of this helicopter to Israel were blocked recently by the USA over concerns about civilian deaths and its ongoing threat to Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. "During the recent war, Israel made considerable use of the Longbow, and there were high civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip" per the Wikipedia article about the war use.

For those of us who have lost close ones to suicide it is never a subject for humour or mockery.

The assertion in the photo caption that the helicopter does its killing within Israel may be additionally problematic for obvious reasons concerned with territory definition and could be seen as additionally offensive.

Would you consider removing it either on the grounds of good taste or civil? After all civility really IS one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, unlike, say, Notability. The penguin photo, on the other hand is very funny.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad yo appreciated my userpage. Please feel free to have a look at its code, to understand how you could do the same.

As for that specific picture. I didn't make up the text myself. I too found it this way on somebody's userpage, and had a good laugh. The suicide it is referring to are the suicide bombers, with whom nobody is likely to associate himself, including those who have lost relatives through suicide, or even come into contact with attempted suicide.

Black humor and political jokes are always likely to be less appreciated by some, especially by those who hold the specific view that is being mocked. Nevertheless, comedians continue drawing full houses with it. Please notice that I have also had favorable reactions to this same picture both on Wikipedia and outside of it.

Sincerely, Dovid.

One man's humour is another man's genocide. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. To my eyes it is as offensive as Holocaust Humour. The Nazis thought such statistical bon mots hilarious too.In fact they loved statistics.

I did see a humourous definition of a terrorist: once a "terrorist": is a man with a bomb but no helicopter. Are you aware of suicide rates amongst Gazan civilians and Gazan teens in particular ? The question of what territory the attack helicopter does its killing in is also a cause for distress. The inference in the "funny" caption is that the country(ies) where it does its killing also belongs to Israel. Could it be considered to constitute an "attack page" per Wikipedia policy? WP:ATTACK and an image for speedy admin deletion if so referenced? In a spirit of promoting peace I am asking you to remove it --Tumadoireacht (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I stuck an anonymous description of the photo and caption listing the arguments above on the talk page of "Attack pages". Here [1] to get some feedback on whether I am being a bit precious about this.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's see some reactions there. I from my side do not consider this picture's text to be offensive, and especially not since the section is explicitly intended humorously. I will not remove it willingly, and consider your request as an infringement on my freedom of speech and a demonstration of your lack of sense of humor. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A request is no infringement and freedom of speech is controlled everywhere but especially here on WP as I know well !-as for humour-old Sigmund maintained a joke is always to some degree at the expense of the listener and more often at the expense of the subject. Check out the Tommy Tiernan controversy--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to agree with our aquatic friend, Debresser, I can see that this could be taken as Not Funny At All in some quarters. In the interest of WikiHarmony, would you please consider removing it? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I considered it, and decided not to. I think it is humorous, and so did other editors and outside visitors of my userpage. Nobody should take offense, and if anybody does, then I consider his sensitivities misplaced. But thanks for approaching me. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken link on your userpage

Hi Debresser. Near the bottom of your userpage, there is a statement "No, there was no connection between the lowest two banners in the "My facts and opinions" columns.". Just to let you know, the link is broken (I think it needs to be changed to link to User:Debresser#About myself). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. How did you notice? Do you have a sister yourself? :) Debresser (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Two! Basically I was reading your userpage, got down to that part, wondered which two userboxes the statement referred to, clicked the link and nothing happened. DH85868993 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra spaces between category end and stub start

Hi, a while back you asked this question [2] at WP:Stub querying why the guidance said that an extra blank line should be inserted after the categories and before the stub. I have read the ensuing discussion and it seemed like more editors agreed with you that there appeared to be limited justification for this, although the discussion did then get quite technical about asbox and CSS, and seemed to end with Rich Farmborough asking some 'asbox experts' about the ramifications. You chased things once but you do any further chasing beyond what's in the thread. You may be aware that the MoS has a link to your thread when justifying the use of the double line [3]. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the change in Wikipedia:Stub based on that old discussion. And removed the instruction and the link from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout), since the discussion came to quite the opposite conclusion, as you rightfully mentioned. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making this change. I have since posted a thread at AWB [4] regarding minor changes made with AWB that you may find of interest. I do plan to respond to the last post made there, although you will see the thread has not had much comment and is slipping down the post list. Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for making a post at AWB, although unfortunately there has been no further follow-up. Like yourself it seems, I often get irritated by the number of bot and tool edits to articles on my watchlist, most of which are very minor and cosmetic, and some of which may have no basis to be made at all e.g. the double white space issue. Another issue came up for me today regarding a 'dash script' and I posted a thread at [5]. You can see that my queries are raising wider questions on the use of bots and tools in a more integrated way, and you can see a response was made suggesting raising the issue at Village Pump. The recent responses on this I've made have tended to be at the technical bot users themselves rather than wider comment, so perhaps it would be useful to try and obtain further views. I was wondering if you'd sought any wider input on this before, and whether VP or something like RfC is the best start? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think it is worth the trouble. If any specific user would be making onlyy such edits, he'll get a slap on the wrist. Otherwise we all sometimes make such edits. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

שלום

Thank you for yours corrections in User:Genevieve2/sandbox08. I hope you have a Shabbat with happiness, peace and serenity. Shabbat Shalom. אני אוהב אותך --Geneviève (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope they were of assistance. It feels nice to be loved. :) Shabbat shalom to you too. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Working Together In The Future?

Thanks for the compliment. Yea, those categories are only populated by templates, and they are pretty convoluted because they seem to add articles to multiple categories, and many template populate one of the categories making this category overpopulated. I am not savvy with the documentation, so I hope my brute work can help the cleaning.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As you can see in Template_talk:Lead_rewrite#Deleting_The_Categories_It_Is_Linking_To_Directly_And_Replacing_With_Category:Lead_section_needing_rewrite_Or_Something_Along_Those_Lines.3F I have reverted your edits, all of them. But I do think you have a point. Just that it should be 1. discussed. 2. executed properly. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the manual of style does not apply to talk pages or user pages including their talk pages.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not so clear-cut. In any case, the spirit of it certainly applies. Using capitals in headers is just a bad American habit. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So are you assuming bad faith. And for the record, I am canadian. And this is a personal preference. Please, if you are having a Bad Day, don't take it out on me.Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the reference, the following is quoted from the 1st sentence of wp:mos which says it applies to articles (this includes categories and templates, but excludes talk pages and userpages):

The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting

Bernolákovčina (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would I be assuming bad faith? Or having a bad day? Or take it out on you even if I had a bad day? That is assuming bad faith. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, the Manual of Style's spirit applies to all of Wikipedia, and such is Wikipedia practice. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I then disagree that the "spirit" of capital letters applies to noncontent pages: i will continue to use capitals if i see it fit.Bernolákovčina (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. You might consider looking around on non-content pages, like the Wikipedia guidelines themselves, and see that you are definitely going to be an exception here. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am an exception? How so?Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In using capitals where they should not be. Because, and let's just get that straight, they have no right being there. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary American English differs sharply in many respects from other dialects and is coming to dominate Internet English- damn the herd Bernolákovčina be yourself,"diacrtitics and all" ! Kurt Hummel had it right--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:MOS they should not be used. It's as simple as that. Debresser (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The lovely sussuration of Consensus flowing in the wikiuniverse ( ♬Can you hear the drums Fernando ? ♬)

When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.

with my deepest fellow regard and hope that we can continue to learn from each other --— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I am aware of WP:BRD. That does not mean that such is the only or even the best way of establishing consensus, as you can read in that essay itself. In your case though, you are trying to push things that are more or less against consensus, which is a different thing altogether. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yours is the only dissenting voice so far on Attack Captions and Images[[6]], but I am delighted that you have the good sense and magnanimity to now acknowledge, with the aide-memoire of the flow chart, that such edits ARE at least one of the ways to work,revising the opinion you offered in your stern 'warning' of this morning.well done.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean that mine "is the only dissenting voice so far"? Nobody has reacted written any commentaries in those two sections there apart from you and me!

I know that being Wikipedia:Bold is one way of editing Wikipedia, but being bold on Wikipedia policy pages is something else than making non-consensus edits in order to push your point of view. That is called Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, or even worse, and will get you blocked or otherwise sanctioned if you continue doing so. So I was completely correct in waring you on your talkpage this morning. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you missing a label after 'called' ? I re-read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing A single edit is not tendentitious per the article.By definition a tendency is a process not an event. This morning you thought the edit not acceptable,then recanted when shown proof of error, this afternoon it has become tendentious-what will it be this evening  ?-I can hardly contain myself waiting for the pronouncement.Is there an unmentioned tendency here?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. One such edit, is just a local problem. But if you were thinking of using WP:BRD to continue in this vein, then I have to disappoint you. That would be tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You say local problem.I say local opportunity. You never disappoint, but for the present, arrests for anticipated crimes in the future, and thought crimes are only figments of Philip K. Dick's and George Orwell's imaginations. The movie has Tom Cruise.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Islamization of the Temple Mount

Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It always feel good to see a good edit. And to give a well-deserved compliment. Not to mention to receive them :) Debresser (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Parlement

Hi Debresser,

as to your first question (why I added the no definition template), there's not much more to say than: There was no definition :-) I read the introduction and still had no idea what a parlement was, only what it developed out of. That's why I added the template. As to your second question (whether your definition is correct): I have no idea -- if I'd known what a parlement is, I would have added a definition myself :-)

Thanks for adding a definition -- it makes the article much more intelligible to me. A further improvement would be to blend the first sentence with the definition into the opening paragraph -- as it stands, the following sentence is partly redundant.

Joriki (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I opted to have a strong first sentence, and not to touch the second sentence too much, in order not to step on the toes of somebody who might throw out the child with the bathwater and undo my edit. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at M4gnum0n's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Moving categories and templates

I did have chance to take part in the discussion on Template talk:R from other template before you moved templates and categories that I was watching. Please do not move things like that without a proper discussion at CFD or TFD, especially if the small discussion that did take place was not even on the talk page of a page that was moved. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the discussion wasn't broad enough. On the other hand, all agreed there that something was definitely wrong, and it is not as if the difference between "from" and "to" is going to be essential to anything. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, your new category, Category:Redirects to other templates is a duplicate of Category:Redirects from other templates and I am nominating it for speedy deletion. If a redirect is from another template, it must be to another template as well. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If so, perhaps I should nominate Category:Redirects from other templates? Better to think this over. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it over, and agree with you. It is a superfluous category. I did notice that it became empty only because you changed the categories of Category:Redirects to userbox templates and Category:Redirects to warning templates. So this is another way of saying that I agree with that also. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from other templates may be deleted if my deletion nomination for {{R from other template}} will be accepted. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Special thanks

a special Wikicookies

for Debresser from helping a new user to write a section Reconstructionist Judaism for the page Women in Judaism. Shabbat Shalom --Geneviève (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Most pleasant. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect links

"That is no reason to remove a useful link. Why are you trying to own these template?" I'm not trying to own the templates. "What links here" counts any redirect page with a link as a redirect to that link. Redirect pages weren't designed to have extra text on them but then someone (not me) decided they should. If you look at the "What links here" page of WP:UBX (the redirect page), every page that has Template:R to userbox template transcluded on it is counted as a redirect to WP:UBX. To avoid this, it's easy to just not put links on redirects. There's already a link the category page, which should provide more information than the template and can contain any helpful links. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't make a big deal out of it, but I definitely do not think your "What links here"-argument is a reason not to have a relevant link on a page. Pages like "What links here" exist to serve us, not we them. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The chances of a non-editor ever seeing a redirect template is highly unlikely. First they'd have to be on the actual redirect page, then view the current revision from the history. So links on redirects are not particularly useful anyway. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There you have a point. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Stubs and blank lines

See User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#SmackBot:_spacing_before_stub_tags. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. I had a look at that discussion on your talk page, and at the page with examples. Seems to me that having one line is enough then, wouldn't you say so? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. One line is mere source formatting. Two lines creates the desired vertical space between a navbox and the stub tag. Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

revert on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto

You reverted my change here saying there was no discussion. The reason you didn't see my discussion here was probably because it got archived by MisraBot II here.

In light of this information, would you be willing to undo your revert? —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no discussion over there. You posted, and nobody replied. I still need to see some discussion first. Especially since you agree yourself that it is "important advice".Debresser (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenia Map (edit warring)

I really don't understand how it is edit warring on my behalf. Another user has been putting inaccurate maps of Armenia, and I've been changing them as a result. I'm only protecting the integrity of the article. The map that I am putting up puts Armenia in a Europe context, which is very accurate as politically Armenia is aligned with Europe. Second, the similar sized and positioned Caucasian countries (Georgia and Azerbaijan) all have this pro Europe map, and I really don't understand why Armenia should be any different. It too like them is aligned with Europe politically. One must understand that this is not a geographic map, but a political one, and political is supposed to show with what part of the world the country in question is politically aligned. So, I am not the one at fault here, it this other user (Kentronhayastan) that is changing the map into something wrong. I will not rest until this is properly resolved, as I don't want inaccurate maps representing my country.MosMusy (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Will reply on user talk page. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

XavierAJones

Thank you for your assistance, by the way, are you also Jewish? HaYehudi 18:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am. Religious even. Please, I invite you to have a look at my userpage. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erewhon (Honorverse)

The article Erewhon (Honorverse) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

long unreferenced, non-notable fictional element

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. There isn't much I can say to prevent the prod. I tried to look for sources, but couldn't really find any. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Can't seem to find the ANI on Mclay1, not from my link, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mclay1, nor in the archives. Was it moved? withdrawn?  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Erewhon (Honorverse)

Erewhon (Honorverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not nominated for speedy deletion, it is a proposed deletion. As such, per WP:PROD, if you wish to contest deletion, just delete the deletion tag. As it's been up on PROD for a few days, deletion tag expiry will occur before your one-week deadline on merger occurs. So the closing admin may choose to delete the article at that time. It'd be easier if you just removed the PROD tag. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and I forgot the correct procedure. Have done it now. I think a merge and a redirect is the best idea. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Page

Just wrote this up to say you have an excellent page Dovid, and glad to see a brother on wikipedia. I've taken a few tips from your page and edited my own. I'm very happy now with mine. Yours is very inspiring and well-organized. I had all of my userbox(es) in the Babel box before tonight lol. Hope your Purim is great "next month" (Gregorian-wise), I'm really looking forward to it.--Smart30 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Always nice to receive praise. Yes, it's about time for something festive. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Map of Armenia

Hi, sorry for the late reply. Please read the discussion before accusing me of edit warring and threatening to get be blocked. The original map was the orthographic projection, in use for about a year, and on all other language Wikipedia articles of Armenia. MosMusy decided to change the map without starting a discussion, and I reverted it back and asked for a discussion. Yet he continuously changed it back without coming to a mutual understanding with me. In other words, he began an edit war. Now that we have come to a consensus, I accept it (in fact, I even made the Europe map that we're using now, just to show that I wasn'T simply biased toward the orthographic projection). Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, so my accusation was in place. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied more at length on the article talk page. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Should I remove William Allen Simpson's addition now? Honestly, it seems to me like five people disagreeing with all or part of his one-man consensus addition is enough to remove it (only one other person, retroactively, appears to agree with it). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

He is a very agressive editor. And doesn't give a fluke about consensus. But if you can show that there is clear consensus against him, write so on the talkpage and only then make the edit. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I left off with a comment along those lines. I feel if I revert he'll just revert me again... and after reverting, he'll report me for breaking 3rr (or rather, 0 rr or 1rr in this case, but that didn't stop him the last time). That's why I thought I needed back up of some sort. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Breaks

Typically I think breaks are frequently needed, especially when dealing with two or more portals, because I don't want the portal boxes to spill into the References/Notes sections. Remember that not everybody uses the same monitors, so what doesn't spill over on one monitor spills over on another. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are three see also's, I don't think that is likely to happen in most cases. The problem is that it leaves an ugly whiteline. In my opinion, that is at least just as bad as a spill over. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Armenia Page

Hello, I would like to turn your attention to two users, dbachmann and moreschi that have barged in and been changing the Armenia map, and other things in addition. Let me remind you that this issue had already been resolved and everything was going fine, until these people showed up. Given they are only pushing these changes for Armenia, I am rather suspicious of their intentions.MosMusy (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I find your comment rather depressing, Debresser. You ask me to do a "proper discussion" of the question? Then I should wonder what, in your opinion, I have done instead. You will note, if you care to look at the talkpage, that I have discussed the issue, based on references, which is the entire point of this project. While, otoh, all MosMusy has done is yell at me in boldface and ignore the point. So I am not sure what you think a "discussion" is supposed to look like, but it certainly bears no resemblance to anything I would consider worthy of a project to build an encyclopedia. May I remind you that this isn't a forum, or a social community? If MosMusy has any kind of case to make, let him do that. But that is of course an academic point, as it is crystal clear that he does not. --dab (𒁳) 19:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Prove to me that Armenia is politically not part of Europe and thus does not belong in the context of Europe. Prove to me why Georgia and Azerbaijan deserve Europe context maps, but Armenia deserves a middle east/asian map. The South Caucasus as a whole, deserve a Europe context map as that's where their sphere of influence, especially politically lies. MosMusy (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

lol, this user now came to my talkpage claiming that he is replacing the map because "Armenia is politically Europe". I invite you to google the width and depth of the internets for this insight: "Armenia is politically Europe". Oh yes, are two hits for it! Oh wait, they are google's cache of MosMusy's comment at Talk:Armenia plus one mirror. Talk about abusing Wikipedia to push your personal opinion as WP:TRUTH.

But perhaps MosMusy was trying to say that "Armenia is politically in Europe" and is simply a little grammatically challenged? Let's "write for the enemy" and assume that's what he was trying to say. "Armenia is politically in Europe". Oh yeah! The wide, wide internet has one (1) occurrence of this statement. This deep and encyclopedic truth has been uttered by "Lord Mov" at twcenter.net/forums/ on April 12, 2010, 02:30 PM. It goes without saying that this discovery trumps our pathetic references, such as the UN, the CIA, and OUP, and clearly establishes that MosMusy is not only right, he is a gleaming gem of encyclopedic expertise, well worthy to be pampered with our full range of Wikipedia:Expert retention measures. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I took the survey. Can't say I was too impressed by these questions, nor the English. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You should read WP:MOSDAB, what you did adding the material now sourced is contraindicated by that. Moreover, you are labeling the various Pincus named people as bearing an Ashkenazic Jewish surname; does your labeling meet our standards of categorization of people and of WP:BLP. No, it falls well short. You have no sources that all those people bear that name, any more than one may assume anyone surnamed Lee is Korean (Robert E. Lee would be surprised for example were he alive). You should check your edits to make sure you comply with the consensus about how pages should look, what they should contain, and what they shouldn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you think that there's enough for an article Pincus (surname) is awaiting your creativity; the dab pages remains just that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen WP:MOSDAB recently, but please be more specific about that contradiction you mention. And to answer your question, it does seem to me that most of the people there on the page have an Ashkenazic Jewish surname. Debresser (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Seem? Is that your standard? Well it's not Wikipedia's. See WP:BLP. You may wish to label all them Jewish, but I suppose that applies neither to all of these people, and certainly not to the businesses such as the German brewery Pinkus Müller. Since you were unwilling or unable to create the surname page, I did that; perhaps you can expand it compatibly with WP:BLP. Further BLP violations will be reported and you may find yourself blocked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, man, your are paranoid. The name Pincus is a Jewish name, even if some instances of that name aren't. Definitely no BLP violations here. In addition, you might check the number of contributions I made to Wikipedia before using such strong words. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Primo Levi

The construction of Judaism as an Ethnic origin is partially rooted in anti-semetic ideology. Individuals may become Jewish, by deciding to observe Judaism. Primo Levi was a scientist, was not an observant Jew, he was labelled ethnically by the Nazi's as a Jew, and was persecuted for their unfounded belief in Judaism as an Ethnicity. He was born in Italy to Italian parents, spoke Italian, has the potential to have family history residing in Italy since Roman times. By simply refering to him as a Jew removes his equally important identity as an Italian which the Nazi Germans were able to effectively remove from him. As for it being a well known fact, Ethnicity is not something that is firmly rooted in scientific empiricism. With this said, placing Primo in this artificial category passively conveys an affirmation with Nazi-german ideology pertaining to eugenics. If you wish to describe his Jewish culture, I suggest adding another hearder, or adjusting this header. Leaving Ethnicity: Jewish in a web source where the ignorant go to learn about things, you are perpetuating an "truth" that is rooted in racist, Nazi ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.60.154 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of blahblah to make an incorrect point. He was Jewish, end of story.

Isaac Asimov

You've misread the WP:Manual of Style (biographies): 2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Please self-revert.

Agree. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Further, if you can quote a manual of style, you certainly could be expected to know how to use a talk page. Please keep that in mind. Jd2718 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be discussed. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Related: I think the Belarussian in the lead needs to go, esp. the claim that this is his original name. The Russian clearly should stay. Yiddish probably needs to be added - but I am neither capable of finding the correct spelling nor typing it on WP. I see you have some level of knowledge of Yiddish. Can you help, or perhaps find someone who can? (I've written the same comment and request on the article's talk page) Jd2718 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I could write it. but don't want to mix myself into that subject. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Medieval Jews in Palestine

Why is Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine "misleading"? Were there no Jews in Palestine during the medieval era?! Chesdovi (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The misleading part is the word "Palestine". If that were "British Palestine" or "Ottoman Palestine" that would be a different story. There is a reason the parent category mentions "Land of Israel". Your choice to deviate from that wording, was a poor one, and as soon as editors (including me) started to protest this, you should have stopped. Instead you continue to create such categories and populate them, and that is anti-consensus behavior. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no way you will succeed it deleting all my Palestinian cats

Instead of telling me to wait for consensus, I advise you to hold your horses yourself. It will save us both a lot of time. Chesdovi (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? WP:BRD. You made a move. Now you are being reverted. In addition, you decide to create a whole system of categories, and to give it a name which was not previously in use and which is controversial. BTW, even if you are not persuaded by our arguments, you per force have to agree it is controversial. There is no reason the community has so endorse your poor initiative, and I feel sure the community will not do so in effect. So if you want to make a fuzz about it, go ahead, but it is your reputation that will suffer in the end. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: You have been mentioned at this ANI topic. —DoRD (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was sure it would come to this. But I hoped Chesdovi would desist himself. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop your POV rampage

"Editor seems blinded by some POV pushing of the term Palestinian, that he forgets the guy was Jewish". Being Palestinian and Jewish is not an oxymoron. Stop your rampage or face the consequences. Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say to me. In any case, who should stop with his edits is precisely the point of discussion on WP:ANI, so please do not make any empty threats here. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You have deleted the word Palestinian from Daniel ben Azariah. If you do not replaace it, I will file another report. Chesdovi (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That is just a content dispute, surely not a reason to "file complaints". Let me understand. I changed "Palestinian" to "living in the Land of Israel". You mean to say he didn't? I fail to see the big problem here. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant in Solomon ben Semah. Chesdovi (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I though you meant that one. :) So I replaced "Palestinian" by "Jewish". Isn't he Jewish? And isn't that more important than the accidental place of his birth? It is for precisely this argument that WP:MOSBIO says we should not generally mention countries of birth in the first sentence, and ethnicity only when it is relevant. So I think that was a good edit. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a bad edit. You removed Palestinian and replaced it with Jewish in a flagrant act of censorship to suit you own irrational POV. Why do you insist on removing the fact that Jews who lived in Palestine can not be referred to as Paletinian? I have not got a satisfactory answer from you. This is how many sources refer to such people. Why cannot we not use this designation? You refuse to do so even with a source! Are you anti-Palestinian? Explain yourself once and for all. Are you some fanatic zionist who doesn't want to mention the word Palestine? What is it with you. Chesdovi (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting all kinds of things about me? I find this offensive. Please refrain from doing so in the future, and restrict yourself to neutral wording. Also please ask for explanations, ask and do not demand them. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA 72 hr topic ban

Debresser and Chesdovi are both topic banned from Israeli / Palestinian topic areas for 72 hrs due to disruptive editing and edit warring, with a healthy dose of personal attacks and incivility thrown in. This sanction is enacted under the Arbcom case sanctions and will be so logged.

Please DO NOT CONTINUE this behavior after the 72 hr ban is over. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Please elaborate. Nor do I see any serious incivility in my posts. Did I miss something? Debresser (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA warning

As you apparently were not previously warned...

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Palestine does not exist?

You claim that the Holy Land was not called "Palestine" during the 13th cent. or is referred to by that term nowadays. Please give the common english name of what the region was called during the 13th-century (1200-1299CE). Chesdovi (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I and another user have brought many arguments why the category you created is misleadingly named. Please do not suggest things I have not said with so many words, and try to consider all relevant arguments as a whole. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please give me a clear answer. What do you mean by posting on my talk page at 00:25 on May 1, 2011: "In addition, and specifically, during the 13th century, the place was definitely not called Palestine." Chesdovi (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The area you refer to as "Palestine" was then part of the Mamluk Sultanate ruled from Egypt. Is that reason to call Jewish scholars there "Egyptians", "Mamluks" or "Palestinians"? No it is not. At most they can be called "Rabbis living in Mamluk Palestine", analogous to "Rabbis living in Ottoman or British Palestine", with which category neither of us seems to have any fundamental problems. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have answered you own query: "Palestine was then part of the Mamluk Sultanate ruled from Egypt." You see my freind, the region, ruled by the Sanjuk Turks, Mamluks, Ottomans or British remains, until '48, Palestine. Palestine is the regional name. And since this category categorises people by the region of their residence, and NOT ethnicity, its use is proper and correct. Palestine was under Egpytian rule, But IT WAS STILL KNOWN AS PALESTINE. That is what it is known in by all scholarly works on the history of that region. The Jewish encylopedia uses it, rabbis writing for gentile audiencs at the time used it, Lord Balfour used it, even Ben Gurion used it. It is Never called Turkey, Egypt, just because it was ruled by those nations. are Bohemian rabbis of Bohemian ethnicity? Catalan rabbis of Catalan ethnicity? No. Are Palestina rabbis of Palestinian ethnicity, no. It merely denotes the area of residence by which these scholars were known. YOU yourself have stated you wish to ignore numerous sources, some of which I have provided, on this issue and prefer to enforce you POV LOI instead. You have acted in a very patriarchal way indeed. We dont have rabbis in Nazi Germany. Rabbis in Napolean France. Rabbis in Likud Israel. The region always remains the common factor here, whatever the ruleing authority ove that region. You have got cnfused about what the name of this category insinuates. But you are wrong. Why is MM Shenrrson considered American, Does he dexcned for Red Indians? If you have a probelm with the word palestine, then take it up at the right palce, dont go ahed and literally undone hours upon hours of my time and effort creating what in my mind are perfectly sound and correct cats. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I and another user have explained to you many times now already. The fact that somebody lives in a region called "x" is not yest a reason to call the person an "x-ian". Especially if that name is not used by all, is ambiguous, and the person lives only part of his life in that region, etc. etc. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well i'll take that as a clear answer that you now CONCEED that the AREA WAS KNOWN AS PALESTINE IN THE 1200'S since you did not address this at all in your previous response, but decided to change the subject. Now the next problem: Who gives you the wiki RIGHT to expalin to ME what the paramenters for Rabbis of X cats are. Are you an expert on this? I don't have a wiki doctorate on it. Maybe you do? The sources are literally STACKED against you. DO YOU NOW CONCEDE THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE OF YOU FORCING YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT BELONGS WHERE OVER MINE? Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have experience with rabbis cats, do you?

I have populated many rabbis according to their rightful regional designations without any fuss for years. Ottoman rabbis, German rabbis, Catalan rabbis, English rabbis, Syrian rabbis, Iraqi rabbis, Bohemian rabbis, etc. I created Category:French Tosafists, Category:American Haredi rabbis, etc, etc. Why has my inuition now been the center of contention? It is some extreme political POV issue. Accept that fact. Have you noticed how only you and SD have been involved? Does that not say something? You keep on going on about the "community". One right-wing zionist and another right-wing pro-palestinian. Sure both content these cats for differeing issues, but can you not see how both of you are seriously impeded by your POV? For you to go ahead and depopulate so many pages without agreement is seriously problematic. If it turns that that you have anything to do with Pallomine who finihed off your grand job of depopulating Palestinian categories, that will be the end of you here. Chesdovi (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you call me a "right-wing zionist" (I understand that "right-wing pro-palestinian" wasn't about me)? Why do you insinuate that I'd have anything to do with Pallomine? I find your behavior offensive, and will add this to the WP:ANI link. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RWZ because of your intolerance of the mere word Palestine on Jewish articles. Preferrng LOI, a term not nece. backed up by sources, for body and cats. Are you not the one who depopulted 50 pages in one fell swoop? After that massacre, you opted for imediate extermintion of the parent cat: [7] Agast, I reverted asking ou about what the rush and need there was to delted the cat. YOU then revert and when the page is left intact b/c it was "not currently empty", then mysteriously someone appears to "help you out" editing only those pages you have been crusdaing on the past day? suspicious or what? Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use words like "massacre" or "crusading" in this context. I find that offensive. Nor do I have a problem with the word "Palestine" and its derivatives, when used properly, that is rightfully and unambiguously. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I did see you left Palestinian academy. But what do you mean by "rightfully and unambiguously". And why does your view trump? What is ambiguous here? Where exactly Palestine is located? Chesdovi (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I left that, because I thought that was its name. Like Palestinian Talmud. Even though in Hebrew it is called the Talmud Yerushalmi. Anyway, I have not resorted to accusing you of having a POV, and would appreciate it if you could return that courtesy. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Next time you come across a Jewish encylopedia, open it. You will see that all amoroaim are call Palestina. All Geonim are called Palestinian. Indeed, The Palestina Talmud, right up to the Palestinain Orchestar in the 30s. all Jews. This is the termed most commonly used in english for that region. Not some awkward Talmud Rabbi of the Land of Israel. Stop removing the word Paalestinian from Jews who lived there for centuries, trying to whitewash the Jewish connection to Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Try not to give me orders... And please, do not add the word "Palestinian" when it is not justified. Jews who lived in Palestine, are still first and foremost Jews. This is a good example of "tofes tafel umaniach ikar". Should I translate? Debresser (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If I feel the word is jusified I WILL ADD IT and continue to do so until you and I come to a soltion which is accepatble to both of us. Not one enforcing his view of what is just or not on the other, which you appear intent on doing. Chesdovi (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do so, then you will be banned or blocked again, until you can show consensus. It is all very simple, really. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WT:JUDAISM

Since you are under a topic ban, perhaps it would be best if you didn't post a message concerning the topic at WT:JUDAISM. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think a topic ban includes talkpages? That doesn't seem logical. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording at WP:TOPICBAN definitely suggests that talkpages are not part of a topicban unless specifically stated otherwise. Debresser (talk)

Okay. My mistake. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even after Chesdovi's edit, it still says "Palestinian rabbi and Jewish mystic". (Nevertheless, I just reverted it as redundant, because the sentence ends "in Ottoman Palestine".) Maybe I should have been clearer. I was speaking about the subject of your dispute at ANI—I don't have a preference concerning the categories. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He did the same to another article, where the word "Jewish" was completely removed in favor of "Palestinian". I was positively shocked by that. See [8]. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

3 questions (and answers) and it not even seder night

You gave 3 reasons why the Palestinian rabbis category is not worthy here: Q1)The fact that somebody is a rabbi in a country does not mean he has the local nationality, especially since many (or even most) of them were not born there. A1)It seems from the sources that this very issue of residence does confer identity (or nationality) with a given region. We have Menachem Lonzano who was born abroad, yet upon living in Palestin, is called by RS Palestinian. Q2)There is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location. A2)This concern can be dismissed since the category is under the parent category which lists the nationality of Rabbis. Secondly, with all rabbis being of Jewish ethnicity, there can be no confusion about their ethnicity if they are being linked with a regional nationality. Would Ottoman Jews be a problem, lest we think they are Turkish and not Jewish? Should we not categorise Category:American rabbis as we may be confused to think they are descended from red indians? Q3)During the 13th century, the place was definitely not called Palestine. A3) That is an myth. And as you did not respond to my previous post about this I take you you now conceed there was. Chesdovi (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the fifth section you have created on my talkpage within the last 24 hours. Not to mention the initial discussion on your talkpage, the WP:ANI discussion, and the WikiProject Judaism talkpage. I think we should restrict ourselves to your talkpage, or the WikiProject Judaism talkpage. Especially since you don;t seem to want to listen to any of my arguments. So perhaps let other editors state their opinions as well. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I listen to your arguments and refute them to no avail. You do not rebut satisfactoraily. Your reasoning is begining to crack through now though, after your statement about using the term Palestinian for a Jew is antisemitic! I thought it may have been about this all along. You should have said so and it would have saved us all a whole lot of time. I am happy to use the WPJ Arizal section, but really do not want to rehash my points over and over again. Chesdovi (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are again taking my comment out of context. The issue is what I have always stated. That specific edit was definitely outrageous and an affront to Judaism, and I so stated. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you may have actually been referring to my cheeky edit summary. So you think me calling the Arizal Palestinian is offensive to Judaism. I suppose me saying you live in occupied west Jerusalem also is an affront to Judaism. Cannot you guys not separate Judiasm from Politics? Will you be breaking the sefira again this year to celebrate the founding of your anti-God state. If not, why not? The Arizal would for sure be against the zionist enteprise in the holy land. The fact that most haredim see it as a bedieved situation, all besides Chabad that is, surely shows that you have been wrong all along. Until moshiach comes, the real moshiach that is, the establishment of Jewish self governace without universal consent is against halacho. It is outrageous that you do not accept the common english usage term for a region on the project and go to such lengths to have your way. Fancy depopulating all those pages like that. Chesdovi (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from including me with "you guys" (whomever you may have meant by that). Or calling Israel "my" state. Try using some objective language for a change, and not to make any personal insinuations. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Zionism

I think I discern some anti-zionism in your edits, especially your last one. I would find it interesting to discuss that with you, completely regardless of our disagreement. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Question 1

If I understand you correctly you think that Chabad sees the State of Israel as lechatchila? Debresser (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Question 2

Why do you say that the establishment of Jewish selfgovernment is against halakha? Debresser (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You should

Really file an appeal at WP:AE. At ANI, you will probably just be continuously ignored in the house style of skimming over WP:TLDR back-and-forths between two editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Actually, it is not important enough for me, because I don't edit any articles related to WP:ARBPIA. Nor was this discussion related to it, as far as I am concerned at least. My protests are logged at WP:ANI. But perhaps I'll do it, just to make the point. I really think this was an exaggeration. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)